The annual review of American company board practices by Korn/Ferry， a firm of headhunters， is a useful indicator of the health of corporate governance. This year's review， published on November 12th， shows that the Sarbanes-Oxley act， passed in 2002 to try to prevent a repeat of corporate collapses such as Enron's and WorldCom's， has had an impact on the boardroom——albeit at an average implementation cost that Korn/Ferry estimates at $5.1m per firm.
Two years ago， only 41% of American firms said they regularly held meetings of directors without their chief executive present； this year the figure was 93%. But some things have been surprisingly unaffected by the backlash against corporate scandals. For example， despite a growing feeling that former chief executives should not sit on their company's board， the percentage of American firms where they do has actually edged up， from 23% in 2003 to 25% in 2004.
Also， disappointingly few firms have split the jobs of chairman and chief executive. Another survey of American boards published this week， by A.T. Kearney， a firm of consultants， found that in 2002 14% of the boards of S&P 500 firms had separated the roles， and a further 16% said they planned to do so. But by 2004 only 23% overall had taken the plunge. A survey earlier in the year by consultants at McKinsey found that 70% of American directors and investors supported the idea of splitting the jobs， which is standard practice in Europe.
Another disappointment is the slow progress in abolishing “staggered” boards——ones where only one-third of the directors are up for re-election each year， to three-year terms. Invented as a defence against takeover， such boards， according to a new Harvard Law School study by Lucian Bebchuk and Alma Cohen， are unambiguously “associated with an economically significant reduction in firm value”。
Despite this， the percentage of S&P 500 firms with staggered boards has fallen only slightly——from 63% in 2001 to 60% in 2003， according to the Investor Responsibility Research Centre. And many of those firms that have been forced by shareholders to abolish the system are doing so only slowly. Merck， a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis drug Vioxx， is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in which they are all re-elected （or otherwise） annually. Other companies' staggered boards are entrenched in their corporate charters， which cannot be amended by a shareholders' vote. Anyone who expected the scandals of 2001 to bring about rapid change in the balance of power between managers and owners was， at best， naive.
注（1）：本文選自Economist；11/13/2004， p67-67， 4/9p；
注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿1998年真題text 1第2題（1），2002年真題text 2第2題（2），text 5第3題（3），2004年真題text 4第2題（4）和1999年真題text 1第4題（5）；
1.The Sarbanes-Oxley act is most probably about_________.
[A] corporate scandal
[B] corporate management
[C] corporate cost
[D] corporate governance
2.The word “backlash” （Line 3， Paragraph 2） most probably means_________.
[A] a violent force
[B] a strong impetus
[C] a firm measure
[D] a strong negative reaction
3.According to the text， separating the roles between chairman and chief executive is________.
[A] a common practice in American companies
[B] what many European companies do
[C] a must to keep the health of a company
[D] not a popular idea among American entrepreneurs
4.We learn from the text that a “staggered” board________.
[A] is adverse to the increment of firm value
[B] gives its board members too much power
[C] has been abolished by most American companies
[D] can be voted down by shareholders
5.Toward the board practice of American companies， the writer's attitude can be said to be________.
[A] biased
[B] pessimistic
[C] objective
[D] critical
答案：D D B A D
篇章剖析
本篇文章是一篇議論文，對(duì)美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)變化緩慢的情況提出了批評(píng)。第一段引用一家獵頭公司的年度評(píng)論說(shuō)明一項(xiàng)旨在防止公司財(cái)務(wù)丑聞的法案已經(jīng)對(duì)美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)產(chǎn)生了影響；在第二段作者筆鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，說(shuō)明雖然公司丑聞對(duì)于公司董事會(huì)的做法產(chǎn)生了一些影響，但仍然有一些方面毫無(wú)變化或者變化緩慢。接下來(lái)作者分析了幾種典型的情況；三段指出了一些公司董事和總裁職務(wù)不分的情況；第四斷指出一些公司在廢除“交錯(cuò)董事任期”的董事會(huì)方面進(jìn)展緩慢；第五段以具體的例子對(duì)上述情況加以說(shuō)明并得出結(jié)論：要改變職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡并非一蹴而就之事。
詞匯注釋
headhunter： [5hedhQntE（r）] n. 用高薪征聘人才者
governance： [5^QvEnEns] n. 治理；管理
boardroom： [5bC：dru：m] n. （董事會(huì)）會(huì)議室
albeit： [C：l5bi：It] conj. 雖然
backlash： [5bAklAF] n. 激烈反應(yīng)，激烈反對(duì)對(duì)一個(gè)較早行動(dòng)的對(duì)抗性反應(yīng)
take the plunge： 冒險(xiǎn)，采取斷然行動(dòng)
staggered： [5stA^Ed] adj. 交錯(cuò)的
unambiguously： [5QnAm5bi^juEsli] adv. 明白地，不含糊地
pharmaceutical： [7fB：mE5sju：tikEl] adj. 制藥的；調(diào)藥的
arthritis： [B：5Wraitis] n. 關(guān)節(jié)炎
entrench： [In5trentF] v. 保護(hù)
amend： [E5mend] v. 改正；修改
難句突破
Merck， a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis drug Vioxx， is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in which they are all re-elected （or otherwise） annually.
主體句式：Merck is allowing its directors to run their full term
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：這是一個(gè)復(fù)雜句，句子的主語(yǔ)之后又一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的同位語(yǔ)短語(yǔ)，句子中還有一個(gè)before引導(dǎo)的狀語(yǔ)，在這個(gè)狀語(yǔ)中含有一個(gè)which引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句。before在這種情況下通常譯為“才”。
句子譯文：因?yàn)樗a(chǎn)的關(guān)節(jié)炎藥物Vioxx的潛在副作用而陷入困境的默克制藥公司現(xiàn)在允許其董事任期直到屆滿，然后才會(huì)引入一個(gè)每年將所有人重新選任一遍（或者別的方法）的制度。
題目分析
1.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。根據(jù)第一段，the Sarbanes-Oxley act的通過(guò)是為了防止再次出現(xiàn)類似安然公司或者世通公司垮掉的情況。而文章又提到在公司治理方面，該法案已經(jīng)顯現(xiàn)出了一定的影響力?？梢?jiàn)，該法案是有關(guān)公司治理的法案。
2.答案為D，屬猜詞題。首先確定“backlash”與反對(duì)公司丑聞?dòng)嘘P(guān)，其次，下文對(duì)backlash給了一個(gè)具體的例子，就是“越來(lái)越多的人認(rèn)為前任總裁不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)留在董事會(huì)里”，顯然這符合選項(xiàng)D中的“強(qiáng)烈的對(duì)抗性/否定性反應(yīng)”。
3.答案為B，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第三段最后一句，將董事長(zhǎng)和總裁的職務(wù)區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)是“歐洲的行業(yè)慣例”。
4.答案為A，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第四段的一份最新哈佛商學(xué)院研究，“staggered board”是為了防止公司權(quán)力被奪取而被發(fā)明的，但它顯然“和公司價(jià)值的顯著下降有關(guān)”?？梢?jiàn)這種交錯(cuò)董事任期的董事會(huì)不利于公司價(jià)值的增長(zhǎng)。
5.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。本文指出雖然出臺(tái)了防止公司丑聞的法案，但美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)變化依然緩慢。繼而分析了幾種令人失望的情況。在文章最末作者指出，人們不應(yīng)該天真的相信2001年的丑聞會(huì)迅速改變職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡。可見(jiàn)作者對(duì)美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)持批評(píng)的態(tài)度。
參考譯文
獵頭公司“光輝國(guó)際”（Korn/Ferry）推出的美國(guó)公司董事會(huì)慣例年度評(píng)論是了解公司治理狀況的有用指南。今年11月12日發(fā)表的年度評(píng)論表明，2002年通過(guò)的旨在防止類似安然公司和世通公司垮掉的事情再次發(fā)生的《薩班-奧西利法案》對(duì)董事會(huì)已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了一定的影響——雖然按照“光輝國(guó)際”的估計(jì)，實(shí)施該法案的平均成本是每家公司510萬(wàn)美元。
兩年前，只有41%的美國(guó)公司說(shuō)他們會(huì)在首席執(zhí)行官不在場(chǎng)的情況下定期舉行董事會(huì)；今年這一數(shù)字達(dá)到了93%.不過(guò)，令人驚異的是，對(duì)公司丑聞的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)并沒(méi)有影響到某些事情的發(fā)展。例如，雖然越來(lái)越多的人認(rèn)為前任總裁不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)留在董事會(huì)里，但美國(guó)公司董事會(huì)中前任總裁的比率不降反升了，從2003年的23%上升到了2004年的25%.
另外，將董事長(zhǎng)和總裁的職務(wù)區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)的公司很少，這一點(diǎn)令人頗為失望。一家咨詢公司“A.T.卡尼”公司在本周發(fā)布的另外一份對(duì)美國(guó)董事會(huì)的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，2002年標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500家公司中，有14%的董事會(huì)已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了職務(wù)角色的區(qū)分，另有16%的董事會(huì)表示計(jì)劃這么做。可是到2004年，在全部公司中，只有23%的公司采取了行動(dòng)。同年早些時(shí)候麥肯錫公司的咨詢師發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，70%的美國(guó)董事和投資人支持職務(wù)區(qū)分的想法，而這在歐洲早已是行業(yè)慣例了。
另一件令人失望的事情就是在廢除“交錯(cuò)董事任期”的董事會(huì)方面進(jìn)展緩慢——所謂交錯(cuò)董事任期，就是每年只改選三分之一的董事，而每一屆董事的任期是三年。依據(jù)呂西安。貝布查克和阿爾瑪。科恩的一份最新哈佛商學(xué)院研究，這種為了防止公司權(quán)力被奪取而發(fā)明的董事會(huì)顯然“和公司價(jià)值的顯著下降有關(guān)”。
盡管如此，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500公司中有交錯(cuò)董事任期的董事會(huì)比例卻只有輕微下降——“投資人責(zé)任研究中心”的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，該比率僅從2001年的63%下降到了2003年的60%.許多被股東施壓要求放棄這一制度的公司現(xiàn)在只是緩慢地著手這一工作。因?yàn)樗a(chǎn)的關(guān)節(jié)炎藥物Vioxx的潛在副作用而陷入困境的默克制藥公司現(xiàn)在允許其董事任期直到屆滿，然后才會(huì)引入一個(gè)每年將所有人重新選任一遍（或者別的方法）的制度。其他公司交錯(cuò)董事任期的董事會(huì)是由公司規(guī)章確立的，不能由股東投票改變。如果有人期望2001年的丑聞會(huì)迅速改變職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡的話，那么他未免太天真了
Two years ago， only 41% of American firms said they regularly held meetings of directors without their chief executive present； this year the figure was 93%. But some things have been surprisingly unaffected by the backlash against corporate scandals. For example， despite a growing feeling that former chief executives should not sit on their company's board， the percentage of American firms where they do has actually edged up， from 23% in 2003 to 25% in 2004.
Also， disappointingly few firms have split the jobs of chairman and chief executive. Another survey of American boards published this week， by A.T. Kearney， a firm of consultants， found that in 2002 14% of the boards of S&P 500 firms had separated the roles， and a further 16% said they planned to do so. But by 2004 only 23% overall had taken the plunge. A survey earlier in the year by consultants at McKinsey found that 70% of American directors and investors supported the idea of splitting the jobs， which is standard practice in Europe.
Another disappointment is the slow progress in abolishing “staggered” boards——ones where only one-third of the directors are up for re-election each year， to three-year terms. Invented as a defence against takeover， such boards， according to a new Harvard Law School study by Lucian Bebchuk and Alma Cohen， are unambiguously “associated with an economically significant reduction in firm value”。
Despite this， the percentage of S&P 500 firms with staggered boards has fallen only slightly——from 63% in 2001 to 60% in 2003， according to the Investor Responsibility Research Centre. And many of those firms that have been forced by shareholders to abolish the system are doing so only slowly. Merck， a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis drug Vioxx， is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in which they are all re-elected （or otherwise） annually. Other companies' staggered boards are entrenched in their corporate charters， which cannot be amended by a shareholders' vote. Anyone who expected the scandals of 2001 to bring about rapid change in the balance of power between managers and owners was， at best， naive.
注（1）：本文選自Economist；11/13/2004， p67-67， 4/9p；
注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿1998年真題text 1第2題（1），2002年真題text 2第2題（2），text 5第3題（3），2004年真題text 4第2題（4）和1999年真題text 1第4題（5）；
1.The Sarbanes-Oxley act is most probably about_________.
[A] corporate scandal
[B] corporate management
[C] corporate cost
[D] corporate governance
2.The word “backlash” （Line 3， Paragraph 2） most probably means_________.
[A] a violent force
[B] a strong impetus
[C] a firm measure
[D] a strong negative reaction
3.According to the text， separating the roles between chairman and chief executive is________.
[A] a common practice in American companies
[B] what many European companies do
[C] a must to keep the health of a company
[D] not a popular idea among American entrepreneurs
4.We learn from the text that a “staggered” board________.
[A] is adverse to the increment of firm value
[B] gives its board members too much power
[C] has been abolished by most American companies
[D] can be voted down by shareholders
5.Toward the board practice of American companies， the writer's attitude can be said to be________.
[A] biased
[B] pessimistic
[C] objective
[D] critical
答案：D D B A D
篇章剖析
本篇文章是一篇議論文，對(duì)美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)變化緩慢的情況提出了批評(píng)。第一段引用一家獵頭公司的年度評(píng)論說(shuō)明一項(xiàng)旨在防止公司財(cái)務(wù)丑聞的法案已經(jīng)對(duì)美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)產(chǎn)生了影響；在第二段作者筆鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，說(shuō)明雖然公司丑聞對(duì)于公司董事會(huì)的做法產(chǎn)生了一些影響，但仍然有一些方面毫無(wú)變化或者變化緩慢。接下來(lái)作者分析了幾種典型的情況；三段指出了一些公司董事和總裁職務(wù)不分的情況；第四斷指出一些公司在廢除“交錯(cuò)董事任期”的董事會(huì)方面進(jìn)展緩慢；第五段以具體的例子對(duì)上述情況加以說(shuō)明并得出結(jié)論：要改變職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡并非一蹴而就之事。
詞匯注釋
headhunter： [5hedhQntE（r）] n. 用高薪征聘人才者
governance： [5^QvEnEns] n. 治理；管理
boardroom： [5bC：dru：m] n. （董事會(huì)）會(huì)議室
albeit： [C：l5bi：It] conj. 雖然
backlash： [5bAklAF] n. 激烈反應(yīng)，激烈反對(duì)對(duì)一個(gè)較早行動(dòng)的對(duì)抗性反應(yīng)
take the plunge： 冒險(xiǎn)，采取斷然行動(dòng)
staggered： [5stA^Ed] adj. 交錯(cuò)的
unambiguously： [5QnAm5bi^juEsli] adv. 明白地，不含糊地
pharmaceutical： [7fB：mE5sju：tikEl] adj. 制藥的；調(diào)藥的
arthritis： [B：5Wraitis] n. 關(guān)節(jié)炎
entrench： [In5trentF] v. 保護(hù)
amend： [E5mend] v. 改正；修改
難句突破
Merck， a pharmaceutical company in trouble over the possible side-effects of its arthritis drug Vioxx， is allowing its directors to run their full term before introducing a system in which they are all re-elected （or otherwise） annually.
主體句式：Merck is allowing its directors to run their full term
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：這是一個(gè)復(fù)雜句，句子的主語(yǔ)之后又一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的同位語(yǔ)短語(yǔ)，句子中還有一個(gè)before引導(dǎo)的狀語(yǔ)，在這個(gè)狀語(yǔ)中含有一個(gè)which引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句。before在這種情況下通常譯為“才”。
句子譯文：因?yàn)樗a(chǎn)的關(guān)節(jié)炎藥物Vioxx的潛在副作用而陷入困境的默克制藥公司現(xiàn)在允許其董事任期直到屆滿，然后才會(huì)引入一個(gè)每年將所有人重新選任一遍（或者別的方法）的制度。
題目分析
1.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。根據(jù)第一段，the Sarbanes-Oxley act的通過(guò)是為了防止再次出現(xiàn)類似安然公司或者世通公司垮掉的情況。而文章又提到在公司治理方面，該法案已經(jīng)顯現(xiàn)出了一定的影響力?？梢?jiàn)，該法案是有關(guān)公司治理的法案。
2.答案為D，屬猜詞題。首先確定“backlash”與反對(duì)公司丑聞?dòng)嘘P(guān)，其次，下文對(duì)backlash給了一個(gè)具體的例子，就是“越來(lái)越多的人認(rèn)為前任總裁不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)留在董事會(huì)里”，顯然這符合選項(xiàng)D中的“強(qiáng)烈的對(duì)抗性/否定性反應(yīng)”。
3.答案為B，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第三段最后一句，將董事長(zhǎng)和總裁的職務(wù)區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)是“歐洲的行業(yè)慣例”。
4.答案為A，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。根據(jù)文章第四段的一份最新哈佛商學(xué)院研究，“staggered board”是為了防止公司權(quán)力被奪取而被發(fā)明的，但它顯然“和公司價(jià)值的顯著下降有關(guān)”?？梢?jiàn)這種交錯(cuò)董事任期的董事會(huì)不利于公司價(jià)值的增長(zhǎng)。
5.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。本文指出雖然出臺(tái)了防止公司丑聞的法案，但美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)變化依然緩慢。繼而分析了幾種令人失望的情況。在文章最末作者指出，人們不應(yīng)該天真的相信2001年的丑聞會(huì)迅速改變職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡。可見(jiàn)作者對(duì)美國(guó)公司的董事會(huì)持批評(píng)的態(tài)度。
參考譯文
獵頭公司“光輝國(guó)際”（Korn/Ferry）推出的美國(guó)公司董事會(huì)慣例年度評(píng)論是了解公司治理狀況的有用指南。今年11月12日發(fā)表的年度評(píng)論表明，2002年通過(guò)的旨在防止類似安然公司和世通公司垮掉的事情再次發(fā)生的《薩班-奧西利法案》對(duì)董事會(huì)已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了一定的影響——雖然按照“光輝國(guó)際”的估計(jì)，實(shí)施該法案的平均成本是每家公司510萬(wàn)美元。
兩年前，只有41%的美國(guó)公司說(shuō)他們會(huì)在首席執(zhí)行官不在場(chǎng)的情況下定期舉行董事會(huì)；今年這一數(shù)字達(dá)到了93%.不過(guò)，令人驚異的是，對(duì)公司丑聞的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)并沒(méi)有影響到某些事情的發(fā)展。例如，雖然越來(lái)越多的人認(rèn)為前任總裁不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)留在董事會(huì)里，但美國(guó)公司董事會(huì)中前任總裁的比率不降反升了，從2003年的23%上升到了2004年的25%.
另外，將董事長(zhǎng)和總裁的職務(wù)區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)的公司很少，這一點(diǎn)令人頗為失望。一家咨詢公司“A.T.卡尼”公司在本周發(fā)布的另外一份對(duì)美國(guó)董事會(huì)的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，2002年標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500家公司中，有14%的董事會(huì)已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了職務(wù)角色的區(qū)分，另有16%的董事會(huì)表示計(jì)劃這么做。可是到2004年，在全部公司中，只有23%的公司采取了行動(dòng)。同年早些時(shí)候麥肯錫公司的咨詢師發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，70%的美國(guó)董事和投資人支持職務(wù)區(qū)分的想法，而這在歐洲早已是行業(yè)慣例了。
另一件令人失望的事情就是在廢除“交錯(cuò)董事任期”的董事會(huì)方面進(jìn)展緩慢——所謂交錯(cuò)董事任期，就是每年只改選三分之一的董事，而每一屆董事的任期是三年。依據(jù)呂西安。貝布查克和阿爾瑪。科恩的一份最新哈佛商學(xué)院研究，這種為了防止公司權(quán)力被奪取而發(fā)明的董事會(huì)顯然“和公司價(jià)值的顯著下降有關(guān)”。
盡管如此，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500公司中有交錯(cuò)董事任期的董事會(huì)比例卻只有輕微下降——“投資人責(zé)任研究中心”的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，該比率僅從2001年的63%下降到了2003年的60%.許多被股東施壓要求放棄這一制度的公司現(xiàn)在只是緩慢地著手這一工作。因?yàn)樗a(chǎn)的關(guān)節(jié)炎藥物Vioxx的潛在副作用而陷入困境的默克制藥公司現(xiàn)在允許其董事任期直到屆滿，然后才會(huì)引入一個(gè)每年將所有人重新選任一遍（或者別的方法）的制度。其他公司交錯(cuò)董事任期的董事會(huì)是由公司規(guī)章確立的，不能由股東投票改變。如果有人期望2001年的丑聞會(huì)迅速改變職業(yè)經(jīng)理人和公司所有人之間的權(quán)力平衡的話，那么他未免太天真了