3 Staggering

　　Things are slow to change in America's boardrooms

　　THE annual review of American company board practices by Korn/Ferry, a firm of headhunters, is a useful indicator of the health of corporate governance. T

his year's review, published on November 12th, shows that the Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in 2002 to try to prevent a repeat of corporate collapses such as Enron's and WorldCom's, has had an impact on the boardroom--albeit at an average implementation cost that Korn/Ferry estimates at $5.1m per firm.

　　Two years ago, only 41% of American firms said they regularly held meetings of directors without their chief executive present; this year the figure was 93%. But some things have been surprisingly unaffected by the backlash against corporate scandals. For example, despite a growing feeling that former chief executives should not sit on their company's board, the percentage of American firms where they do has actually edged up, from 23% in 2003 to 25% in 2004.

　　Also, disappointingly few firms have split the jobs of chairman and chief executive. Another survey of American boards published this week, by A.T. Kearney, a firm of consultants, found that in 2002 14% of the boards of S&P 500 firms had separated the roles, and a further 16% said they planned to do so. But by 2004 only 23% overall had taken the plunge. A survey earlier in the year by consultants at McKinsey found that 70% of American directors and investors supported the idea of splitting the jobs, which is standard practice in Europe.

　　Another disappointment is the slow progress in abolishing "staggered" boards--ones where only one-third of the directors are up for re-election each year, to three-year terms. Invented as a defence against takeover, such boards, according to a new Harvard Law School study by Lucian Bebchuk and Alma Cohen, are unambiguously "associated with an economically significant reduction in firm value".

　　Despite this, the percentage of S&P 500 firms with staggered boards has fallen only slightly--from 63% in 2001 to 60% in 2003, according to the Investor Responsibility Research Centre. And many of those firms that have been forced by shareholders to abolish the system are doing so only slowly. Merck, a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis drug Vioxx, is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in which they are all re-elected (or otherwise) annually. Other companies' staggered boards are entrenched in their corporate charters, which cannot be amended by a shareholders' vote. Anyone who expected the scandals of 2001 to bring about rapid change in the balance of power between managers and owners was, at best, naive.

　　--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　Economist; 11/13/2004, Vol. 373 Issue 8401, p67-67, 4/9p

　　注(1)：本文选自Economist；11/13/2004, p67-67, 4/9p；

　　注(2)：本文习题命题模仿1998年真题text 1第2题(1)，2002年真题text 2第2题(2)，text 5第3题(3)，2004年真题text 4第2题(4)和1999年真题text 1第4题(5)；

　　1.The Sarbanes-Oxley act is most probably about_________.

　　[A] corporate scandal

　　[B] corporate management

　　[C] corporate cost

　　[D] corporate governance

　　2.The word “backlash” (Line 3, Paragraph 2) most probably means_________.

　　[A] a violent force

　　[B] a strong impetus

　　[C] a firm measure

　　[D] a strong negative reaction

　　3.According to the text, separating the roles between chairman and chief executive

　　is________.

　　[A] a common practice in American companies

　　[B] what many European companies do

　　[C] a must to keep the health of a company

　　[D] not a popular idea among American entrepreneurs

　　4.We learn from the text that a "staggered" board________.

　　[A] is adverse to the increment of firm value

　　[B] gives its board members too much power

　　[C] has been abolished by most American companies

　　[D] can be voted down by shareholders

　　5.Toward the board practice of American companies, the writer’s attitude can be said to

　　be________.

　　[A] biased

　　[B] pessimistic

　　[C] objective

　　[D] critical

　　答案：D D B A D

　　篇章剖析

　　本篇文章是一篇议论文，对美国公司的董事会变化缓慢的情况提出了批评。第一段引用一家猎头公司的年度评论说明一项旨在防止公司财务丑闻的法案已经对美国公司的董事会产生了影响；在第二段作者笔锋一转，说明虽然公司丑闻对于公司董事会的做法产生了一些影响，但仍然有一些方面毫无变化或者变化缓慢。接下来作者分析了几种典型的情况；三段指出了一些公司董事和总裁职务不分的情况；第四断指出一些公司在废除“交错董事任期”的董事会方面进展缓慢；第五段以具体的例子对上述情况加以说明并得出结论：要改变职业经理人和公司所有人之间的权力平衡并非一蹴而就之事。

　　词汇注释

　　headhunter: [5hedhQntE(r)] n. 用高薪征聘人才者

　　governance: [5^QvEnEns] n. 治理；管理

　　boardroom: [5bC:dru:m] n. (董事会)会议室

　　albeit: [C:l5bi:It] conj. 虽然

　　backlash: [5bAklAF] n. 激烈反应，激烈反对对一个较早行动的对抗性反应

　　take the plunge: 冒险，采取断然行动

　　staggered: [5stA^Ed] adj. 交错的

　　unambiguously: [5QnAm5bi^juEsli] adv. 明白地,不含糊地

　　pharmaceutical: [7fB:mE5sju:tikEl] adj. 制药的；调药的

　　arthritis: [B:5Wraitis] n. 关节炎

　　entrench: [In5trentF] v. 保护

　　amend: [E5mend] v. 改正；修改

　　难句突破

　　Merck, a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis drug Vioxx, is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in which they are all re-elected (or otherwise) annually.

　　主体句式：Merck is allowing its directors to run their full term

　　结构分析：这是一个复杂句，句子的主语之后又一个较长的同位语短语，句子中还有一个before引导的状语，在这个状语中含有一个which引导的定语从句。before在这种情况下通常译为“才”。

　　句子译文：因为所生产的关节炎药物Vioxx的潜在副作用而陷入困境的默克制药公司现在允许其董事任期直到届满，然后才会引入一个每年将所有人重新选任一遍(或者别的方法)的制度。

　　题目分析

　　1. 答案为D，属推理判断题。根据第一段，the Sarbanes-Oxley act的通过是为了防止再次出现类似安然公司或者世通公司垮掉的情况。而文章又提到在公司治理方面，该法案已经显现出了一定的影响力。可见，该法案是有关公司治理的法案。

　　2. 答案为D，属猜词题。首先确定“backlash”与反对公司丑闻有关，其次，下文对backlash给了一个具体的例子，就是“越来越多的人认为前任总裁不应该继续留在董事会里”，显然这符合选项D中的“强烈的对抗性/否定性反应”。

　　3. 答案为B，属事实细节题。根据文章第三段最后一句，将董事长和总裁的职务区分开来是“欧洲的行业惯例”。

　　4. 答案为A，属事实细节题。根据文章第四段的一份最新哈佛商学院研究，“staggered board”是为了防止公司权力被夺取而被发明的，但它显然“和公司价值的显著下降有关”。可见这种交错董事任期的董事会不利于公司价值的增长。

　　5. 答案为D，属推理判断题。本文指出虽然出台了防止公司丑闻的法案，但美国公司的董事会变化依然缓慢。继而分析了几种令人失望的情况。在文章最末作者指出，人们不应该天真的相信2001年的丑闻会迅速改变职业经理人和公司所有人之间的权力平衡。可见作者对美国公司的董事会持批评的态度。

　　参考译文

　　猎头公司“光辉国际”(Korn/Ferry)推出的美国公司董事会惯例年度评论是了解公司治理状况的有用指南。今年11月12日发表的年度评论表明，2002年通过的旨在防止类似安然公司和世通公司垮掉的事情再次发生的《萨班-奥西利法案》对董事会已经产生了一定的影响---虽然按照“光辉国际”的估计，实施该法案的平均成本是每家公司510万美元。

　　两年前，只有41%的美国公司说他们会在首席执行官不在场的情况下定期举行董事会；今年这一数字达到了93%。不过，令人惊异的是，对公司丑闻的强烈反对并没有影响到某些事情的发展。例如，虽然越来越多的人认为前任总裁不应该继续留在董事会里，但美国公司董事会中前任总裁的比率不降反升了，从2003年的23%上升到了2004年的25%。

　　另外，将董事长和总裁的职务区分开来的公司很少，这一点令人颇为失望。一家咨询公司“A.T.卡尼”公司在本周发布的另外一份对美国董事会的调查发现，2002年标准普尔500家公司中，有14%的董事会已经进行了职务角色的区分，另有16%的董事会表示计划这么做。可是到2004年，在全部公司中，只有23%的公司采取了行动。同年早些时候麦肯锡公司的咨询师发布的一项调查发现，70%的美国董事和投资人支持职务区分的想法，而这在欧洲早已是行业惯例了。

　　另一件令人失望的事情就是在废除“交错董事任期”的董事会方面进展缓慢---所谓交错董事任期，就是每年只改选三分之一的董事，而每一届董事的任期是三年。依据吕西安·贝布查克和阿尔玛·科恩的一份最新哈佛商学院研究，这种为了防止公司权力被夺取而发明的董事会显然“和公司价值的显著下降有关”。

　　尽管如此，标准普尔500公司中有交错董事任期的董事会比例却只有轻微下降---“投资人责任研究中心”的数据显示，该比率仅从2001年的63%下降到了2003年的60%。许多被股东施压要求放弃这一制度的公司现在只是缓慢地着手这一工作。因为所生产的关节炎药物Vioxx的潜在副作用而陷入困境的默克制药公司现在允许其董事任期直到届满，然后才会引入一个每年将所有人重新选任一遍(或者别的方法)的制度。其他公司交错董事任期的董事会是由公司规章确立的，不能由股东投票改变。如果有人期望2001年的丑闻会迅速改变职业经理人和公司所有人之间的权力平衡的话，那么他未免太天真了。

    更多信息请访问：新浪考研频道