網(wǎng)飛CEO信息披露不當(dāng)理應(yīng)受罰
????今年七月,視頻網(wǎng)站網(wǎng)飛公司(Netflix)的CEO里德?哈斯廷斯在他的個(gè)人Facebook主頁(yè)上披露了一份本應(yīng)該是重要公司文件的材料。美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)(SEC)已經(jīng)就此向該公司發(fā)出了一份“韋爾斯通知”,也就是約談Netflix,要求它對(duì)此做出解釋。我們現(xiàn)在不知道證監(jiān)會(huì)具體會(huì)給出什么懲罰,但可以確定的是,Netflix離受罰已經(jīng)不遠(yuǎn)了。 ????美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)基本上認(rèn)定哈斯廷斯違反了《披露信息法規(guī)》(Reg FD)。這個(gè)法規(guī)于2000年頒布實(shí)行,旨在避免企業(yè)有選擇地披露信息。換句話說(shuō),所有投資人應(yīng)有權(quán)同等地獲知信息。 ????不出意料,很多科技博客寫(xiě)手對(duì)此事相當(dāng)憤慨。不僅是因于我們這些科技博客寫(xiě)手必須職業(yè)性地每周至少表達(dá)一次憤慨,而是因?yàn)槊绹?guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)似乎在故意淡化社交媒體在這件事中扮演的重要性,而社交媒體卻是一種我們很喜歡的溝通方式。畢竟使用Facebook的人要比使用Edgar的人多得多。(Edgar即電子化數(shù)據(jù)收集、分析、檢索系統(tǒng)。1996年美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)規(guī)定,所有信息披露人,即上市公司,都要實(shí)行電子化入檔——譯注) ????不過(guò)唯一的問(wèn)題是,美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)這回做了一次正確的事。不僅在于它嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行了《披露信息法規(guī)》的條款,同時(shí)它還捍衛(wèi)了公平獲取信息的精神(假設(shè)哈斯廷斯披露的信息的確是重要信息)。 ????讓上市公司的投資人在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的各個(gè)角落辛苦地搜羅各種重要信息,這本來(lái)就是一件不應(yīng)該的事。這類(lèi)數(shù)據(jù)應(yīng)該公開(kāi)在某個(gè)地方集中發(fā)布,比如在公司網(wǎng)站的投資者關(guān)系頁(yè)面上。網(wǎng)飛公司就有一個(gè)這樣的頁(yè)面,上面包括了所有的新聞通稿、證監(jiān)會(huì)文件、年報(bào)、季度分析電話會(huì)議記錄等。如果網(wǎng)飛想搞一個(gè)“社交媒體披露”也沒(méi)問(wèn)題。但僅憑哈斯廷斯在Facebook上披露了一份重大材料,就以為投資人們會(huì)自動(dòng)去看,這顯然是不應(yīng)該的。 ????記住,問(wèn)題并不僅限于Facebook。哈斯廷斯也完全可以通過(guò)Twitter賬戶(hù)來(lái)披露重要信息,或是通過(guò)網(wǎng)飛的官方Twitter賬戶(hù)。通過(guò)公司的圖片分享網(wǎng)站Pinterest賬戶(hù)、Tumblr賬戶(hù)或博客也完全可能。他甚至可能把重要信息錄到MP3里,然后免費(fèi)上傳到iTunes上?;蛘吒纱嘣诰S基百科里搞一個(gè)詞條。 ????我的意思是,互聯(lián)網(wǎng)是分散的,要確保投資人能平等地獲得同樣的信息,集中發(fā)布非常重要。我相信“信息進(jìn)化論”,但是我們不能指望投資人也像達(dá)爾文一樣,去預(yù)測(cè)某家公司的CEO會(huì)選在哪一天、選擇哪個(gè)平臺(tái)去發(fā)布消息。 ????美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)應(yīng)該與時(shí)俱進(jìn)地對(duì)《披露信息法規(guī)》進(jìn)行修訂,以適應(yīng)社交媒體的普及。不過(guò),美國(guó)證監(jiān)會(huì)不能僅僅因?yàn)檫`規(guī)者使用的是一種比傳統(tǒng)新聞通稿更時(shí)髦的玩意兒,就覺(jué)得違規(guī)者的選擇性披露行為無(wú)所謂。 ????譯者:樸成奎 |
????Back in July, Netflix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings disclosed what may have been material company information via his personal Facebook page. The SEC has since responded with a Wells Notice, which is the regulatory equivalent of being told to go to the principal's office. You don't yet know the specific punishment, but are pretty sure one is coming. ????The SEC basically thinks Hastings violated Reg FD, which was adopted in 2000 to prevent companies from selectively disclosing information. In other words, all investors should have access to the same information. ????Not surprisingly, a lot of tech bloggers are outraged. Not only because we bloggers are contractually obligated to be outraged at least once per week, but because the SEC seems to be trivializing social media (i.e., our preferred method of communication). After all, way more people use Facebook (FB) than Edgar. ????The only problem, however, is that the SEC happens to be right. Not only in terms of enforcing the letter of Reg FD, but also in defending its spirit of equal access (assuming, of course, that the information Hastings disclosed actually was material). ????Investors in publicly-traded companies should not need to crawl all corners of the Internet to discover material information. Such data should be publicly-available in a central location, such as the investor relations page of a company's website. Netflix has one, which includes all press releases, SEC filings, annual reports, quarterly analyst call transcripts, etc. And if Netflix wants to create a new section for "social media" disclosures, fine. But it should not allow Hastings to make a material disclosure via Facebook and then just assume that investors will know to look. ????Remember, this isn't just limited to Facebook. What's to stop Hastings from disclosing material information via his Twitter account. Or via Netflix's Twitter account? Or via the company's Pinterest account? Or its blog? Or maybe Hastings has a Tumblr. Could he record material info in an MP3 that only gets shared (freely) via iTunes? Would Wikipedia entries suffice? ????My point is that the Internet is disparate, and centrality is essential for insuring that investors have equal access to the same information. I believe in information evolution, but am not so Darwinian as to think that investors should be expected to divine which outlet a company CEO will choose to utilize on a given day. ????The SEC certainly should update Reg FD, in order to better accommodate the use of social media. But it should not simply shrug its shoulders at selective disclosure, just because the offender is using something hipper than a traditional press release. |
最新文章