发布于: 修改于: | 雪球 | 转发:52 | 回复:95 | 喜欢:70 |
"Our common shares are divided into Class A common shares and Class C common shares. Holders of Class A common shares will be entitled to one vote per share, while the holder of Class C common shares will be entitled to 15 votes per share, with Class A and Class C common shares voting together as one class on all matters subject to a shareholders' vote. Our ADSs represent our Class A common shares. As of the date of this annual report, there are 805,100 Class C common shares issued and outstanding, all of which are held by Time Intelligent Finance Limited, a British Virgin Islands company which is beneficially owned by Mr. Ligang Zhang&# 39;s family trust.
As a result of the disparate voting power attached to these two classes of common shares and the concentration of ownership, as of June 30, 2015,
Mr. Ligang Zhang owned approximately 34.5% of the total voting power represented by our outstanding common shares and has substantial
influence over our business."
所以美年大健康进行了收购狙击,我认为在资本市场上是完全合理而且必要的,市场也给出了这样的一个机会,这也说明,过低的折价一定会引发资本狙击和套利,很可能得不偿失。
市场只要给了一个规则并执行,那么最终就会有合理的价格。
我始终认为市场的意义在于规则的执行,或者说规定的执行。
只要做到了明确规则,而且能够保证所有人都遵守规则,那么谈不上什么公平不公平。
市场管理者只需要保证信息公开,没有内幕,其它的不重要。
不管有没有投票权,港股很多仙股也是在坑人,一样的,并不因为投票权重不同而减少。
香港就算引入同股不同权,也未必就坏。
当然香港怎么考虑,或者怎么执行都无所谓公平与否,关键是规则明确。
就像大陆的股市,同股同权,也不见得就有多公平了。
所以有时候不在于法律100%的公平和完善,而是在违犯法律的时候,所有人都会受到同样的惩罚。
港交所有港交所的规矩,纽交所有纽交所的规矩,管理层拥有超级投票权,虽然有利于企业经营,但是对管理层道德有很高的要求,美股可以,盖茨,扎克伯格钱都不是所捐捐就捐了,你试试港股也这样,民营企业老板坑死你