股東並非公司所有者 Shareholders think they own the company they are wrong

Shareholders own the corporation, and the duty of the directors to maximise shareholder value follows from that. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told “that is the law”.

股東是公司的所有者，在此基礎上，董事的義務是讓股東價值最大化。我已經數不清有多少次被人告知“這是法律”了。

But it is not the law. Certainly not in America, as Lynn Stout, a professor at Cornell University Law School, has pointed out.

但這不是法律。在美國肯定不是，就像康奈爾大學法學院(Cornell University Law School)教授林恩斯托特(Lynn Stout)指出的那樣。

Shareholders in England have more rights — but even there, the obligation of a company director is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the members. The company comes first, the benefit to the members follows from its success.

在英格蘭，股東擁有更多權利，但即便是在那裏，公司董事的責任也是爲股東利益推動公司的成功。公司排在首位，公司繁榮後纔是股東的利益。

And English shareholders are definitely not owners. The Court of Appeal declared in 1948 that “shareholders are not, in the eyes of the law, part owners of the company”. In 2003, the House of Lords reaffirmed that ruling, in terms.

英格蘭股東肯定不是所有者。上訴法院(Court of Appeal)在1948年宣告：“根據法律，股東不是公司的部分所有者”。2003年，英國上議院(House of Lords)明確重申了這項裁決。

Ownership is not a simple concept. The classic account of its meaning was given 50 years ago by another legal scholar, Tony Honor .

所有權並非一個簡單的概念。另一位法律學者託尼攠諾爾(Tony Honor)在50年前就所有權給出了經典解釋。

Ownership, like friendship, has many characteristics and if a relationship has enough of them we can describe it as ownership.

與友誼一樣，所有權也有很多特點，如果一種關係具有足夠多的特色，我們就能將其稱爲所有權。

If I own an object I can use it, or not use it, sell it, rent it, give it to others, throw it away and appeal to the police if a thief misappropriates it. And I must accept responsibility for its misuse and admit the right of my creditors to take a lien on it.

如果我擁有一個物件，我可以使用它或者不使用它、出售它、出租它、把它贈予其他人、扔掉它，如果有賊盜用了它，我還能報警。我必須承擔誤用它的責任，並承認我的債權人有權扣押它。

But shares give their holders no right of possession and no right of use. If shareholders go to the company premises, they will more likely than not be turned away.

但股票沒有給予股東佔有權或使用權。如果股東前往公司的經營場所，他們更有可能被擋在門外。

They have no more right than other customers to the services of the business they “own”. The company’s actions are not their responsibility, and corporate assets cannot be used to satisfy their debts.

對於他們所“擁有”的企業，他們擁有的權利不比企業服務的其他客戶多。公司行爲並非他們的責任，公司資產也不能用來爲他們償債。

Shareholders do not have the right to manage the company in which they hold an interest, and even their right to appoint the people who do is largely theoretical. They are entitled only to such part of the income as the directors declare as dividends, and have no right to the proceeds of the sale of corporate assets — except in the event of the liquidation of the entire company, in which case they will get what is left; not much, as a rule.

股東無權管理他們持有部分權益的公司，就連他們任命管理人的權利也基本上停留在理論層面。他們只有權獲得董事們宣佈爲股息的這部分利潤，而且無權分享出售公司資產所得——除了整個公司被清盤。在清盤的情況下，他們將獲得清盤剩下的資產；一般而言數額並不多。

Of 11 tests of ownership Mr Honor put forward, the relationship between a company and its shareholders satisfies only two, and these rather minor. Three are satisfied in part; six are not met at all.

在奧諾爾提出的所有權的11個特點中，公司與股東之間的關係僅具備其中兩個特點，而且都相當次要。有3個特點部分符合；有6個特點完全不符合。

There is a stronger case for asserting that a company is “owned” by its directors than there is for its shareholders. There is little doubt that if you explained to a Martian what earthlings mean by ownership and asked who owned a corporation, the Martian would point to the C-suite.

與聲稱公司由股東所有的說法相比，聲稱公司由董事所有的理由更有說服力。幾乎毫無疑問的是，如果你向一個火星人解釋地球人對所有權的定義然後問他們誰是公司的所有者，這個火星人將指向公司高層。