维权股东动真格，商界准备好了吗

    揭露无伤大雅的谎言、牛皮和言行失检，这些通常用于政治攻击的小伎俩现在也开始出现在企业界，愤懑不平的维权股东开始使用这些手段来达到改变公司管理层的目的。

    雅虎（YHOO）首席执行官斯科特•汤普森在个人简历上的虚假信息被披露导致了他的下台。在用来推动公司人事改组的战术中，又出现了新式的、针对个人的武器。相当数量的公司高管由于和下属关系不和被曝光而下台，也有人因职业行为不当而遭到驱逐。

    而揭露汤普森在教育背景上的前后矛盾，为维权股东和对冲基金提供了新方向，他们可以在过去的职业、学术甚至是个人事件或者疏忽中搜寻不一致的地方。

    保罗•霍奇森是研究公司治理的GMIRatings公司的高级研究员，他说：“它是一种新的战术，因为通常是董事会而不是股东发现了这种捏造事实的行为。”

    公司治理专家称，探究高管个人或其它方面的背景合情合理。

    “任何关系到个人品行正直与否的事项都可以去调查，不管是无心之过还是故意欺瞒，”罗伯特•麦考密克说，他是总部设在旧金山的委托顾问公司格拉斯•刘易斯（Glass Lewis）的首席策略官。“更何况学位代表了工作能力的一部分。”

    克里斯托弗•拜尔是股东维权网站TheShareholderActivist.com的创始人和博客作者，他认为汤普森对事实的掩盖“完全辜负了股东的信任，是彻底的背叛。信任无价，容不得半点差错。这种行为得不到公众谅解。”

    拜尔的本职工作是精神科医师，专门面向华尔街人士及其家庭成员提供诊疗服务，他强调，查验资历“是必须的，特别是在充斥着捏造、掩盖和操纵的商业世界里。肯定有那么些简历是不完全真实的。”

    加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）的法律教授斯蒂芬•班布里奇则说，汤普森事件“鼓励了投资者，也许值得去做更彻底的背景调查，而董事会则应该更认真地审查候选人。”

    汤普森在简历中宣称在波士顿郊外的石山学院（Stonehill College）获得计算机科学学位，但其老东家（eBay的Paypa部门）之前公布的简历只显示了他从该学院得到的会计学学位。

    总的来说，股东在2008年的金融危机之后更加警惕公司治理事务，最近摩根大通（J.P. Morgan Chase）的巨额对冲损失在这个问题又起到了火上浇油的效果。一贯消极的投资者也开始寻找新的方式来加强公司问责制度，其中包括披露公司在政治捐款和游说上的花费。

    特别是考虑到在美国最高法院2010年的“联合公民”判决之后，公司可以向政治行动委员会捐款，更多的投资人集团开始要求提高在此类费用上的透明度。

    Exposing fibs, exaggerations and indiscretions -- routinely used to undercut or derail political careers -- is migrating to the corporate world as a new tactic for unhappy shareholder activists to win changes they seek in the executive suite.

    Disclosure of a falsehood in Yahoo (YHOO) chief executive Scott Thompson's resume resulted in his departure from the company, and put a new, more personal, face on tactics to effect corporate shake-ups. A noticeable number of top-level executives have been booted when skewed relationships with subordinates came to light, and others have been felled by professional failings.

    But exposing discrepancies in Thompson's academic record provides a new avenue for activist investors and hedge funds to root around in past professional, academic, and perhaps even personal, events or omissions to ferret out discrepancies.

    "It's a new tactic because typically it's been boards that uncovered fabrications rather than shareholders," says Paul Hodgson, senior researcher for GMIRatings, a corporate governance research firm.

    Corporate governance experts say that delving into executive backgrounds -- personal and otherwise -- is fair game.

    "Anything that goes to the integrity of the individual is appropriate to examine, whether it was a mistake or an intention to deceive," says Robert McCormick, chief policy officer of Glass Lewis, a San Francisco-based proxy advisor. "His degree is part of a skill set that he brought to the job."

    Christopher Bayer, co-founder and blogger at TheShareholderActivist.com, says Thompson's dissembling was "a complete violation of confidence and a betrayal. Trust is priceless, and today there is no room for error. The public is not forgiving."

    Examining credentials "is much needed, especially because so much is fudged, shaded, and manipulated in the corporate world. There is also a certain amount of resumes that are less than totally accurate," says Bayer, a psychiatrist who specializes in treating Wall Street professionals and their families.

    The Thompson episode "encourages investors that it may be worth doing better background checks, and boards need to do a better job vetting candidates," says Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA.

    Thompson listed that he had earned a degree in computer science from Stonehill College, outside Boston, but his earlier resume at former employer eBay's PayPal unit had only included a degree in accounting from that college.

    In general, shareholders are more alert to governance issues after the 2008 financial meltdown, a concern inflamed by J.P. Morgan Chase's recent huge hedging losses. Once-passive shareholders are exploring new ways to unlock corporate accountability, including disclosure of how much companies spend on political spending and lobbying.

    With corporate dollars now able to fuel political action committees, following the 2010 Citizens United ruling by U.S. Supreme Court, more investor groups are starting to ask for transparency on such spending.