所有这些都显示治理真空日益扩大,而由此造成的问责机制薄弱,则因为公共部门投资者(如主权财富基金)的增多而加剧。除全球最大的主权财富基金挪威主权财富基金外,这些行事隐秘的机构往往不愿接触海外司法管辖地的公司,生怕自己被指责插手他国事务。
An extreme example of public investment leading to a governance vacuum concerns the Bank of Japan’s quantitative easing measures. The BoJ’s asset buying programme now extends to equities, which it is hoovering up at a rate of ¥6tn ($53bn) a year through purchases of ETFs.
公共投资导致治理真空的一个极端例子与日本央行(Bank of Japan)的量化宽松举措有关。日本央行的资产购买计划现在扩大到股票,它正以每年6万亿日元(合530亿美元)的规模通过购买ETF大举购入股票。
The central bank is thus a dominant player in the Japanese stock market. Yet the voting rights to its shares are retained by the companies running the ETFs, which have no incentive to engage in costly monitoring of corporate performance or to exercise their votes. The BoJ has thus diluted oversight of the Japanese corporate sector, which is notorious for its lack of accountability to shareholders, while blunting the impetus of the governance reforms pushed by Shinzo Abe, the prime minister.
因此,日本央行是日本股市的主要参与者。然而,这些股票的投票权由管理ETF的公司保留,而它们没有兴趣投入大量人力物力监督公司表现或行使投票权。因此,日本央行稀释了对日本企业界的监督(日本企业本来就以缺乏股东问责机制出名),也妨碍了日本首相安倍晋三(Shinzo Abe)推动的治理改革努力。
【股东vs管理层:公司治理谁说了算?】相关文章:
最新
2019-01-07
2019-01-07
2019-01-07
2019-01-07
2019-01-07
2019-01-05