What have Jack Ma, Li Ka-shing and a Dodge automobile got in common? Skip the jokes about the unlikeliness of Asia’s richest men travelling in an American muscle car and Hong Kong’s bankers, investors and lawyers could find out soon.
马云(Jack Ma)、李嘉诚(Li Ka-shing)和道奇(Dodge)汽车有何共同之处？如果你想说亚洲富豪不大可能乘坐一辆美国肌肉车的段子就省省吧，香港的银行业人士、投资者和律师们很快就会发现三者的共同之处。
Asia’s most vibrant stock market is poised to look again at investor rights — namely whether Hong Kong could, or should, allow US-style dual-class shares.
作为亚洲最活跃的股市，香港股市正准备重新审视投资者权益，即考虑香港是否可以（或者说是否应该）允许美国式的双重股权结构存在。

Last week the city’s top regulator unexpectedly, and very publicly, emphasised his neutrality on the issue while the Hong Kong exchange is due to publish responses imminently to a paper published last year.
上周，在香港交易所(HKEx)即将对去年发布的一份文件进行回应之际，香港最高监管负责人出人意料地公开强调，自己在这个问题上持中立态度。
The city’s current one-share-one-vote principle goes back to 1987, when Mr Li, among others, tried to exploit a loophole that would have allowed him and other tycoons to control their companies with less cash through new super-voting shares. They were rebuffed.
香港现行的“同股同权”(one-share-one-vote)原则可追溯至1987年，当时李嘉诚等人曾试图利用一个漏洞，如果成功的话，可以让他和其他大亨通过新的超级投票权股份，以更少的现金控制自己的企业。他们的这一提议当年被拒绝了。
More recently, the debate was resurrected after Alibaba founder Mr Ma decided to drop plans to list in Hong Kong in favour of the US because the New York Stock Exchange was willing to accommodate the company’s partnership structure.
阿里巴巴(Alibaba)创始人马云去年决定放弃香港、转赴美国上市，因为纽约证交所(NYSE)愿意迁就该公司的合伙人结构。在此事之后，关于这个问题的辩论近来又复活了。
The history of Dodge Brothers, the US carmaker that is part of Chrysler, underscores that a dual-class share holding is neither purely a Hong Kong issue, nor is it new. Back in 1925, Dodge Brothers caused a stink in New York when its investment bank owners listed the company, raising $130m in bonds, non-voting stock and preference shares after paying just $2.3m for 100 per cent voting control. The outcry led the NYSE to ban dual-class shares until the 1980s, when competition from Nasdaq pushed it to revise its position.
现属于克莱斯勒(Chrysler)旗下的美国汽车制造商道奇兄弟(Dodge Brothers)的故事凸显出，双重股权结构既非香港特有，也并非新问题。1925年，道奇兄弟在纽约引发了众怒：其投行所有者将该公司上市时，在仅支付230万美元就获得了百分之百的投票控制权之后，通过发行债券、无投票股票和优先股募集了1.3亿美元资金。强烈的抗议使纽交所禁止了双重股权结构，直至上世纪80年代来自纳斯达克(Nasdaq)的竞争迫使其改变立场。
Unlike US federal regulators who ultimately had little say over the NYSE’s rule changes, Hong Kong’s market regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission, will find itself in the position of having to decide yes or no — and if yes, how.
与对纽交所的规则变化几乎没有最终发言权的美国联邦监管机构不同，作为香港市场监管机构的香港证监会(Securities and Futures Commission)将发现，它处于一个必须决定规则改还是不改的位置，并且如果确定要改的话，它还要决定具体如何操作。
So heated is the issue that HKEx’s paper last year was not even classed as a consultation, merely a “concept paper” — which meant it did not include actual proposals. But when Ashley Alder, the SFC’s chief executive, talked last week of keeping “an open mind” he confirmed in many listeners’ minds the expectation that HKEx is in fact planning to suggest rule changes (the exchange says it plans an update in the next three months).
这个问题引发了如此激烈的争议，以至于香港交易所去年发布的文件甚至没有被归为征询意见稿，而仅是一份“概念文件”——这意味着它不包括实际的建议。但当上周香港证监会行政总裁欧达礼(Ashley Alder)表示他将持“一种开放态度”时，他使许多听众更加坚信，香港交易所事实上正计划提议更改规则(该所称，它计划在未来三个月内进行一次更新)。
Although the responses have not yet been published, they are expected to include letters from investors who oppose the idea and missives from banks and other service providers, such as law firms, arguing in favour.
虽然民众的回应尚未公布，但可以预料的是，其中将包括反对这一提议的投资者的来信，以及银行和其他专业服务提供者（如律师事务所）表示支持的来函。
Publicly, the banks have so far been quiet on the issue. But investors have been rather more forthright. “Corporate governance in HK-listed companies is bad enough already without making the abuse of minority shareholders even easier,” said David Webb, an activist shareholder who published his response.
在公开场合，银行业在这个问题上迄今一直保持沉默。投资者则直率得多。发表了回应的维权投资者戴维•韦布(David Webb)称：“没有这个让欺负小股东变得更容易的新规则，香港上市公司的治理就已经够糟糕了。”
The “for” business case is clear enough. Alibaba’s choice of New York meant Hong Kong gave up the world’s biggest-ever initial public offering and far more importantly, the increased activity and the trading commissions that the dynamic company would have brought. With the exception of Tencent, Alibaba’s rival mainland tech group, Hong Kong’s market is dominated by tycoon-controlled conglomerates and Chinese state-owned enterprises.
从商业角度而言，“支持”改变的理由已足够明显。阿里巴巴选择了纽约，意味着香港不仅放弃了有史以来全球最大的一笔首次公开发行(IPO)，更重要的是，它还失去了这家充满活力的公司本可以带来的更大活跃度和交易佣金。除了阿里巴巴在内地的竞争对手、科技集团腾讯(Tencent)之外，香港股市眼下已被由大亨控制的企业集团以及中国内地国有企业所主导。
Meanwhile, the 100-plus Chinese companies listed in New York are dominated by dual-class structures. The group includes Baidu, the search engine, and JD.com, Alibaba’s online retailing rival. Although only a third of companies by number fall into the dual class category, they account for about two-thirds of the available market capitalisation. That number does not include Alibaba, since it is not officially dual-class. Instead, it has one class of shares but its partnership, a self-selecting group of executives, has the power to nominate the majority of the board.
与此同时，双重股权结构主导着100多家在纽约上市的中国内地企业，其中包括搜索引擎公司百度(Baidu)和阿里巴巴的电商对手京东(JD.com)。虽然在数量上只有三分之一的企业采用了双重股权结构，但它们从市值来看占到约三分之二。这一数字并不包括阿里巴巴，因为它采用的不是正式的双重股权结构，它只有一种类别的股份，但它的合伙人团队（由阿里巴巴自己挑选的高管组成）有权任命董事会多数成员。
Back in 1987, the FT’s Lex column called the dual-class efforts of Mr Li and the Jardines group “cheeky” yet it doubted authorities would act. That call was technically wrong but a cynic could argue it was ultimately right. Hong Kong’s tycoons, including Mr Li, use waterfall structures where, say, 51 per cent ownership of one company that owns 51 per cent of the next ensures control with only 26 per cent economic interest. Mr Li and Mr Ma found their own ways to cope with Hong Kong’s rules, but it is the Dodge Brothers case, with its resulting six-decade ban, that highlights how long-lasting this issue can be.
1987年，英国《金融时报》的Lex专栏曾称李嘉诚与怡和(Jardines)推动双重股权结构的努力是“厚颜无耻”的，但该文当时不相信当局会采取行动。“厚颜无耻”这帽子严格来说扣得不对，但怀疑论者可能会辩称，这么说本质上没错儿。包括李嘉诚在内的香港大亨使用瀑布式结构——在一家公司拥有51%的所有权，这家公司又拥有下一家公司51%所有权——从而只用26%的股份就获得了控制权。李嘉诚和马云都找到了各自应对香港规则的方式，但是凸显出这个问题可以持续多久的，是遭禁60年的道奇兄弟的案例。
Hong Kong’s regulator will not be able to keep such an open mind for very long.
香港监管机构如此开放的态度不会保持太久。