Who does Michael Dell work for: Dell, the company? Or Dell, the man?
克尔•戴尔(Michael Dell)在给谁打工?戴尔这家公司,还是戴尔这个人?
This is the prime question
hanging over a
potential private-equity deal to
acquire the struggling computing company.
在私募股权投资公司准备收购这家处境艰难的计算机公司之际,股东首先要问的就是这个问题。
A deal could bring some
relief to public shareholders, whose Dell stock has fallen 40% since 2008. The company has shown little promise of late, having been overrun by iPads and iPhones.
收购交易有望令公众股东松一口气。从2008年以来,他们持有的戴尔股票已经贬值40%。在iPad和iPhone的冲击之下,戴尔溃不成军,近来从它身上看不到多少希望。
But
relief is not fairness.
但公众股东能松一口气并不意味着他们就获得了公平。
At the center of this contemplated transaction lies a glaring conflict: Mr. Dell himself.
这起收购存在着一个无法忽视的利益冲突:戴尔本人。
As founder, CEO, 15.7% owner and company namesake, Dell the man has outsize influence on Dell the company.
作为戴尔公司的创始人、CEO、持有15.7%股份的股东以及与公司同名的人,戴尔这个人对戴尔公司有着巨大的影响力。
Reports say Mr. Dell is playing a role in the transaction and contributing his stake to the deal. The involvement will
eventually get shareholders wondering where his allegiances lie. Is he a buyer, a seller, or somewhere in between?
报道说,戴尔将参与这次收购交易,为交易贡献出自己持有的股权。看到他的参与,股东最终不禁会问:他忠实于谁?他是买家还是卖家?还是某个介乎两者之间的角色?
A Dell representative declined to comment.
戴尔公司的一位代表不予置评。
Management buyouts are always fraught,
precisely for this reason. Prodded by court rulings, boards have taken steps to
minimize the most flagrant problems. Should a deal be announced, be prepared for a barrage of reminders about 'independent committees,' 'go shops' and the like.
正是出于这个原因,管理层收购总是让人不安。在法庭裁决的引导下,公司董事会一直在采取措施最大程度地解决那些最显眼的问题。一旦公布收购计划,那就等著有关"成立独立委员会"、"引入竞争"以及其他方面的提醒纷至沓来吧。
But these steps are
ultimately cosmetic. No one will say it this way, but it's the way deals happen: The
conflict is the opportunity.
但这些措施终归只是美容术。其实,利益冲突就是机会。没有谁会这么说,但收购就是这么做的。
For example, without Mr. Dell's stake, it would be nearly impossible to
assemble the $22
billion to $25
billion needed to buy the company. It's also
unlikely that another buyout shop or industry
player would make a competing bid without Mr. Dell's consent.
比如,如果没有戴尔此人拿出的股权,收购戴尔公司所需的220亿美元到250亿美元几乎就不可能凑齐。没有戴尔点头,也就不太可能有另一家私募或同行业公司参与竞购。
In these situations, a powerful
executive like Mr. Dell can
effectively act as his own
poison pill, guarding against outcomes he doesn't like.
在这些情况下,像戴尔这样有着强大影响力的高管可以在事实上充当自己的"毒丸"(反收购措施),防止出现他不愿看到的结果。
Shareholders, alas, have only the final
protection of their votes.
股东呢,就只剩下投票权这最后一层保护。
And this has a flaw, as Delaware's leading business judge, Leo E. Strine Jr., explained about a similar transaction from 2012: 'The
negotiation process and deal dance present ample opportunities for insiders to forge deals that, while 'good' for stockholders, are not 'as good' as they could have been, and then to put the stockholders to a Hobson's choice,' he wrote.
而且这是有缺陷的,正如特拉华举足轻重的商业法官Leo E. Strine Jr.对2012年一桩类似交易的判词所说:谈判过程和收购交易中的你来我往为内部人士创造了丰富的机会,来制定"有益于"股东、但实际益处并不及应有水平的交易,然后让股东面临别无选择的处境。
So, Dell shareholders, here is your Hobson's choice:
那么,戴尔股东们,下面就是你们别无选择的选择:
Is accepting $13 to $14 per share a fair price given that the company traded as high as $18.36 less than a year ago?
鉴于不到一年前戴尔股价最高达到18.36美元,每股13到14美元的价格是否公平?
What exactly are Mr. Dell's plans for the company when it goes private? Would you have liked to enjoy the benefit of those plans given that his legal duty -- at least until recently -- was to shareholders?
在戴尔公司私有化之后,戴尔究竟有何计划?考虑到他的法定义务是为股东负责(至少直到不久前是这样),你是否曾希望从这些计划中受益?
Might you have liked Mr. Dell to have found a better use for some of the company's $14.2
billion in cash than funding the very buyout that will
enable him and his private-equity backers to carry out those plans?
你是否希望戴尔为戴尔公司142亿美元现金中的一部分找到一个更好的用途,而不是用来为收购融资、让他和私募支持者能够执行这些计划呢?
It's very possible you may not care and are happy to rid yourself of shares in this troubled business. That's at least how
potential buyers see it.
你很可能不在乎,乐得甩掉这家困难公司的股票。这至少是潜在收购者的看法。
Before you decide, though, it's best to answer the question: L'etat, c'est Michael Dell?
不过在做决定之前,你最好回答一下这个问题:迈克尔•戴尔是否等于戴尔公司?