成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

眾所周知，喬布斯生前只持有很少的蘋果股份，這是因?yàn)榘耸甏衅谒悔s出蘋果時(shí)，將他持有的大部分股份賣掉了。后來(lái)有人曾問(wèn)過(guò)喬布斯，他對(duì)年輕創(chuàng)業(yè)者經(jīng)常用來(lái)控制公司的雙級(jí)股份結(jié)構(gòu)怎么看，喬布斯說(shuō)，他真希望當(dāng)年他創(chuàng)辦蘋果時(shí)，這種操作就已經(jīng)流行了起來(lái)，這樣他就能從中獲得不少好處。

雙級(jí)股份結(jié)構(gòu)多年來(lái)一直備受抨擊。拉里·佩奇和謝爾蓋·布林就是用這一招控制著谷歌。谷歌上市時(shí)，他們還曾告訴投資者，如果他們不喜歡這種安排，就不要購(gòu)買谷歌的股票。最近幾年，“創(chuàng)始人獨(dú)裁”已被認(rèn)為是企業(yè)家的一種惡習(xí)。成功的創(chuàng)業(yè)人容易染上傲慢和自大病，而且他們對(duì)股東的利益也不夠關(guān)心。

這種邏輯本身無(wú)疑是正確的，不過(guò)它也可能并未觸及到問(wèn)題的實(shí)質(zhì)。《財(cái)富》編輯艾琳·格里菲思最近撰寫了一篇專欄文章，稱硅谷的“創(chuàng)始人友好型”股權(quán)架構(gòu)或許將成昨日黃花，取而代之的是愈加嚴(yán)厲的企業(yè)監(jiān)管。她在文中列舉了Snap和Blue Apron的數(shù)據(jù)，這兩家“創(chuàng)始人獨(dú)裁”型的公司的股價(jià)都出了問(wèn)題。而Uber也是由于CEO、聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人特拉給斯·卡蘭尼克的恣意妄為，而導(dǎo)致公司遭受了負(fù)面后果。

我對(duì)她的分析并不是很認(rèn)同。首先，她這篇文章中的因果關(guān)系可能是不成立的。我不認(rèn)為Snap和Blue Apron之所以業(yè)績(jī)不佳，是由于他們的創(chuàng)始人不害怕被董事會(huì)炒魷魚的結(jié)果。雖然這種可能性是存在的，但也有可能是他們做出了某些長(zhǎng)期賭注，只不過(guò)迄今為止還沒(méi)有看到效果——當(dāng)然也有可能永遠(yuǎn)看不到他們期望的效果。其次，好的理念終歸是好的理念，跟企業(yè)治理是緊是松沒(méi)有關(guān)系。谷歌和Facebook的投資者并不介意佩奇、布林和馬克·扎克伯格的“獨(dú)裁”。Facebook早年間經(jīng)歷過(guò)慘不忍睹的IPO，甚至還犯過(guò)幾乎將公司葬送掉的戰(zhàn)略錯(cuò)誤，但這并不影響他們現(xiàn)在的成功。

對(duì)于創(chuàng)業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)，沒(méi)有哪種架構(gòu)是唯一正確的。投資人掌握一定的控制權(quán)，可以有效地避免公司出現(xiàn)一個(gè)“昏君”。而“創(chuàng)始人獨(dú)裁”則能確保長(zhǎng)線思維的正確性，從而避免公司因?yàn)槎桃暥l出昏招。當(dāng)然，反面情況也是有可能發(fā)生的。總之，你掏了錢，就要接受你的選擇。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：賈政景

Steve Jobs famously owned very few shares of Apple, partly because he divested his stake when he was drummed out of the company in the mid-1980s. Asked later what he thought of dual-class stock ownership structures that younger founders used to keep control of their companies, he said he wished the technique had been popular when he co-founded Apple (aapl, +1.81%). He would have taken advantage of it.

That technique has been under fire for years. Larry Page and Sergey Brin used it to control Google (goog, +0.22%), and when it went public they told investors not to buy the shares if they didn’t like the arrangement. More recently founder control has become an item on the checklist of bad behavior by entrepreneurs. Along with their arrogance and insouciance, founders are considered insufficiently mindful of the concerns of the people from whom they are raising capital.

This is undoubtedly true. It’s also very likely beside the point. Erin Griffith, the estimable author of Fortune’s Term Sheet newsletter, has a new column out that argues that the era of "founder-friendly" ownership structures will soon give way to better corporate governance in Silicon Valley. Her data points include Snap (snap, -0.13%) and Blue Apron (aprn, +0.37%), two founder-controlled companies whose share prices have cratered, and Uber (uber), another outfit where the CEO, co-founder Travis Kalanick, let things run amok.

Here’s my problem with this analysis. First, it suggests a causal relationship where one might not exist. I’m not convinced Snap and Blue Apron have performed poorly because their founders didn’t fear being fired. It’s possible. But it’s also possible they made long-term bets—as controlling shareholders will—that haven’t paid off so far or never will. Second, a good idea is a good idea no matter the governance. Google and Facebook (fb, +1.50%) investors seem pretty pleased Page and Brin and Mark Zuckberberg are in control. Facebook even endured a horrible IPO and a near-death strategic miss early on.

There’s no one right way to structure a startup. Investor control can be critical for getting rid of bad operators. And founder control can ensure long-term thinking that avoids stupid short-term moves. Or the reverse might happen regardless. As the saying goes, this time literally, you pays your money you takes your choice.