????股東們在切薩皮克或許還能推動變革，但在沃爾瑪、新聞集團、谷歌這樣的公司，即使會出現變革，可能也會十分有限，而凱雷（Carlyle）和Facebook等公司的投資者還會面臨一個風險，即股東在事實上無法對創始人問責。

????根據彭博社（Bloomberg）的數據，2006年，外界對沃爾瑪的“司法麻煩”和“系統性違規”擔憂愈演愈烈之際，挪威的全球養老基金以及瑞典的一家養老基金都拋售了這支股票。他們是作為受托人采取的行動，代人投資股票須審慎穩健。

????如果證交所不允許雙重股權結構的公司或無實際投票權的股票上市，美國養老基金和投資管理公司的工作當然會簡單些。但證交所沒有動力采取這樣的行動——除非事關資本市場體系。將這些股票納入成分股的指數、以及承銷這些股票的投資銀行同樣也沒有動力這么做。但不管整個體系中的其他各方怎么做，審慎起見，代人投資者都不應投資那些他們不能有效實施控制權的公司。受托人有責任回避這樣的股票，他們從委托人那里拿到了豐厚的管理費，必須保證這一點。

????不是說養老基金、共同基金和投資管理公司沒有禁止投資股票黑名單（也就是他們從不投資的股票）。他們確實掌握著這樣的名單。如今，受托人應該采取行動，在這份名單上加上無投票權的股票了。如果是在用別人的錢投資，當然可以慢慢來，不著急。但是，正如許多基金承認的那樣，他們同時并沒有足夠的人手來監督手頭持有的所有股票。

????本文作者埃莉諾?布洛克斯漢姆是董事會咨詢機構價值聯盟和企業管理管理聯盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的CEO。

????譯者：老榆木

????While shareholders may be able to effect changes at Chesapeake, the ability to make change is severely limited if not impossible at firms like Wal-Mart, News Corp., and Google. Carlyle (CG) and Facebook investors will also face investment risks with practically no means to hold the founders accountable.

????In 2006, when concerns arose over Wal-Mart's "legal troubles" and "systematic violations," Norway's global pension fund and a Sweden-based pension fund sold their shares, according to Bloomberg. In so doing, they were acting as fiduciaries, concerned with the soundness and prudence of investing other people's money in the stock.?

????It would certainly make the job of pension funds and investment managers in the U.S. easier if exchanges refused to list dual class shares or shares with no effective voting privileges. But the exchanges have no incentive to do so -- other than concern for the capital markets system. So too with indices that include the stocks and investment banks that underwrite them. But no matter the actions of other parties in the system, as a matter of prudence, fiduciaries that invest other people's money should not be investing in companies where they cannot effectively exercise their rights of control. Fiduciaries are under an obligation not to invest in stocks like these, and they are paid well for ensuring they do not.

????It isn't as though pension funds, mutual funds, and investment managers don't have prohibited stock lists (i.e. stocks that they never invest in). They do. Now it's time fiduciaries stepped up to put shares without rights on their lists. It's easy to be patient if it's someone else's money. But, as many funds admit, they don't have the bandwidth to oversee all the stocks they own now anyway.

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.