greenmail

简明释义

英[ˈɡriːnmeɪl]美[ˈɡriːnmeɪl]

n. 绿票讹诈

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Greenmail is the practice of buying larger share of a company's stock to threaten a hostile takeover and reselling it to the company at a price above market value.

绿色邮件是指公司对购买本公司大宗股份并威胁要敌意收购的人，以高于市场价格购买其股份的行为。

2.Greenmail is the practice of buying larger share of a company's stock to threaten a hostile takeover and reselling it to the company at a price above market value.

绿色邮件是指公司对购买本公司大宗股份并威胁要敌意收购的人，以高于市场价格购买其股份的行为。

3.The ABC company found themselves a victim of GREenmail when they realized they had bought back their stock at a much higher price.

当ABC公司以高得多的价格买回自己的股份时，发现本公司成了绿票欺诈的受害者。

4.Family control would prevent any hostile takeover or greenmail attempt.

家族控制可以防止任何恶意收购或绿票讹诈的企图。

5.The company faced a hostile takeover, leading them to pay off the investor through greenmail.

该公司面临恶意收购，导致他们通过绿邮件向投资者支付了赔偿。

6.In order to prevent a takeover, the board decided to engage in greenmail negotiations.

为了防止收购，董事会决定进行绿邮件谈判。

7.Some shareholders criticized the management for using greenmail instead of improving company performance.

一些股东批评管理层使用绿邮件而不是改善公司业绩。

8.The practice of greenmail can lead to ethical concerns in corporate governance.

在公司治理中，绿邮件的做法可能引发伦理问题。

9.After receiving a large stake, the investor demanded greenmail payments to back off.

在获得大量股份后，投资者要求支付绿邮件费用以撤退。

作文

In the world of finance and corporate strategy, various terms are used to describe different practices and tactics that can influence business operations. One such term is greenmail, which refers to a situation where a company buys back its own shares at a premium from a hostile shareholder to prevent a takeover. This practice can be seen as a defensive tactic employed by management to maintain control over the company. The term itself is a portmanteau of 'green,' referring to money, and 'blackmail,' indicating the coercive nature of the transaction. The concept of greenmail emerged in the 1980s during a time when corporate raiders were actively seeking to acquire companies through aggressive tactics. These raiders would buy significant amounts of stock in a target company, often with the intent of gaining enough shares to force a takeover. To counter this threat, companies began to adopt greenmail strategies, offering to repurchase shares at a higher price than the current market value. This not only provided a financial incentive for the shareholder to sell but also removed the potential threat of a hostile takeover. However, while greenmail may seem like a viable solution for companies facing aggressive takeovers, it raises ethical questions and concerns regarding shareholder value. Critics argue that this practice can waste corporate resources, as money that could have been reinvested into the company or returned to all shareholders is instead used to placate a single, hostile investor. Additionally, greenmail can create a precedent where investors feel emboldened to engage in predatory behavior, knowing that they might be able to profit from such tactics in the future. Moreover, greenmail can lead to a misalignment of interests between management and shareholders. While executives may benefit from avoiding a takeover and preserving their jobs, this does not necessarily align with the best interests of all shareholders. In some cases, a takeover could lead to increased efficiency, better management, and ultimately higher stock prices. Therefore, when management resorts to greenmail, they may be prioritizing their job security over maximizing shareholder value. Despite its controversial nature, greenmail has played a significant role in shaping corporate governance and the dynamics of shareholder activism. It has prompted discussions about the responsibilities of management to their shareholders and the ethical implications of using corporate funds to fend off hostile takeovers. As the business landscape continues to evolve, so too will the tactics employed by both management and investors. In conclusion, greenmail represents a complex intersection of corporate strategy, ethics, and shareholder rights. While it may provide a short-term solution for companies facing hostile takeovers, the long-term implications can be detrimental to overall shareholder value and corporate governance. As businesses navigate these challenges, it is essential for them to consider not just the immediate benefits of greenmail, but also the broader impact on their stakeholders and the market as a whole.

在金融和企业战略的世界中，使用各种术语来描述不同的实践和策略，这些实践和策略可以影响商业运作。其中一个术语是greenmail，指的是公司以溢价回购其自身股票，以防止敌意收购的情况。这种做法可以被视为管理层为保持对公司的控制而采取的防御性策略。这个术语本身是“绿色”（指钱）和“敲诈”（指交易的胁迫性质）的合成词。 greenmail的概念出现于1980年代，当时企业掠夺者积极寻求通过激进的战术收购公司。这些掠夺者会购买目标公司的大量股票，通常是为了获得足够的股份以迫使收购。为了应对这一威胁，公司开始采用greenmail策略，提供以高于当前市场价值的价格回购股票。这不仅为股东提供了出售的财务激励，还消除了敌意收购的潜在威胁。 然而，虽然greenmail似乎是面对激进收购时公司可行的解决方案，但它引发了伦理问题和关于股东价值的担忧。批评者认为，这种做法可能浪费公司资源，因为本可以再投资于公司或返还给所有股东的资金，反而用来安抚单一敌意投资者。此外，greenmail可能会创造一种先例，使投资者感到有勇气采取掠夺性行为，因为他们知道未来可能会从这种战术中获利。 此外，greenmail可能导致管理层与股东之间利益的不一致。尽管高管可能通过避免收购并保住工作而受益，但这并不一定符合所有股东的最佳利益。在某些情况下，收购可能会导致更高的效率、更好的管理，并最终提高股价。因此，当管理层诉诸于greenmail时，他们可能优先考虑自己的工作安全，而不是最大化股东价值。 尽管存在争议，greenmail在塑造公司治理和股东行动主义动态方面发挥了重要作用。它促使人们讨论管理层对股东的责任以及使用公司资金抵御敌意收购的伦理影响。随着商业环境的不断演变，管理层和投资者所采用的策略也将不断变化。 总之，greenmail代表了企业战略、伦理和股东权利之间复杂的交汇点。虽然它可能为面临敌意收购的公司提供短期解决方案，但其长期影响可能对整体股东价值和公司治理产生不利影响。在企业应对这些挑战时，至关重要的是，不仅要考虑greenmail的直接好处，还要考虑其对利益相关者和整个市场的更广泛影响。