網飛CEO信息披露不當理應受罰
|
????今年七月，視頻網站網飛公司（Netflix）的CEO里德?哈斯廷斯在他的個人Facebook主頁上披露了一份本應該是重要公司文件的材料。美國證券交易委員會（SEC）已經就此向該公司發出了一份“韋爾斯通知”，也就是約談Netflix，要求它對此做出解釋。我們現在不知道證監會具體會給出什么懲罰，但可以確定的是，Netflix離受罰已經不遠了。 ????美國證監會基本上認定哈斯廷斯違反了《披露信息法規》（Reg FD）。這個法規于2000年頒布實行，旨在避免企業有選擇地披露信息。換句話說，所有投資人應有權同等地獲知信息。 ????不出意料，很多科技博客寫手對此事相當憤慨。不僅是因于我們這些科技博客寫手必須職業性地每周至少表達一次憤慨，而是因為美國證監會似乎在故意淡化社交媒體在這件事中扮演的重要性，而社交媒體卻是一種我們很喜歡的溝通方式。畢竟使用Facebook的人要比使用Edgar的人多得多。（Edgar即電子化數據收集、分析、檢索系統。1996年美國證監會規定，所有信息披露人，即上市公司，都要實行電子化入檔——譯注） ????不過唯一的問題是，美國證監會這回做了一次正確的事。不僅在于它嚴格執行了《披露信息法規》的條款，同時它還捍衛了公平獲取信息的精神（假設哈斯廷斯披露的信息的確是重要信息）。 ????讓上市公司的投資人在互聯網的各個角落辛苦地搜羅各種重要信息，這本來就是一件不應該的事。這類數據應該公開在某個地方集中發布，比如在公司網站的投資者關系頁面上。網飛公司就有一個這樣的頁面，上面包括了所有的新聞通稿、證監會文件、年報、季度分析電話會議記錄等。如果網飛想搞一個“社交媒體披露”也沒問題。但僅憑哈斯廷斯在Facebook上披露了一份重大材料，就以為投資人們會自動去看，這顯然是不應該的。 ????記住，問題并不僅限于Facebook。哈斯廷斯也完全可以通過Twitter賬戶來披露重要信息，或是通過網飛的官方Twitter賬戶。通過公司的圖片分享網站Pinterest賬戶、Tumblr賬戶或博客也完全可能。他甚至可能把重要信息錄到MP3里，然后免費上傳到iTunes上。或者干脆在維基百科里搞一個詞條。 ????我的意思是，互聯網是分散的，要確保投資人能平等地獲得同樣的信息，集中發布非常重要。我相信“信息進化論”，但是我們不能指望投資人也像達爾文一樣，去預測某家公司的CEO會選在哪一天、選擇哪個平臺去發布消息。 ????美國證監會應該與時俱進地對《披露信息法規》進行修訂，以適應社交媒體的普及。不過，美國證監會不能僅僅因為違規者使用的是一種比傳統新聞通稿更時髦的玩意兒，就覺得違規者的選擇性披露行為無所謂。 ????譯者：樸成奎 |
????Back in July, Netflix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings disclosed what may have been material company information via his personal Facebook page. The SEC has since responded with a Wells Notice, which is the regulatory equivalent of being told to go to the principal's office. You don't yet know the specific punishment, but are pretty sure one is coming. ????The SEC basically thinks Hastings violated Reg FD, which was adopted in 2000 to prevent companies from selectively disclosing information. In other words, all investors should have access to the same information. ????Not surprisingly, a lot of tech bloggers are outraged. Not only because we bloggers are contractually obligated to be outraged at least once per week, but because the SEC seems to be trivializing social media (i.e., our preferred method of communication). After all, way more people use Facebook (FB) than Edgar. ????The only problem, however, is that the SEC happens to be right. Not only in terms of enforcing the letter of Reg FD, but also in defending its spirit of equal access (assuming, of course, that the information Hastings disclosed actually was material). ????Investors in publicly-traded companies should not need to crawl all corners of the Internet to discover material information. Such data should be publicly-available in a central location, such as the investor relations page of a company's website. Netflix has one, which includes all press releases, SEC filings, annual reports, quarterly analyst call transcripts, etc. And if Netflix wants to create a new section for "social media" disclosures, fine. But it should not allow Hastings to make a material disclosure via Facebook and then just assume that investors will know to look. ????Remember, this isn't just limited to Facebook. What's to stop Hastings from disclosing material information via his Twitter account. Or via Netflix's Twitter account? Or via the company's Pinterest account? Or its blog? Or maybe Hastings has a Tumblr. Could he record material info in an MP3 that only gets shared (freely) via iTunes? Would Wikipedia entries suffice? ????My point is that the Internet is disparate, and centrality is essential for insuring that investors have equal access to the same information. I believe in information evolution, but am not so Darwinian as to think that investors should be expected to divine which outlet a company CEO will choose to utilize on a given day. ????The SEC certainly should update Reg FD, in order to better accommodate the use of social media. But it should not simply shrug its shoulders at selective disclosure, just because the offender is using something hipper than a traditional press release. |
最新文章