巴菲特致股东的信原文精读Day68：

巴神原文：The third governance case occurs when there is a controlling owner who is not involved in management. This case, examples of which are Hershey Foods and Dow Jones, puts the outside directors in a potentially useful position. If they become unhappy with either the competence or integrity of the manager, they can go directly to the owner (who may also be on the board) and report their dissatisfaction. This situation is ideal for an outside director, since he need make his case only to a single, presumably interested owner, who can forthwith effect change if the argument is persuasive. Even so, the dissatisfied director has only that single course of action. If he remains unsatisfied about a critical matter, he has no choice but to resign.

Logically, the third case should be the most effective in insuring first-class management. In the second case the owner is not going to fire himself, and in the first case, directors often find it very difficult to deal with mediocrity or mild over-reaching. Unless the unhappy directors can win over a majority of the board—an awkward social and logistical task, particularly if management’s behavior is merely odious, not egregious—their hands are effectively tied. In practice, directors trapped in situations of this kind usually convince themselves that by staying around they can do at least some good. Meanwhile, management proceeds unfettered.

英文释义：1.“involved in”意为“参与”；

2.“Hershey Foods”意为“好时食品”；“Dow Jones”意为“道琼斯公司”；“potentially”意为“潜在地”；

3.“competence”意为“能力”；“integrity”意为“品格”；

4.“make case to…”意为“向…提出理由”；“presumably”意为“可能地”；“forthwith”意为“马上”；“persuasive”意为“有说服力的”；

5.“first-class”意为“一流的”；

6.“mediocrity”意为“平庸的”；“mild”意为“温和的”；

7.“awkward”意为“棘手的”；“logistical”意为“组织管理的”；“odious”意为“可恶的”；“egregious”意为“令人发指的”；“tied”意为“绑住”；

8.“trapped in”意为“陷入”；“convince”意为“说服”；

9.“proceeds”意为“继续做…”；“unfettered”意为“不受约束的”。

投资解读：巴菲特讲，“所有者-管理层”结构的第三种情形是，企业拥有控股股东，但是控股股东并不参与经营管理，比如好时食品、道琼斯公司就是如此，这会把外部董事摆在一个潜在的有利位置上。如果外部董事对管理层的能力或者品质感到失望，那么他们就可以直接找大股东（极有可能也是董事）投诉，表达自己的不满。

对于外部董事而言，上述情况是很完美的，因为他只须向可能对此感兴趣的单一股东提出理由。只要董事讲的有说服力，那么控股股东马上就能促成变革。不过，即便如此，感到不满的董事也只有这一条路可走。如果之后他依然对此事感到不满，那他除了辞职也别无选择。

从逻辑上讲，第三种情形最有利于确保一流的管理。在第二种情形下，公司大股东兼任CEO,他不会解雇自己；在第一种情形下，董事们会经常发现，和平庸或者做得稍微有点过头的管理层并不好打交道。除非感到不满的董事们，在董事会中占绝大多数席位，否则（跟管理层发生冲突）是一项棘手的社交和管理任务。尤其是，如果管理层的行为只是有点可恶，但谈不上罪大恶极，董事们就会被束缚住手脚。

在实践中，董事们经常会陷入上述困境。他们经常会劝自己说，还是留在董事会吧，至少还可以做点好事。与此同时，管理层还是没有受到约束。

手抄原文：

大声朗读：大家请自由发挥，哈哈哈！大家的手抄原文，也可以在评论区上传打卡。今天的内容，篇幅较长，生词较多，理解较难，大家加油哦！