题目内容
Ruth Simmons joined Goldman Sachs’s board as an outside director in January 2000; a year later she became president of Brown University in Rhode Island. For the rest of the decade she apparently juggled (同时做) both roles (as well as several other directorships) without attracting much criticism. But by the end of 2009 Ms Simmons was under fire from students and alumni for having sat on Goldman’s compensation committee; how could she have let those enormous bonus payouts pass unremarked By February 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. Leaders from other fields are frequently in demand: former presidents or Cabinet members, retired CEOs, and yes, university presidents. 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 the Ohio State University used a database that 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 found that after a surprise departure, the probability that the company will subsequently have to restate earnings increases 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. The obvious conclusion might be that outside directors, with inside knowledge of tricky times ahead, prefer to save their own reputations, rather than those of the company they are serving. But although a correlation between them leaving and subsequent bad performance at the firm is suggestive, it does not mean that such directors 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, such as increasing pay, says Dr Fahlenbrach. Otherwise outside directors will follow the example of Ms Simmons, once again very popular on campus. According to Paragraph 4, when trouble looms for a small firm, ______.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Europe, where the so-called population explosion got under way in the 18th century, is once again playing a pioneering role in demographic (人口的) development. The continent has the lowest fertility rate and the most elderly population in the world, and this population will soon start to shrink. All this makes it a front runner in a demographic trend that sooner or later will reach most of the world. Pioneers have to advance through difficult terrain. Economists are already worrying about the problem of how social security systems will cope when the post-war baby boomers start collecting their pensions in 2015. In hyper-ageing countries like Italy and Germany, where 1 in 7 people will be over 80 in 2050, it is unclear how a shrinking group of young people can generate the wealth needed to support the growing group of elderly citizens. Europe’s economic competitiveness could fall behind younger and growing populations in other world regions. On the face of it, fewer people seem like good news for the environment. The population of Germany, Europe’s most populous country, will shrink by at least 8 million by 2050 and this trend is set to be replicated in many of its neighbours. Remote rural areas, mainly in central and eastern Europe, might become depopulated over time. This should benefit biodiversity as displaced plant and animal species recolonise their old terrain. Given that the world population is still growing by about 200,000 people a day, and the ecological footprint of the human race already lies beyond the limits of sustainability, fewer European mega-consumers will be a blessing for the health of the planet. But look a little deeper, and the picture becomes more complicated. Decreasing population does not necessarily promise environmental benefits. The cost per head of population for infrastructure such as sewage systems (污水管道系统) or electricity supply increases when population numbers go down, making clean water and non-polluting energy even more expensive than they are today. So can Europe overcome its demographic and ecological challenges at the same time The solution might be found in a rarely discussed concept: demographic sustainability. High population growth, such as that now taking place in many African countries, is not sustainable. But very low fertility rates are unsustainable too. It will be hard for countries with persistently low fertility to remain competitive, creative and wealthy enough to keep ahead of their country’s environmental challenges. What is needed is a middle ground. A demographically sustainable Europe needs to have a stable or slowly shrinking population as the existing infrastructure operates most efficiently when the number of inhabitants remains fairly constant. What would it take to achieve this At present, the average fertility rate in Europe is 1.5 children per woman, and in countries below this line there is an urgent need for family policies to encourage women to have more children. Countries with fertility rates above 1.8, including France, the UK and Sweden, do not need further pro-birth policies as immigrations will fill the demographic gap. From the economics perspective, what essential effect may the change of the population structure have on Europe’s countries
Europe, where the so-called population explosion got under way in the 18th century, is once again playing a pioneering role in demographic (人口的) development. The continent has the lowest fertility rate and the most elderly population in the world, and this population will soon start to shrink. All this makes it a front runner in a demographic trend that sooner or later will reach most of the world. Pioneers have to advance through difficult terrain. Economists are already worrying about the problem of how social security systems will cope when the post-war baby boomers start collecting their pensions in 2015. In hyper-ageing countries like Italy and Germany, where 1 in 7 people will be over 80 in 2050, it is unclear how a shrinking group of young people can generate the wealth needed to support the growing group of elderly citizens. Europe’s economic competitiveness could fall behind younger and growing populations in other world regions. On the face of it, fewer people seem like good news for the environment. The population of Germany, Europe’s most populous country, will shrink by at least 8 million by 2050 and this trend is set to be replicated in many of its neighbours. Remote rural areas, mainly in central and eastern Europe, might become depopulated over time. This should benefit biodiversity as displaced plant and animal species recolonise their old terrain. Given that the world population is still growing by about 200,000 people a day, and the ecological footprint of the human race already lies beyond the limits of sustainability, fewer European mega-consumers will be a blessing for the health of the planet. But look a little deeper, and the picture becomes more complicated. Decreasing population does not necessarily promise environmental benefits. The cost per head of population for infrastructure such as sewage systems (污水管道系统) or electricity supply increases when population numbers go down, making clean water and non-polluting energy even more expensive than they are today. So can Europe overcome its demographic and ecological challenges at the same time The solution might be found in a rarely discussed concept: demographic sustainability. High population growth, such as that now taking place in many African countries, is not sustainable. But very low fertility rates are unsustainable too. It will be hard for countries with persistently low fertility to remain competitive, creative and wealthy enough to keep ahead of their country’s environmental challenges. What is needed is a middle ground. A demographically sustainable Europe needs to have a stable or slowly shrinking population as the existing infrastructure operates most efficiently when the number of inhabitants remains fairly constant. What would it take to achieve this At present, the average fertility rate in Europe is 1.5 children per woman, and in countries below this line there is an urgent need for family policies to encourage women to have more children. Countries with fertility rates above 1.8, including France, the UK and Sweden, do not need further pro-birth policies as immigrations will fill the demographic gap. According to the passage, the decreasing of population seems to benefit the environment in that
Europe, where the so-called population explosion got under way in the 18th century, is once again playing a pioneering role in demographic (人口的) development. The continent has the lowest fertility rate and the most elderly population in the world, and this population will soon start to shrink. All this makes it a front runner in a demographic trend that sooner or later will reach most of the world. Pioneers have to advance through difficult terrain. Economists are already worrying about the problem of how social security systems will cope when the post-war baby boomers start collecting their pensions in 2015. In hyper-ageing countries like Italy and Germany, where 1 in 7 people will be over 80 in 2050, it is unclear how a shrinking group of young people can generate the wealth needed to support the growing group of elderly citizens. Europe’s economic competitiveness could fall behind younger and growing populations in other world regions. On the face of it, fewer people seem like good news for the environment. The population of Germany, Europe’s most populous country, will shrink by at least 8 million by 2050 and this trend is set to be replicated in many of its neighbours. Remote rural areas, mainly in central and eastern Europe, might become depopulated over time. This should benefit biodiversity as displaced plant and animal species recolonise their old terrain. Given that the world population is still growing by about 200,000 people a day, and the ecological footprint of the human race already lies beyond the limits of sustainability, fewer European mega-consumers will be a blessing for the health of the planet. But look a little deeper, and the picture becomes more complicated. Decreasing population does not necessarily promise environmental benefits. The cost per head of population for infrastructure such as sewage systems (污水管道系统) or electricity supply increases when population numbers go down, making clean water and non-polluting energy even more expensive than they are today. So can Europe overcome its demographic and ecological challenges at the same time The solution might be found in a rarely discussed concept: demographic sustainability. High population growth, such as that now taking place in many African countries, is not sustainable. But very low fertility rates are unsustainable too. It will be hard for countries with persistently low fertility to remain competitive, creative and wealthy enough to keep ahead of their country’s environmental challenges. What is needed is a middle ground. A demographically sustainable Europe needs to have a stable or slowly shrinking population as the existing infrastructure operates most efficiently when the number of inhabitants remains fairly constant. What would it take to achieve this At present, the average fertility rate in Europe is 1.5 children per woman, and in countries below this line there is an urgent need for family policies to encourage women to have more children. Countries with fertility rates above 1.8, including France, the UK and Sweden, do not need further pro-birth policies as immigrations will fill the demographic gap. The decreasing of population in fact harms environment in that
Ruth Simmons joined Goldman Sachs’s board as an outside director in January 2000; a year later she became president of Brown University in Rhode Island. For the rest of the decade she apparently juggled (同时做) both roles (as well as several other directorships) without attracting much criticism. But by the end of 2009 Ms Simmons was under fire from students and alumni for having sat on Goldman’s compensation committee; how could she have let those enormous bonus payouts pass unremarked By February 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. Leaders from other fields are frequently in demand: former presidents or Cabinet members, retired CEOs, and yes, university presidents. 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 the Ohio State University used a database that 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 found that after a surprise departure, the probability that the company will subsequently have to restate earnings increases 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. The obvious conclusion might be that outside directors, with inside knowledge of tricky times ahead, prefer to save their own reputations, rather than those of the company they are serving. But although a correlation between them leaving and subsequent bad performance at the firm is suggestive, it does not mean that such directors 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, such as increasing pay, says Dr Fahlenbrach. Otherwise outside directors will follow the example of Ms Simmons, once again very popular on campus. What will happen after an outside director left a firm surprisingly, according to the researchers
微信支付 
支付宝支付