????精品投資銀行Moelis & Co.上周提交IPO時，這家自2007年以來已經為價值1萬億美元的交易提供過咨詢服務的公司踏上了Lazard Ltd. 、Evercore Partners和 Greenhill & Co. 等類似咨詢公司成功上市的道路。

????據湯森路透（Thomson Reuters）數據顯示，由于去年美國IPO市場異常強勁，并購活動升溫，Moelis & Co.等精品投資銀行參與了去年10大交易中80%的交易。但對于曾經在瑞銀（UBS）創(chuàng)造過輝煌、后來又創(chuàng)立了這家投資銀行的肯?莫里斯來說還有一個更好的消息，Moelis & Co.公司IPO之后，他仍將（通過每股擁有10倍投票權的超級股票）獲得超過過半數的公司掌控權。因而，這家公司未來不必遵循大多數公開市場投資者所期盼的傳統(tǒng)公司治理標準。其中包括，獨立董事不會占據董事會的多數席位，也不用被迫縱容維權投資者的行為。

????而且，鉆這個IPO漏洞的公司也并不是只有Moelis & Co.一家。達維法律事務所(Davis Polk)進行的一項調研顯示，IPO上市公司中70%設立了分級董事會，78%的IPO上市公司通過書面許可禁止股東采取行動，57%的公司拒絕對董事長與CEO職責進行分割——普遍認為，所有這些都是公開上市公司有效的公司治理行為。

????這樣的內部控制對精品投資銀行是有益的。為了繼續(xù)獲得成功，Moelis & Co.需要保持自己獨特的文化：小型交易團隊、不受其他利益影響的獨立建議，為銀行家提供顯著高于特大型投資銀行同行的薪酬【2013年， Moelis & Co.將64%的收入作為公司銀行家的薪酬，相比之下，高盛（Goldman Sachs）僅將37%的收入支付給了自己的銀行家】。如果存在外部的干預，這些做法可能很難維持下去。

????從投資者角度而言，Moelis & Co.可以繼續(xù)創(chuàng)造極大的利潤的原因恰恰是因為，作為一家公開上市的公司，它從根本上仍舊以一家私有公司的形式進行運作。肯?莫里斯能享有的自主決定權將確保他能在獲得戰(zhàn)略資本的同時保有使其公司具備競爭力的能力。

????但要記住的重要一點是，精品投資銀行的這種活力不一定可以拓展到其他行業(yè)的其他公司中，而且IPO的這個漏洞確保管理層免遭公開市場股東的實際審查，這一點對于投資者是非常危險的行為。

????公開市場的存在是為公司成長提供資本，但它也意味著要求公司提高運作透明度，加強公司治理，從而使得投資者獲益。如果一家公司獲得了公開上市交易的地位，同時又不用不承擔所處地位應當承擔的基本義務，這個目標就完全落空了。這一點對于小投資者不利，也不利于在公司內部打造戰(zhàn)略性的規(guī)章制度。

????鑒于這家投資銀行輝煌的經營業(yè)績，毫無疑問，肯?莫里斯和公司聯合創(chuàng)始人杰夫?瑞科（我曾在上世紀90年代中期與他在PaineWebber短暫共事過一段時間)將交出一份令投資者滿意的答卷，但美國證券交易委員會（Securities and Exchange Commission）應當至少考慮對這類IPO重新進行分類，以向公眾投資者提供更為全面和透明的信息。（財富中文網）

????本文作者是一位政治和商業(yè)評論家。他曾在知名投行Lazard Freres和Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein就職，并曾服務于對沖基金Ramius。作者現任中型廣播電臺運營商Davidson Media Group的董事。他擁有哥倫比亞商學院的MBA學位，同時也是兩本驚險小說的作者。

????When Moelis & Co., the boutique investment bank that has advised on $1 trillion of transactions since 2007, filed for an IPO last week, it was following in the footsteps of similar advisory firms like Lazard Ltd. (LAZ), Evercore Partners (EVR), and Greenhill & Co. (GHL), all of whom have done well as public companies.

????The timing is also good given that last year was exceptionally strong for U.S. IPOs, merger activity is up, and 80% of the top 10 deals last year involved boutique banks like Moelis & Co. according to Thomson Reuters. But what is even better for Ken Moelis, the former UBS rainmaker who founded the bank, is that he gets to keep majority control after the IPO (through ownership of super-voting shares which will carry 10 votes for every share) and hence will not have to conform to traditional corporate governance standards that most public investors expect. This includes not having a majority of independent directors on the board or having to indulge activist investors.

????Nor is Moelis & Co. the only firm to enjoy this IPO loophole. According to a survey conducted by law firm Davis Polk, 70% of IPO companies had classified boards, 78% prohibited shareholder action by written consent, and 57% refused to divide the roles of Chairman and CEO -- all widely considered to be good corporate governance practices for public companies.

????For a boutique investment bank, such inside control is beneficial. In order to remain successful, Moelis & Co. needs to retain its unique culture of small deal teams, independent advice uncompromised by other interests, and considerably higher compensation for its bankers than their counterparts at bulge bracket firms (Moelis & Co. paid 64% of revenues to bankers as compensation in 2013 vs. only 37% at Goldman Sachs), which can be hard to maintain with outside interference.

????From an investor's standpoint, Moelis & Co. can continue to generate outsize profits precisely because it will be able to access the capital markets freely as a public company while essentially continuing to function as a private one. The decision-making autonomy that Ken Moelis will enjoy will ensure that he can deploy capital strategically while preserving the qualities that make his firm competitive.

????But it is important to remember that the dynamic of boutique banking does not necessarily extend to other companies in other industries, and the IPO loophole that enables management to avoid real outside scrutiny by public shareholders can be dangerous for investors.

????Public markets are there to provide companies with capital for growth, but they are also meant to benefit investors by requiring greater transparency and better corporate governance. That purpose is defeated when a company can attain public status without shouldering the basic responsibilities that go with the territory. It can be bad for smaller investors as well as for creating strategic discipline within companies.

????Given their stellar track record, there is little doubt that Ken Moelis and his co-founder Jeffrey Raich (whom I worked with briefly in the mid-1990s at PaineWebber), will do a great job for their investors, but the Securities and Exchange Commission should at least consider reclassifying such IPOs to provide better information to the public.

????Sanjay Sanghoee is a political and business commentator. He has worked at investment banks Lazard Freres and Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, as well as at hedge fund Ramius. Sanghoee sits on the Board of Davidson Media Group, a mid-market radio station operator. He has an MBA from Columbia Business School and is also the author of two thriller novels.