|
|
发表于 2016-7-4 12:53:57
|
显示全部楼层
Text 1
Ruth Simmons joined Goldman Sachs's board as an outside director in January 2000: a year later she became president of Brown University. For the rest of the decade she apparently managed both roles without attracting much eroticism. But by the end of 2009 Ms. Simmons was under fire for having sat on Goldman's compensation committee; how could she have let those enormous bonus payouts pass unremarked? By February the next year Ms. Simmons had left the board. The position was just taking up too much time, she said.
Outside directors are supposed to serve as helpful, yet less biased, advisers on a firm's board. Having made their wealth and their reputations elsewhere, they presumably have enough independence to disagree with the chief executive's proposals. If the sky, and the share price is falling, outside directors should be able to give advice based on having weathered their own crises.
The researchers from Ohio University used a database hat covered more than 10,000 firms and more than 64,000 different directors between 1989 and 2004. Then they simply checked which directors stayed from one proxy statement to the next. The most likely reason for departing a board was age, so the researchers concentrated on those “surprise” disappearances by directors under the age of 70. They fount that after a surprise departure, the probability that the company will subsequently have to restate earnings increased by nearly 20%. The likelihood of being named in a federal class-action lawsuit also increases, and the stock is likely to perform worse. The effect tended to be larger for larger firms. Although a correlation between them leaving and subsequent bad performance at the firm is suggestive, it does not mean that suchdirectors are always jumping off a sinking ship. Often they “trade up.” Leaving riskier, smaller firms for larger and more stable firms.
But the researchers believe that outside directors have an easier time of avoiding a blow to their reputations if they leave a firm before bad news breaks, even if a review of history shows they were on the board at the time any wrongdoing occurred. Firms who want to keep their outside directors through tough times may have to create incentives. Otherwise outside directors will follow the example of Ms. Simmons, once again very popular on campus.
21. According to Paragraph 1, Ms. Simmons was criticized for________ .
[A]gaining excessive profits
[B]failing to fulfill her duty
[C]refusing to make compromises
[D]leaving the board in tough times
22. We learn from Paragraph 2 that outside directors are supposed to be________ .
[A]generous investors
[B]unbiased executives
[C]share price forecasters
[D]independent advisers
23. According to the researchers from Ohio University after an outside director's surprise
departure, the firm is likely to________.
[A]become more stable
[B]report increased earnings
[C]do less well in the stock market
[D]perform worse in lawsuits
24. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that outside directors________ .
[A]may stay for the attractive offers from the firm
[B]have often had records of wrongdoings in the firm
[C]are accustomed to stress-free work in the firm
[D]will decline incentives from the firm
25. The author's attitude toward the role of outside directors is________.
[A]permissive
[B]positive
[C]scornful
[D]critical
Text 2
Whatever happened to the death of newspaper? A year ago the end seemed near. The recession threatened to remove the advertising and readers that had not already fled to the internet. Newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle were chronicling their own doom. America's Federal Trade commission launched a round of talks about how to save newspapers. Should they become charitable corporations? Should the state subsidize them ? It will hold another meeting soon. But the discussions now seem out of date.
In much of the world there is the sign of crisis. German and Brazilian papers have shrugged off the recession. Even American newspapers, which inhabit the most troubled come of the global industry, have not only survived but often returned to profit. Not the 20% profit margins that were routine a few years ago, but profit all the same.
It has not been much fun. Many papers stayed afloat by pushing journalists overboard. The American Society of News Editors reckons that 13,500 newsroom jobs have gone since 2007. Readers are paying more for slimmer products. Some papers even had the nerve to refuse delivery to distant suburbs. Yet these desperate measures have proved the right ones and, sadly for many journalists, they can be pushed further.
Newspapers are becoming more balanced businesses, with a healthier mix of revenues from readers and advertisers. American papers have long been highly unusual in their reliance on ads. Fully 87% of their revenues came from advertising in 2008, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development （OECD）。 In Japan the proportion is 35%. Not surprisingly, Japanese newspapers are much more stable.
The whirlwind that swept through newsrooms harmed everybody, but much of the damage has been concentrated in areas where newspaper are least distinctive. Car and film reviewers have gone. So have science and general business reporters. Foreign bureaus have been savagely cut off. Newspapers are less complete as a result. But completeness is no longer a virtue in the newspaper business. |
|
