题目内容
One reason why shareholder activism has been increasing is that regulators have encouraged it, especially on pay. For a decade Britain has required firms to give shareholders a non-binding annual vote on executive pay. The colossal Dodd-Frank act of 2010 gave shareholders in American companies a "say on pay", too. Now comes two new moves. On March 3rd the Swiss voted to oblige firms to hold a binding annual vote on director’s pay: in the small print, the referendum also banned golden handshakes and severance packages for board members, and bonuses that encourage the buying or selling of firms. Then on March 5th E.U. finance ministers (with only Britain objecting) agreed to cap bankers’ bonuses to 100% of their basic salary, or 200% if shareholders vote for it. If the Swiss had merely given shareholders an annual vote on pay, it would have been a good thing; but the accompanying bans are not. There are times when a golden handshake to a talented manager can be in shareholders’ interests: far better to let the owners vote on it than restrict the firm from trying it. The E.U.’s proposal has less still to recommend it. The rationale for it is that banking bonuses have encouraged risk taking, because they reward bankers hugely for bets that come off and punish them only slightly for those that don’t. But banks have come a long way since the crisis, by deferring bonuses and making them partly payable in their own debt and equity. Blunt laws could undermine such progress. And bonus caps will either hold pay down, thus sending clever people elsewhere, or push up salaries, thus making pay less responsive to performance. Enpowering shareholders is a good idea; requiring them to channel populist fury is not. We know from the last paragraph that a bonus cap may achieve all except ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Surveys find entrenched (根深蒂固的) pessimism over the country’s economic outlook and overall trajectory (轨道). In the latest Wall Street Journal poll, 63% of the respondents said the U.S. is on the wrong track. It’s not difficult to see why. Set aside the gridlock in Washington for a moment and appreciate the weakness of the economic recovery: Households whose finances were too weak to spend. Large numbers of unemployed workers who couldn’t do so either. Younger Americans who couldn’t afford their own homes. Banks that were too broken to lend. Yet nearly a year ago, I wrote an essay for Time suggesting that the economy could surprise on the upside. That hypothesis looks even more valid today. Despite the pessimistic mood, America is experiencing a profound comeback. Yes, too many Americans are out of work and have been for far too long. And yes, there is a huge amount of slack to make up. In fact, if the 2008 collapse had not happened, the U.S. GDP would be $1 trillion— or more than 5%—higher than it is today. But in terms of the growth outlook, the news is good. Goldman Sachs and many private-sector forecasters project a 3.3% growth rate for the remainder of 2014. The first half of 2014 saw the best job-creation rate in 15 years. Total household wealth and private employment surpassed 2008 levels last year. Bank loans to businesses exceeded previous highs this year. And income growth will soon improve too. America is finally returning to where it was seven years ago. As halting as the U.S. recovery has been, the economy is now leaner and more capable of healthy, sustained growth through 2016 and beyond. The U.S. outlook shines compared with that of the rest of the industrialized world, as Europe and Japan are stagnant. The 2008 economic crisis and Great Recession forced widespread restructuring throughout the U.S. economy—not unlike a company gritting its teeth through a lifesaving bankruptcy. Manufacturing costs are down. The banking system has been recapitalized. The excess and abuse that defined the housing market are gone. And it’s all being turbocharged by an energy boom nobody saw coming. What is the author’s attitude towards America’s outlook
Directions: Read the following text and choose the best answer from the right column to complete each of the unfinished statements in the left column. There are two extra choices in, the right column. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET.The human voice, like any sound produced by thrumming a stretched string, has a fundamental frequency. For voice, the centre of that frequency lies mostly below 300Hz depending on the speaker’s sex. Information is conveyed through simultaneous higher-frequency overtones and additional components that can stretch up to 20,000 Hz (20kHz). Modern hearing aids are able to distinguish only a small part of that range, typically between 300Hz and 6kHz, reducing noise and amplifying those frequencies where the wearer’s hearing is weakest. But differentiating elements of many common parts of speech occur in higher frequencies. This is the result both of harmonics that ripple out from the main tone, and from non-voiced elements used to utter consonants, which employ the tongue, teeth, cheeks and lips. Take the words "sailing" and "failing". Cut off the higher frequencies and the two are indistinguishable. The problem is compounded on telephone calls, which do not transmit frequencies below 300Hz or above 3.3kHz. People with hearing aids experience this problem constantly, says Brian Moore of the University of Cambridge. Typical hearing loss tends to be most acute at frequencies above 10kHz, which contain quieter sounds but where speech can still include important cues. Older hearing aids cut off at no higher than 6kHz, but much modern equipment stretches this range to 8-10kHz. However, a problem remains, Dr. Moore says, because bespoke hearing-aid calibrations for individual users, called "fittings", do not properly boost the gain of these higher frequencies. So Dr. Moore and his colleagues have come up with a better method. Their approach can be applied to many existing devices, and is also being built into some newer ones. A key step in any fitting involves testing an individual’s ability to hear sounds in different frequency bands. Each hearing loss is unique, and for most users a standard profile would be too loud in some ranges and too soft in others. But current tests pay scant attention to the higher frequencies that a device’s tiny speaker can produce, regardless of whether the user needs a boost. Dr. Moore’s new test, known as CAM2, which is both a set of specifications and an implementation in software, extends and modifies fittings to include frequencies as high as 10kHz. When the results are used to calibrate a modem hearing aid, the result is greater intelligibility of speech compared with existing alternatives. CAM2 also improves the experience of listening to music, which makes greater use of higher frequencies than speech does. A．be applied to many existing devices B．use the tongue, teeth, cheeks and lips C．enhance the gain of higher frequencies D．pays little attention to the higher frequencies E．reduce noise and amplify certain frequencies F．transmit frequencies below 300Hz or above 3.3kHz G．extends and modifies fittings to include high frequencies The telephone calls can not ______.
冯·诺依曼计算机体系结构由______组成。
男，45岁，近半年恶心，食欲差，近一周呕吐，少尿，15年前曾验尿常规：蛋白(++)。RBC 1～3/HP。查体：BP 23/12.2kPa(172/92mmHg)，皮肤粗糙，无黄疸，双肺无明显啰音，HR 90次/分。律齐，肝脾未及，双下肢水肿。Hb 6.0g/L，WBC 4.5×10 9/L，血小板95×10 9/L 患者在治疗过程中出现手足搐搦，最可能是因为
微信支付 
支付宝支付