点选白字高度关注他们

书名学术期刊：《政治经济学人》

  书名副标题：Facebook and the meaning of share ownership

本序文自The Economist《政治经济学人》2017.09.30 一 篇 题 为 Facebook and the meaning of share ownership (Facebook 和股份的象征意义)的该文。该文主题:双重公司治理虽有争论,但很有可能被两极化拒绝接受。阐释演变过程:以 Facebook 事例带出热门话题“双重公司治理”(第一、二段)———如是说相同政府机构对双重公司治理的看法(第二、五段)———明晰译者看法(第六、五段)。

Part 1

书名

Ⅰ One group of Facebook friends that Mark Zuckerberg recently decided were not worth hanging out with were its public shareholders, who expected to cross-examine him (via a lawyer) in a Delaware court.At issue would have been Mr Zuckerbergs plans to refashionthe social-media firms share-ownership structure more in his favour.

Ⅱ There is not a spark of doubt over who controls Facebook. Not only does Mark Zuckerberg, its founder, serve as its CEO and chairman; owning 16% of its shares, he controls 60% of the voting authority through a special class of stock with ten times normal voting rights. A year ago, Mr Zuckerberg decided he would like to sell a large part of his holdings withoutdilutingcontrol. The firm made a plan to distribute non-voting shares enabling him to reduce his economic interest to 3% without affecting control.

ⅢThat prompted lawsuit. There was a time when ideas surrounding shareholder “democracy” created avocal constituency for each share equating to one vote on corporate matters. This was a matter of contractual agreement under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange. The exchanges rise to pre-eminence in the early twentieth century was tied to listing standards that enhanced investor confidence. But its authority has since withered away. It now offers no opinion on the subject of multiple share classes other than that they are permitted by its primary regulator, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). Indeed, because the SEC does notblockthe issuance of non-voting shares, Mr Zuckerberg could well have won the case. (Shortly before the trial Mr Zuckerberg dropped the plan.)

Ⅳ The NASDAQ, where Facebook is listed, defends multiple classes on principle, arguing that a share need only reflect an economic participation. Various structures are acceptable as long as shareholders know what they are buying,notably at the time of a public offering. If rules were tightened, it believes, firms would forgo listing altogether for less picky private markets.

Ⅴ Whatever merits this argument has, it does not quite cover the Facebook case: the change was to be made after the firm had gone public. Other firms have been taking a similar approach to their shares, either limiting investor voting rights, such as Under Armour, a clothing manufacturer, or offering shares with none, such as Snap, another social-media firm. But poor results at both firms have raised doubts about investors tolerance for buying into similarly-structured offerings.

Ⅵ Yet it does not amount to a meaningful mood shift on multiple share classes. If Airbnb, a home-sharing giant, wants them if it goes public, for instance, it will likely prevail; then others will. If a line is being drawn, it is not by regulators, but index-providers. Standard & Poors and FTSE Russell both said they would restrict firms with multiple share classes from their benchmark indices; MSCI isweighinga similar move. So future offerings may bedefined not by exchanges or regulators, but by index-providers. Until then, shares of common stock, to use a precise though rarely used term, may have less and less in common.

Part 2

词汇短语

1.at issue 争论中的;待解决的

2.refashion [ ̩ri : ˈfæʃən ] v . 重制

3.dilute [ daɪˈluːt ] v . 稀释,削弱

4.vocal [ ˈvəʊkəl ] a . 清晰激烈地表达意见的

5.constituency [ kənˈstɪtjʊənsɪ] n . 拥护者

6.pre-eminence [ prɪˈemɪnəns ] n . 卓越,杰出

7.wither away 逐渐消失

8.block [ blɒk ] v . 阻止

9.list [ lɪst ] v . (在证券交易所)将(证券)列入上市证券表

10.notably [ ˈnəʊtəblɪ] ad . 尤其

11.offering [ ˈɒfərɪŋ ] n . 上市的股票

12.prevail [ prɪˈveɪl ] v . 成功,奏效

13.weigh [ weɪ ] v . 认真考虑,权衡

14.define [ dɪˈfaɪn ] v . 限定,确定……的界限

Part 3

翻译点评

ⅠOne group of Facebook friends that Mark Zuckerberg recently decided were not worth hanging out with were its public shareholders, who expected to cross-examine him (via a lawyer) in a Delaware court. At issue would have been Mr Zuckerbergs plans to refashion the social-media firms share-ownership structure more in his favour.

【翻译】：最近,马克 • 扎克伯格认定一群不值得往来的 Facebook 好友是其流通股股东们,他们都指望着在德拉华州法庭上通过一名律师盘问他。问题焦点在扎克伯格对这家社交媒体公司更利己的公司治理重组计划。

【点评】：以扎克伯格的事例带出热门话题:公司公司治理。首句指出扎克伯格新近与 Facebook 普通股股东的嫌怨;末句如是说嫌怨事由:扎克伯格更利己的公司治理重组计划。

主要逻辑衔接：借由 At issue 联接首句 cross-examinehim 与末句 plan store fashion... 之间的因果关联。

核心关键词:At issue (问题核心)。

Ⅱ There is not a spark of doubt over who controls Facebook. Not only does Mark Zuckerberg, its founder, serve as its CEO and chairman; owning 16% of its shares, he controls 60% of the voting authority through a special class of stock with ten times normal voting rights. A year ago, Mr Zuckerberg decided he would like to sell a large part of his holdings without diluting control. The firm made a plan to distribute non-voting shares enabling him to reduce his economic interest to 3% without affecting control.

【翻译】：在谁掌握 Facebook 大权这个问题上丝毫没有疑问。创始人马克 • 扎克伯格不仅担任公司首席执行官兼董事长,还通过拥有十倍于正常投票权的特殊股票控制着公司 60% 的投票权,虽然只拥有 16%的股份。一年前,扎克伯格决定,他要在不稀释控制权的条件下出售自己持有的大量股份。公司计划发行无投票权股票,使他能在不影响控制权的情况下将其经济利益降低至 3% 。

【点评】：承上如是说 Facebook 公司治理重组计划。首两句如是说 Facebook 现行公司治理及投票权结构;后两句如是说扎克伯格更利己的公司治理重组计划。

主要逻辑衔接：以 A year ago , Mr Zuckerberg decided...The firm made a plan to... 带出对公司治理重组计划的具体如是说,其中 without diluting control 、without affecting control 表明重组计划的目的, distribute non-voting shares 表明其具体方式。

核心关键词：distribute non-voting shares (发行无投票权股票)。

ⅢThat prompted lawsuit. There was a time when ideas surrounding shareholder “democracy” created a vocal constituency for each share equating to one vote on corporate matters. This was a matter of contractual agreement under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange. The exchanges rise to pre-eminence in the early twentieth century was tied to listing standards that enhanced investor confidence. But its authority has since withered away. It now offers no opinion on the subject of multiple share classes other than that they are permitted by its primary regulator, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). Indeed, because the SEC does not block the issuance of non-voting shares, Mr Zuckerberg could well have won the case. (Shortly before the trial Mr Zuckerberg dropped the plan.)

【翻译】：这引起了诉讼纠纷。曾经有段时间,围绕股东“民主”概念催生了一股等同企业事务一票的共同呼声。这是纽交所规则之下的合同协议问题。20 世纪初纽交所走向卓越与其增强投资者信心的上市标准息息相关。但其影响力自那时起开始衰退。纽交所现在针对双重公司治理不发表看法,只要被其主要监管政府机构美国证券交易委员会(SEC)许可即可。实际上,正因为 SEC 并没有阻挠无投票权股票的发行,扎克伯格很有可能赢得这场官司。(开庭前不久扎克伯格放弃了这一计划。)

【点评】：如是说纽交所及 SEC 对双重公司治理的看法。首先承上指出重组计划引诉讼纠纷;随后如是说纽交所的站位背景;最后指出 SEC 的态度。

主要逻辑衔接：① 首末句以 lawsuit (呼应首段 cross-examine him (via a lawyer))、could well have won the case 实现首尾圆合; ② 中 间 句 以 时 间 轴 There was a time...It now offers... 串联起纽交所对公司治理态度的今昔变化。

核心关键词：①offers no opinion(不发表看法); ②does not block (不阻挠)。

Ⅳ The NASDAQ, where Facebook is listed, defends multiple classes on principle, arguing that a share need only reflect an economic participation. Various structures are acceptable as long as shareholders know what they are buying, notably at the time of a public offering. If rules were tightened, it believes, firms would forgo listing altogether for less picky private markets.

【翻译】：Facebook 上市的纳斯达克原则上维护双重公司治理,认为股票只需要反映一种经济参与。只要股东们知道自己在购买什么,多种形式的公司治理都可以拒绝接受,尤其在公开售股之时。纳斯达克认为,如果规则收紧,有些公司将会完全放弃在纳斯达克上市,而选择在不那么严苛的私有市场上市。

【点评】：如是说纳斯达克对双重公司治理的态度。首先指出纳斯达克原则上维护双重公司治理;继而指出原因:若规则收紧(即相同意双重公司治理),有些公司会放弃在纳斯达克上市。

主要逻辑衔接：由The NASDAQ ...arguing that...it believes... 串联起纳斯达克的态度。

核心关键词：defends...on principle (原则上维护)。

Ⅴ Whatever merits this argument has, it does not quite cover the Facebook case: the change was to be made after the firm had gone public. Other firms have been taking a similar approach to their shares, either limiting investor voting rights, such as Under Armour, a clothing manufacturer, or offering shares with none, such as Snap, another social-media firm. But poor results at both firms have raised doubts about investors tolerance for buying into similarly-structured offerings.

【翻译】：无论这种说辞多在理,它并不能完全适用于 Facebook 事例:其股份改变是要在公司已经上市之后进行。其他公司针对股份采取了类似方法,有的限制投资人投票权,如服装生产商安德玛;有的提供无投票权股票,如另一家社会媒体公司 Snap 。但两家公司不甚理想的结果让人们对投资者是否能容忍买进类似公司治理的股票产生了怀疑。

【点评】：指出纳斯达克看法不适用于 Facebook ,并列举两家收效甚微的双重公司治理公司引发人们对投资者容忍度的质疑。首先指出纳斯达克看法不适用于 Facebook ,并解释原因;继而以两家采取类似公司治理公司的不理想结果指出人们可能对投资者就此类公司治理的容忍度产生了质疑。

主要逻辑衔接：先借 this argument 指代上段纳斯达克看法,实现段际衔接;再借 Other firms...But poor results at both firms 指出采取类似公司治理公司的不理想成绩引发的后果:令人质疑。

核心关键词：①does not quite cover the Facebook case (不能完全适用于 Facebook 事例); ②have raised doubts about investors tolerance (对投资者的容忍度产生了怀疑)。

Ⅵ Yet it does not amount to a meaningful mood shift on multiple share classes. If Airbnb, a home-sharing giant, wants them if it goes public, for instance, it will likely prevail; then others will. If a line is being drawn, it is not by regulators, but index-providers. Standard & Poors and FTSE Russell both said they would restrict firms with multiple share classes from their benchmark indices; MSCI is weighing a similar move. So future offerings may be defined not by exchanges or regulators, but by index-providers. Until then, shares of common stock, to use a precise though rarely used term, may have less and less in common.

【翻译】：然而,这并不意味着在双重公司治理上出现有象征意义的情绪变化。例如,如果共享住房巨头 Airbnb上市时想要双重公司治理,它很有可能会成功;其他公司也很有可能会成功。如果要划定界限,不应该由监管者来划,而应该由指数供应商来划。标准普尔和富时罗素都曾称他们将从基准指数上限制拥有双重公司治理的公司;摩根士丹利资本国际公司正在考虑采取类似举措。所以,未来的股票发行可能不是由交易所或监管政府机构来界定,而是由指数供应商来界定。届时,普通股股票(一个准确但很少用的术语)的共同点将越来越少。

【点评】：转而指出投资者并未对双重公司治理失去信任,并指出这种公司治理应该由指数供应商(而非监管者)来界定。首先转承上段指出无需因为一两家的成绩不理想而否定双重公司治理,并以 Airbnb可能取得成功说明;继而指出双重公司治理真正的限制者:指数供应商而非监管者;最后展望未来:普通股股票的共同点将越来越少(即,公司治理差异化)。

主要逻辑衔接：① 首两句为一个意群,先借 Yet转承上段,带出文义重点;后借 for instance 明晰两句间例证关联; ② 末四句为一个意群,借由“ Standard and Poors 、FTSE Russell 与 index-providers 的上下义”、“ So...not by exchanges or regulators , but by index-providers 与 not by regulators , but index-providers 的复现”以及“ Until then 与 future offerings 的时间呼应”实 现“总 起———例 证———总 括”关 联。

核心关键词：drawn / defined not by (exchanges or) regulators , but index-providers (不由监管者或交易所而由指数供应商界定)。

太详细，3节课只讲一则阅读真题

科学统计告诉你数学考什么，怎么考

备考英文黄皮书配套课全在这儿

右下角的每一枚“在看”

都是小编找更多资料的动力

我知道你在看哟