????摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）首席執行官杰米?戴蒙奔赴華盛頓；中國電子商務公司阿里巴巴（Alibaba）打算在紐約進行規模龐大的首發。面對美國政府關閉，國際局勢不穩定，人們可能會自然而然地說一句：“那又怎樣？”但如果能從10年前直接穿越到現在，我們就可能在掌握更多信息的情況下做出這樣的反應——發出警告，然后向美國的監管部門和執行部門提出要求。

????戴蒙和美國司法部長埃里克?霍爾德的會面值得密切關注。彭博社（Bloomberg）專欄作家卡羅琳?鮑姆把戴蒙比作艾恩?蘭德所著小說《地球顫栗》（Atlas Shrugged）中的“英雄”漢克?里爾登。鮑姆認為戴蒙戰勝法官的過程就是和這個國家的壓迫政策作斗爭的過程。

????《紐約時報》（New York Times）的做法同樣令人不安，只是稍有不同。這家報紙拍到了戴蒙和霍爾德會面的照片，還向讀者征集照片標題。多好玩啊。

????但讓我們考慮一下這個問題：難道有哪家公司的首席執行官不喜歡戴蒙所擁有的渠道嗎——和司法部長本人會面，商討躲避刑事處罰的方法。

????11年前人們對此類事件的反應和今天大相徑庭。我記得時任美國證監會（SEC）主席的哈維?皮特辭職的原因就是因為他為會計師事務所提供庇護而引起一片嘩然，各位對此可能也有印象。

????皮特遭到指責的行為之一就是和畢馬威（KPMG）首席執行官吉恩?奧凱利會面。當時畢馬威正因涉嫌施樂（Xerox）的會計丑聞而遭到調查【大曝光（Full disclosure）網站曾就此發表過文章《Gene O, as he was called》；我也在1998年與別人合作為報紙《American Banker》寫過相關文章】。

????和戴蒙-霍爾德會晤引發的反應不同，外界對奧凱利-皮特會面的反應很激烈，人們這樣做的目的是要確保法律得到正當執行。以史為鑒，我們要問問自己，為什么摩根大通CEO和司法部長進行私下談話所遭到的指責如此之少。而且正是這位司法部長治下，金融危機過后還沒有哪家金融機構的負責人遭到起訴。

????我們應當關注的另一個問題是阿里巴巴的IPO，預計該公司明年就會上市。香港證券交易所（the Hong Kong Stock Exchange）出于公司治理方面的考慮拒絕阿里巴巴在香港上市。因此，這家電子商務公司就看上了美國這片沃土。

????但稍等一下。從什么時候開始什么樣的公司都可以在美國上市了呢？這種局面是怎么形成的呢？作為全球領先的證券交易所，作為只接納精英企業的交易所，紐約證交所（NYSE）出了什么問題？

????目前的局勢并非偶然。這是NYSE首席執行官鄧肯?尼德奧爾的選擇。他曾明確表示，高標準削弱了紐交所吸引公司上市的能力，甚至在金融危機過后他也做過這樣的表態。所以，和以往不同，如今在紐交所上市不再是一種榮譽的象征。如果像阿里巴巴這樣的公司無法在他們真正希望的地方上市，他們就可以來紐約。而允許NYSE這樣操作的美國監管機構同樣為降低全球的公司治理標準作出了貢獻。

????尼德奧爾的態度以及監管部門的松懈讓機構投資者理事會（CII）感到不滿。去年底，CII要求美國各個證交所提高上市標準。這些標準很重要，因為它們在一定程度上確保了上市公司的質量，從而讓我們的資本市場得到外界信任。

????顯然，尼德奧爾的思路無論如何也算不上給NYSE的錦囊妙計。不如紐交所出名的洲際交易所（ICE）本月初完成了對前者的超越。

????上周，SEC主席瑪麗?喬?懷特提出一個令人費解的概念，即交易所的雙重功能——“盡管作為盈利機構進行經營”，但它們同時也是監管部門。不過，還不清楚懷特是否會把較低的美國上市標準作為目標，在這方面香港等地的標準已經高于美國。

????美國經濟依靠的是我們為力爭上游而付出的努力。長期來看，我們把客戶以及資金吸引到美國的原因是我們的產品和市場優于他人。而降低期望值并不會帶來高薪職位。

????降低自己的標準，美國最多也只能成為一個備胎。畢竟，NYSE并不是阿里巴巴的第一選擇。（財富中文網）

????譯者：Charlie?

????Mr. Dimon went to Washington, and Chinese e-commerce firm Alibaba is looking to make it big in New York with an IPO. In light of the government shutdown and worldwide unrest, a reasonable reaction might be, "So what?" But if we had time-travelled directly to now from a decade ago, we'd probably have a more informed response to both incidents: alarm -- followed by demands to our U.S. regulators and enforcers.

????J.P. Morgan (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon's visit to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder warrants a close look. Bloomberg's Caroline Baum likened Dimon to "hero" Hank Rearden from Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, arguing that in facing down his judges, he is wrestling with the oppressive rule of the state.

????The New York Times had a slightly different, if not similarly disturbing, take. They called for readers to submit captions of the photo of Dimon's visit to Holder. Wow, what fun.

????But let's consider this: Wouldn't every company CEO like the access available to Dimon -- to visit the U.S. Attorney General personally and negotiate their way out of criminal charges?

????The response to similar actions was markedly different 11 years ago. I remember, and maybe you do too, when Harvey Pitt resigned as SEC chief amid a series of uproars that concerned his coziness to accounting firms.

????One of Pitt's pileup of controversies involved a meeting with Gene O' Kelly, then CEO of KPMG, when that firm was under investigation related to the Xerox accounting scandal. (Full disclosure: Gene O, as he was called, and I co-authored an article together for American Banker in 1998.)

????Unlike the responses that we are witnessing toward the Dimon-Holder conclave, the reaction to the O'Kelly-Pitt sit-down was fiercely protective of the integrity of the enforcement process. With the past as our guide, we need to ask ourselves, why is there so little controversy over the J.P. Morgan CEO's tête-à-tête with the U.S. A.G., the same attorney general who hasn't prosecuted any financial chiefs post-crisis.

????Another situation we should be watching is the Alibaba IPO, which is expected to take place within the next year. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange refused to list the Chinese e-commerce company for governance concerns. So Alibaba is headed to the good ole' U.S. of A.

????But wait a minute. When and how did the U.S. become a place where any company could list? What happened to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) being the premier worldwide exchange, which only listed the crème de la crème?

????Where we are now isn't exactly a fluke. NYSE CEO Duncan Niederauer promoted this path when he proclaimed loudly, even post-crisis, that high standards hurt the NYSE's ability to attract listings. So today, there's no badge of honor to be on the NYSE like there once was. If a company like Alibaba can't list where they'd really like to, they can come here. And by allowing the NYSE to operate as they have, U.S. regulators have contributed to lowering governance standards internationally.

????The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) is not pleased with Niederauer's stance and regulators' laxity. Late last year, CII called on the U.S. exchanges to beef up listing requirements. Listing standards matter because they instill trust in our capital markets by providing some assurance about the quality of the listed companies.

????Clearly, Niederauer 's posture hasn't been a magic bullet for the NYSE, anyway. The less well-known Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) is taking over the NYSE as early as this month.

????Last week, SEC Chief Mary Jo White raised the conundrum of the dual function of exchanges as regulatory agents "even as they operate as for-profit entities." But it's unclear whether she will take aim at comparatively weak U.S. listing requirements that have been leapfrogged by jurisdictions like Hong Kong.

????The U.S. economy depends on our commitment to excel. Over the long term, we have attracted customers and capital to this country due to the superiority of our products and our markets. Lower aspirations provide no pathway to good paying jobs.

????By weakening U.S. standards, we become, at best, the second-choice provider. After all, we were not Alibaba's first pick.