Roe sobre cuán capitalistas son los EE.UU (en español, pero la traducción no me gusta mucho, vía http://twitter.com/#!/pacomarcos
American law gives more authority to managers and corporate directors than to shareholders. If shareholders want to tell directors what to do – say, borrow more money and expand the business, or close off the money-losing factory – well, they just can’t. The law is clear: the corporation’s board of directors, not its shareholders, runs the business.
Lo que no explica es por qué atribuir el poder de decisión a los gestores – cuando los accionistas están dispersos – es preferible a un Derecho de Sociedades, como el europeo (no alemán) que somete a los gestores a las decisiones de los accionistas
Even some capital-oriented thinking says that shareholders are better off if managers make all major decisions. And often the interests of shareholders and managers are aligned
Y The Economist, en su línea, hace propuestas
To my mind, all this suggests a structural antagonism not between the rich and the not-rich, but between the corporate managerial class, the diffuse crowd of individuals who actually own the companies the managerial class so jealously control, and the rest of us, who are harmed by the knock-on effects of the sorts of managerial malfeasance enabled by the regulatory reinforcement of the separation of ownership and management, and the amplification of agency problems that reinforcement entails. An "ownership society" worth the name would both increase shareholders control in corporate governance and make it much easier to push out incumbent managers by means of "hostile" takeovers. Sometimes a little hostility is warranted.
Pero, salvo en los negocios que generan riesgos sistémicos (sector financiero) no se vé por qué “the rest of us”, los que no tenemos acciones en esas sociedades cotizadas de capital disperso debemos vernos afectados. Aunque estamos de acuerdo en la frase destacada.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario