????我們沒法責怪谷歌（Google）首席執行官拉里?佩奇出爾反爾。要知道，早就九年前谷歌準備上市之際，佩奇就在致未來投資者的信中表示，谷歌將在很多方面特立獨行，具體包括：谷歌將專注于用戶和長期結果；它的管理架構將與眾不同；公司將遵守“不作惡”這個聽來有些古怪的座右銘——至少是遵循該公司對這一箴言的詮釋；而且谷歌還有志于使世界變得更美好。即便股東對此有什么意見，他們也沒有什么辦法：谷歌將采取雙重股權結構，確保佩奇與聯合創始人謝爾蓋?布林以及時任首席執行官的埃里克?施密特仍然具有投票控制權。

????一年前，佩奇提出一項股票拆分計劃。它將創造出一種沒有投票權的股票類型，旨在強化和擴大創始人的過半數控制權。這個計劃的細節晦澀難解，但效果很明顯，即佩奇和布林將繼續在谷歌當家做主，雖然他們目前僅持有谷歌約15％的股份。

????不出所料，谷歌此舉在主張股東權利的人士中間遭到了普遍的批評。畢竟，谷歌的新股股東們除了能賣掉該股票外，幾乎就沒別的權利了。美國馬薩諸塞州一個養老基金起訴，阻止這個股票拆分計劃，稱谷歌創始人及董事會違反了對股東的信托責任。

????上周日晚，谷歌董事會批準了和解該案的一項提議。和解的具體細節十分復雜，但本質上是要求谷歌在新股價值低于該公司其它股票的情況下對新股股東予以補償。如果這項計劃獲得法院批準，谷歌就有希望繼續推進它的股票拆分計劃。

????佩奇不民主的公司治理風格并沒有影響到公司的業績。如果在谷歌上市時花1,000美元購買這家公司的股票，這筆投資到現在的價值就會接近10,500美元。谷歌的股票本周二收盤價超過每股900美元，僅略低于其歷史最高水平——920美元。因此，這家公司的市值已經接近3,000億美元。佩奇去年宣布頗具爭議的股票拆分計劃以來，谷歌的股價又上漲了38％。谷歌的股東或許是被剝奪了投票權，但他們高興著呢。

????但是，這并不是說谷歌樹立了一個好榜樣。2004年，谷歌決定采用雙重股票結構，而這種安排在當時的科技界可謂聞所未聞。谷歌開了這個先河之后，團購網站Groupon、社交游戲公司Zynga以及社交網絡Facebook等公司紛紛效仿，使創始人和早期投資者得以掌控公司的命運。然而，這些后來者眼下的股價都大大低于發行價。這些公司的股東們現在都追悔莫及，只怪自己當初太輕信公司創始人的智慧。而且他們除了賣掉自己持有的股份外，沒有任何辦法來發泄自己的不滿。

????谷歌的故事告訴我們，股東權利與股東回報并不一定密不可分。不過，那些規模相對較小的公司眼下的困境表明，硅谷把賭注都押在創始人身上，任其一手遮天的做法仍然充滿了風險。（財富中文網）

????譯者：項航

????You can't blame Google CEO Larry Page for not being consistent. As Google prepared to go public nine years ago, Page detailed in a letter to prospective investors the many ways in which Google would be unconventional. It would focus on users and on long-term results; it would have an unusual management structure; it would abide by a wacky "don't be evil" motto -- or at least, by how Page & Co. interpreted it; and it would aspire to make the world better. Oh, and if shareholders didn't like any of this, there wasn't much they could do about it: Google would have dual stock class structure that ensured that Page and co-founder Sergey Brin, as well as then CEO Eric Schmidt, would retain voting control.

????A year ago, Page sought to strengthen and extend the founders' majority control, proposing a stock split that would create a new class of stock with no voting rights. The details were arcane but the effect clear: Page and Brin would continue to call the shots, even though they currently own about 15% of Google's (GOOG) equity.

????Not surprisingly, advocates of shareholder rights universally panned the move. After all, the owners of Google's new shares would have few rights beyond their ability to sell their shares. A Massachusetts pension fund sued to block the split, alleging the founders and the board had breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

????On Sunday night, Google's board approved a proposed settlement of the lawsuit. The particulars of the settlement are complicated, but it essentially calls for Google to compensate the owners of the new class of shares if those shares fall in value below those of Google's other shares. If a court approves the plan, the stock split is likely to go forward.

????Page's undemocratic style of governance has hardly been a handicap. A $1,000 investment in the company at the IPO would now be worth about $10,500. Google shares closed above $900 on Tuesday, just shy of their all-time high of $920, giving the company a market value of nearly $300 billion. Since Page announced the controversial stock split last year, shares have risen 38%. Google's shareholders may be disenfranchised, but they are not unhappy.

????None of this is to say that Google has been setting a good example. When it decided on a dual-stock structure in 2004, the move was virtually unheard-of in tech. Google made it fashionable, and companies like Groupon (GRPN), Zynga (ZNGA), and Facebook (FB) followed suit, giving their founders and early investors control over their destiny. All are trading well below their offering prices. All have unhappy shareholders who now wish they hadn't placed so much faith in the wisdom of those companies' founders. There's not much they can do now to register their discontent other than, of course, sell their shares.

????Google's story demonstrates that shareholder rights and returns do not necessarily go hand in hand. But the struggles of lesser tech companies suggest that Silicon Valley's bet on founder control remains fraught with peril.