|
珠海翻譯公司關鍵字：The third problem, the state as a shareholder can not solve the problem of rectitude. Generally agreed that the core of a political witch hunt, regardless of funding, as long as able to separate government-funded, state-owned assets management committee on behalf of the State Council, on behalf of government, this government and enterprises are separated. This idea is very bookish. Any owner, to take risks, they are bound to be monitored. Separation of the Government of the essence, there is a so-called owner is not (or not) from a rational, a real risk point of view of asset owners to monitor and intervene. State as a shareholder, natural to intervene, the problem is interference where the boundaries? Popular theory has a misleading, if the shareholders, board of directors, managers have a very clear between the right division, what is very clear that what the people decide. This is not true. The relationship between these three companies are part of the clear, the other part is unclear, there is a gray area. Gray area there will be see-saw, who should step forward, who step back and rely on the tacit understanding to solve. Such as the articles of association, shareholders have significant decision-making power, but in fact what major decisions, is 10 million, or 500 million? The real risk of people to consider how the problem? And his trust in the managers. If I trust you, you do great things and then I either; If I believed, but this person, you do a small matter I have to control one. 1950s, IBM's newly appointed chairman, president even allowed to sign financial statements, only in the president took office a year later to obtain this power. The problem is that government officials, shareholders of the real big thing for him to be just a little, while the real shareholders are trivial thing for him he may be big, because he does not really take risks. So he could cross the border to arbitrary interference, because big and small can not be defined clearly. Another possibility is that managers can bribe them, they simply can not intervene. This is my stress, including Chunlin Zhang's article mentioned, we may be in excessive administrative intervention and "internal control" to swing to travel between, can not achieve true understanding, not solve the separating the problem. Western market economies, the operator is the best way to obtain autonomy for shareholders to make money, make money, the more shareholders the more satisfaction, more no matter, the greater freedom. The Chinese state-owned enterprise is the best way to maintain the autonomy of the enterprise engaged in the dead do not live. Not bad, good and become a fat, others to take over.
Fourth more serious problem now may not be fully exposed, that is when the operators of state-owned assets in stocks when the market, how do you supervise him. He and the private shareholders collude, Guimai cheap, this corruption more difficult to supervise. Of course, I do not want to stress this issue. I want to emphasize such a reform ideas (the State to do the shareholders) can not solve the three problems mentioned above.
Turn on capital debt of state-owned, non-state capital-equity line of thoughtI made a line of thought, the state-owned assets into debt, not equity (Zhang, 1994b, 1995a). The first benefit is the solution I mentioned earlier operator selection mechanism. Country out of the role of shareholders, the introduction of non-state, the real risk of the shareholders to enable them to select the operator, this time on their hands the right to vote right to vote is not the kind of cheap, but a costly voting rights of the. The second advantage is beneficial to the state-owned assets value preservation. As a creditor, under normal circumstances, only obtain a fixed income who do not take risks, they do not interfere. State as a creditor, as long as the companies are not bankrupt, it's income is stable. State as a creditor can not pay off the debt in the enterprise when it sued, it bankruptcy, which is the state as a major benefit of creditors. In this case, the state-owned assets in a sense is "Hanlaobaoshou", and is conducive to increasing the value of state assets. The Chinese government has always stressed the "asset management responsibility." I think the claims are complete, the best "asset management responsibility." How much you borrow, how much interest, due to be shown with the return, or can be more than the court. This is the full-fledged asset management responsibility. So many years we have been looking for a complete asset management responsibility, has not found, so I recommend this is the best asset management responsibility. In this asset management responsibility, the budget constraint is relatively hard. Third, the state as a creditor and not the shareholders but also help solve the problem of rectitude. Rights as a creditor can more clearly defined. Although creditors are not entirely without strictly controlled, for example, when the investment is very risky, the creditor must say; and debt contracts often have additional provisions for the money to do what you can and can not do What other. But relatively speaking, the boundaries of claims to be much clearer than the equity. So I changed that option may solve the debt problem of separating government and enterprises. But I would also like to point out that because the company's operating results are uncertain, it can not be obtained to ensure that each person is to receive a fixed income. In other words, if those who have become creditors of each request, get a fixed income, stocks and bonds would be no difference. The difference lies in the range of different risk, if the corporate donors are creditors, the creditors are at risk anytime, anywhere, of course, he also had to be monitored at any time. Because companies always at the brink of bankruptcy. Therefore, enterprises have become creditors of donors can not, he will have left some people to take risks. So who will bear the risk? State as risk takers, regardless of the state and the society are more harm than good. So we have to find another risk-takers, the introduction of new, non-state owners. This is my basic point.
|