纽交所的阿里巴巴问题

    摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）首席执行官杰米•戴蒙奔赴华盛顿；中国电子商务公司阿里巴巴（Alibaba）打算在纽约进行规模庞大的首发。面对美国政府关闭，国际局势不稳定，人们可能会自然而然地说一句：“那又怎样？”但如果能从10年前直接穿越到现在，我们就可能在掌握更多信息的情况下做出这样的反应——发出警告，然后向美国的监管部门和执行部门提出要求。

    戴蒙和美国司法部长埃里克•霍尔德的会面值得密切关注。彭博社（Bloomberg）专栏作家卡罗琳•鲍姆把戴蒙比作艾恩•兰德所著小说《地球颤栗》（Atlas Shrugged）中的“英雄”汉克•里尔登。鲍姆认为戴蒙战胜法官的过程就是和这个国家的压迫政策作斗争的过程。

    《纽约时报》（New York Times）的做法同样令人不安，只是稍有不同。这家报纸拍到了戴蒙和霍尔德会面的照片，还向读者征集照片标题。多好玩啊。

    但让我们考虑一下这个问题：难道有哪家公司的首席执行官不喜欢戴蒙所拥有的渠道吗——和司法部长本人会面，商讨躲避刑事处罚的方法。

    11年前人们对此类事件的反应和今天大相径庭。我记得时任美国证监会（SEC）主席的哈维•皮特辞职的原因就是因为他为会计师事务所提供庇护而引起一片哗然，各位对此可能也有印象。

    皮特遭到指责的行为之一就是和毕马威（KPMG）首席执行官吉恩•奥凯利会面。当时毕马威正因涉嫌施乐（Xerox）的会计丑闻而遭到调查【大曝光（Full disclosure）网站曾就此发表过文章《Gene O, as he was called》；我也在1998年与别人合作为报纸《American Banker》写过相关文章】。

    和戴蒙-霍尔德会晤引发的反应不同，外界对奥凯利-皮特会面的反应很激烈，人们这样做的目的是要确保法律得到正当执行。以史为鉴，我们要问问自己，为什么摩根大通CEO和司法部长进行私下谈话所遭到的指责如此之少。而且正是这位司法部长治下，金融危机过后还没有哪家金融机构的负责人遭到起诉。

    我们应当关注的另一个问题是阿里巴巴的IPO，预计该公司明年就会上市。香港证券交易所（the Hong Kong Stock Exchange）出于公司治理方面的考虑拒绝阿里巴巴在香港上市。因此，这家电子商务公司就看上了美国这片沃土。

    但稍等一下。从什么时候开始什么样的公司都可以在美国上市了呢？这种局面是怎么形成的呢？作为全球领先的证券交易所，作为只接纳精英企业的交易所，纽约证交所（NYSE）出了什么问题？

    目前的局势并非偶然。这是NYSE首席执行官邓肯•尼德奥尔的选择。他曾明确表示，高标准削弱了纽交所吸引公司上市的能力，甚至在金融危机过后他也做过这样的表态。所以，和以往不同，如今在纽交所上市不再是一种荣誉的象征。如果像阿里巴巴这样的公司无法在他们真正希望的地方上市，他们就可以来纽约。而允许NYSE这样操作的美国监管机构同样为降低全球的公司治理标准作出了贡献。

    尼德奥尔的态度以及监管部门的松懈让机构投资者理事会（CII）感到不满。去年底，CII要求美国各个证交所提高上市标准。这些标准很重要，因为它们在一定程度上确保了上市公司的质量，从而让我们的资本市场得到外界信任。

    显然，尼德奥尔的思路无论如何也算不上给NYSE的锦囊妙计。不如纽交所出名的洲际交易所（ICE）本月初完成了对前者的超越。

    上周，SEC主席玛丽•乔•怀特提出一个令人费解的概念，即交易所的双重功能——“尽管作为盈利机构进行经营”，但它们同时也是监管部门。不过，还不清楚怀特是否会把较低的美国上市标准作为目标，在这方面香港等地的标准已经高于美国。

    美国经济依靠的是我们为力争上游而付出的努力。长期来看，我们把客户以及资金吸引到美国的原因是我们的产品和市场优于他人。而降低期望值并不会带来高薪职位。

    降低自己的标准，美国最多也只能成为一个备胎。毕竟，NYSE并不是阿里巴巴的第一选择。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie 

    Mr. Dimon went to Washington, and Chinese e-commerce firm Alibaba is looking to make it big in New York with an IPO. In light of the government shutdown and worldwide unrest, a reasonable reaction might be, "So what?" But if we had time-travelled directly to now from a decade ago, we'd probably have a more informed response to both incidents: alarm -- followed by demands to our U.S. regulators and enforcers.

    J.P. Morgan (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon's visit to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder warrants a close look. Bloomberg's Caroline Baum likened Dimon to "hero" Hank Rearden from Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, arguing that in facing down his judges, he is wrestling with the oppressive rule of the state.

    The New York Times had a slightly different, if not similarly disturbing, take. They called for readers to submit captions of the photo of Dimon's visit to Holder. Wow, what fun.

    But let's consider this: Wouldn't every company CEO like the access available to Dimon -- to visit the U.S. Attorney General personally and negotiate their way out of criminal charges?

    The response to similar actions was markedly different 11 years ago. I remember, and maybe you do too, when Harvey Pitt resigned as SEC chief amid a series of uproars that concerned his coziness to accounting firms.

    One of Pitt's pileup of controversies involved a meeting with Gene O' Kelly, then CEO of KPMG, when that firm was under investigation related to the Xerox accounting scandal. (Full disclosure: Gene O, as he was called, and I co-authored an article together for American Banker in 1998.)

    Unlike the responses that we are witnessing toward the Dimon-Holder conclave, the reaction to the O'Kelly-Pitt sit-down was fiercely protective of the integrity of the enforcement process. With the past as our guide, we need to ask ourselves, why is there so little controversy over the J.P. Morgan CEO's tête-à-tête with the U.S. A.G., the same attorney general who hasn't prosecuted any financial chiefs post-crisis.

    Another situation we should be watching is the Alibaba IPO, which is expected to take place within the next year. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange refused to list the Chinese e-commerce company for governance concerns. So Alibaba is headed to the good ole' U.S. of A.

    But wait a minute. When and how did the U.S. become a place where any company could list? What happened to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) being the premier worldwide exchange, which only listed the crème de la crème?

    Where we are now isn't exactly a fluke. NYSE CEO Duncan Niederauer promoted this path when he proclaimed loudly, even post-crisis, that high standards hurt the NYSE's ability to attract listings. So today, there's no badge of honor to be on the NYSE like there once was. If a company like Alibaba can't list where they'd really like to, they can come here. And by allowing the NYSE to operate as they have, U.S. regulators have contributed to lowering governance standards internationally.

    The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) is not pleased with Niederauer's stance and regulators' laxity. Late last year, CII called on the U.S. exchanges to beef up listing requirements. Listing standards matter because they instill trust in our capital markets by providing some assurance about the quality of the listed companies.

    Clearly, Niederauer 's posture hasn't been a magic bullet for the NYSE, anyway. The less well-known Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) is taking over the NYSE as early as this month.

    Last week, SEC Chief Mary Jo White raised the conundrum of the dual function of exchanges as regulatory agents "even as they operate as for-profit entities." But it's unclear whether she will take aim at comparatively weak U.S. listing requirements that have been leapfrogged by jurisdictions like Hong Kong.

    The U.S. economy depends on our commitment to excel. Over the long term, we have attracted customers and capital to this country due to the superiority of our products and our markets. Lower aspirations provide no pathway to good paying jobs.

    By weakening U.S. standards, we become, at best, the second-choice provider. After all, we were not Alibaba's first pick.