“創始人獨裁”股權架構是好是壞？喬布斯：有機會我也這么干
Adam Lashinsky
2017-09-25
|
眾所周知，喬布斯生前只持有很少的蘋果股份，這是因為八十年代中期他被趕出蘋果時，將他持有的大部分股份賣掉了。后來有人曾問過喬布斯，他對年輕創業者經常用來控制公司的雙級股份結構怎么看，喬布斯說，他真希望當年他創辦蘋果時，這種操作就已經流行了起來，這樣他就能從中獲得不少好處。 雙級股份結構多年來一直備受抨擊。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，他們還曾告訴投資者，如果他們不喜歡這種安排，就不要購買谷歌的股票。最近幾年，“創始人獨裁”已被認為是企業家的一種惡習。成功的創業人容易染上傲慢和自大病，而且他們對股東的利益也不夠關心。 這種邏輯本身無疑是正確的，不過它也可能并未觸及到問題的實質。《財富》編輯艾琳·格里菲思最近撰寫了一篇專欄文章，稱硅谷的“創始人友好型”股權架構或許將成昨日黃花，取而代之的是愈加嚴厲的企業監管。她在文中列舉了Snap和Blue Apron的數據，這兩家“創始人獨裁”型的公司的股價都出了問題。而Uber也是由于CEO、聯合創始人特拉給斯·卡蘭尼克的恣意妄為，而導致公司遭受了負面后果。 我對她的分析并不是很認同。首先，她這篇文章中的因果關系可能是不成立的。我不認為Snap和Blue Apron之所以業績不佳，是由于他們的創始人不害怕被董事會炒魷魚的結果。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期賭注，只不過迄今為止還沒有看到效果——當然也有可能永遠看不到他們期望的效果。其次，好的理念終歸是好的理念，跟企業治理是緊是松沒有關系。谷歌和Facebook的投資者并不介意佩奇、布林和馬克·扎克伯格的“獨裁”。Facebook早年間經歷過慘不忍睹的IPO，甚至還犯過幾乎將公司葬送掉的戰略錯誤，但這并不影響他們現在的成功。 對于創業來說，沒有哪種架構是唯一正確的。投資人掌握一定的控制權，可以有效地避免公司出現一個“昏君”。而“創始人獨裁”則能確保長線思維的正確性，從而避免公司因為短視而頻出昏招。當然，反面情況也是有可能發生的?？傊闾土隋X，就要接受你的選擇。（財富中文網） 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. |
