谷歌发新股加强创始人的控制权

    机构投资人理事会（The council of Institutional Investors）是一个由基金和经理人组成的协会，其成员管理的资产超过3万亿美元。该协会的常务理事安•叶尔格表示：“我们不认同双重股份或创始人拥有过大控制权。我们认为‘一股一票’是股东的基本权利。”

    目前全球都认可的关于企业良好治理的基本原则是由经济合作与发展组织（OECD）制定的，该原则在2004年被美国和29个其他国家采用。谷歌、Facebook和凯雷投资集团所采取的措施都违反了其中的两三条有关股东权利的细则。有些人可能会说：“那又如何，朋友之间还有违反原则的时候呢。”

    但是这个问题的影响不仅仅在于经济利益。联邦通讯委员会（FCC）日前针对一起由于疏忽导致的个人信息泄露案对谷歌处以2.5万美元的罚款。谷歌的一位发言人在电子邮件中写道：“这是个错误……但我们相信，我们没有做任何违法的事。”而联邦贸易委员会（FTC）可能也已准备好对谷歌发起反垄断诉讼。特别是眼下美国的监管机构显然缺乏保护老百姓的隐私信息免遭谷歌或其它科技公司泄露的意愿，那么，我们真的能把这么大的权力放心地交给谷歌的创始人吗？

    然而有谁能够制衡谷歌的权力呢？叶尔格说，有四种方法可以使公开市场停止向谷歌、Facebook和凯雷等公司投资。首先股票交易所可以拒绝这些公司上市；其次，各股票指数可以拒绝把它们包含在内；再次，投资银行可以拒绝承销他们的股票；最后，拿别人的钱用来投资的机构，也就是所谓的信托机构，可以拒绝对这些公司进行投资。

    不过怀特海德指出，除非投行拒绝承销这类没有投票权的特殊股，否则企业还会继续发行它们。

    蒙克斯和怀德海德都认为，信托机构有义务保护客户委托给他们的资产。因此，考虑到这些特殊股票的风险，信托机构不应对这些股票进行投资。不过根据从谷歌获得的初步文件来看，像黑石（Blackrock）和富达（Fidelity）这样的知名投行显然都把大量的信托资产投资到了谷歌身上。而且至少从目前来看，其他信托机构也还没有搅入谷歌的投票权问题。

    怀特海德表示，一股一票制“从心理上看是自由企业制度的一个重要部分”，它有助于鼓励市场参与。

    侵蚀这种信任会削弱所有股票的市场需求。

    谷歌的几位创始人把自己当成了超脱于资本市场体系责任之外的先行者。不过这里我们不妨引用谷歌自己的座右铭：“不作恶也能赚钱”。如果谷歌的创始人真想“不作恶”，那么对资本市场的责任就不应成为障碍。

    本文作者Eleanor Bloxham是董事会咨询机构价值联盟和企业管理管理联盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的CEO。

    译者：朴成奎

    The Council of Institutional Investors, an association representing funds and managers with over $3 trillion in assets under management, is "no fan of dual class shares or entrenched founders. We believe in one share one vote as a fundamental right of shareholders," says Ann Yerger, the council's executive director.

    The baseline for good governance worldwide is the OECD governance principles, which were adopted in 2004 by the U.S.and 29 other countries. The actions at Google, Facebook and Carlyle all fly in the face of sections two and three of those principles, which describe the rights of shareholders. Some may argue, "So what -- what is a lapse in principles among friends?"

    But this issue goes beyond dollars and cents. The FCC gave Google a $25,000 wrist-slap for an inadvertent drive-by theft of personal information. A Google spokesperson said in an email, "It was a mistake … but we believe we did nothing illegal." The FTC may be readying an anti-trust case, but can we really trust Google's founders with this kind of power, especially given the apparent weak will of regulators to protect individuals from Google's and other tech firms' privacy breaches?

    Who could check Google's authority? Yerger says there are four ways to halt public market investment in the Googles, Facebooks, and Carlyles of the world. First off, the exchanges could refuse to list them. Or the indexes could refuse to include them. The investment banks could refuse to underwrite them. And those who invest other people's money -- so-called fiduciaries -- could refuse to invest in them.

    Unless investment banks refuse to underwrite these kinds of shares, as they should, companies will continue to use them, Whitehead says.

    Both Monks and Whitehead agree that fiduciaries, who are obligated to protect the invested dollars entrusted to them, should not invest in these kinds of stocks due to the risks involved. But firms like Blackrock and Fidelity certainly are investing large amounts of other people's money in Google, according to the tech giant's preliminary proxy filing. And for now, it appears that other fiduciaries are not engaging with Google on the voting rights issue either.

    One share, one vote is a "psychologically important part of the free enterprise system," which helps to encourage market participation, Whitehead says.

    The erosion of that trust weakens the market for all stocks.

    Google founders see themselves as pioneers in stripping accountability from the capital markets system. But, to quote the company's own motto, you can make money without doing evil. If Google's founders intend to do good, accountability should be no obstacle.

    Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.