In different ways, each of these examples appears to point to the same, welcome conclusion: that the imbalance in corporate power of the late 1990s, when many bosses were allowed to behave like absolute monarchs, has been corrected. Alas, appearances can be deceptive. While each of these recent tales of chief-executive woe is a sign of progress, none provides much evidence that the crisis in American corporate governance is yet over. In fact, each of these cases is an example of failed, not successful, governance.
At the very least, the boards of both Morgan Stanley and HP were far too slow to address their bosses' inadequacies. The record of the Boeing board in picking chiefs prone to ethical lapses is too long to be dismissed as mere bad luck. The fall of Messrs Greenberg and Ebbers, meanwhile, highlights the growing role of government—and, in particular, of criminal prosecutors—in holding bosses to account a development that is, at best, a mixed blessing. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, passed in haste following the Enron and WorldCom scandals, is imposing heavy costs on American companies; whether these are exceeded by any benefits is the subject of fierce debate and may not be known for years.
Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney-general, is the leading advocate and practitioner of an energetic "law enforcement" approach. He may be right that the recent burst of punitive actions has been good for the economy, even if some of his own decisions have been open to question. Where he is undoubtedly right is in arguing that corporate America has done a lamentable job of governing itself. As he says in all article in the Wall Street Journal this week: "The honour code among CEOs didn't work. Board oversight didn't work. Self-regulation was a complete failure." AIG's board, for example, did nothing about Mr. Greenberg's use of murky accounting, or the conflicts posed by his use of offshore vehicles, or his constant bullying of his critics—let alone the firm's alleged participation in bid-rigging—until Mr. Spitzer threatened a criminal prosecution that might have destroyed the firm.
In the opening paragraph, the author introduce his topic by
A.citing America's celebrity bosses.
B.listing a number of America's celebrity bosses.
C.depicting the plight of some reputed American bosses.
D.writing some most powerful persons in American firms.
第1题
下列关于会计档案的表述中,符合《会计档案管理办法》规定的有()。
A. 单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B. 单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C. 保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D. 正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第2题
下列关于会计档案的表述中,符合《会计档案管理办法》规定的有()。
A. 单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B. 单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C. 保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D. 正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第3题
下列关于会计档案的表述中,符合{会计档案管理办法》规定的有()。
A.单位会计档案经本单位负责人批准后可以外借
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C、保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第4题
A.单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B.采用电子计算机进行会计核算的单位,应当保存打印出的纸质会计档案
C.出纳人员不得兼管会计档案
D.未设立档案机构的,应当在会计机构内部指定专人保管
第5题
A.单位会计档案经本单位负责人批准后可以外借
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C.保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第6题
A.单位会计档案经本单位负责人批准后可以外借
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C.保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第7题
A.单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C.保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第8题
A.单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C.保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.iE在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第9题
A.单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C.保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
第10题
A.单位会计档案经本单位会计机构负责人批准后可以对外提供查询
B.单位会计档案销毁须经单位负责人批准
C.保管期满但未结清债权债务的原始凭证,不得销毁
D.正在项目建设期间的建设单位,其保管期满的会计档案不得销毁
为了保护您的账号安全,请在“上学吧”公众号进行验证,点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证,验证成功后方可继续查看答案!