人物专访11｜从华尔街到康奈尔，Whitehead教授谈法律研究

分享嘉宾｜Charles K. Whitehead，康奈尔法学院 Myron C. Taylor 商法学讲席教授

采编｜金蕾，康奈尔法学院LL.M.

翻译｜杨竣名，上海交通大学凯原法学院

审校｜张旭东，UCB LL.M.

审校｜中美法律评论

致谢｜龚雨瑶，康奈尔法学院LL.M.

   Lau，康奈尔法学院LL.M.

编辑｜陈宣颖，西南政法大学本科

阅读导引

Part I 法律研究中需要避免哪些误区？

  · 实践如何与学术交集：从业者对法律的思考方式与学者大相径庭？

  · 法律如何影响商业：法律评论的作用会比简短的法律变化备忘录重要？

  · 故事分享：我与特拉华州公司法

Part II 如何培养自己形成基本思维过程？

  · 积累经验：更好地理解实践及其在法规和规则中的应用

  · 培养大局意识：学者自上而下关注，从业者自下而上关注

  · 故事分享：两笔交易对我的启发 and 我那位不做法学院院长的律界老新人

Part III 对于LL.M.项目的中国学生，推荐阅览哪些法律评论/期刊/时事通讯？可以做怎样的法律研究？

  · 阅读《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》和《金融时报》去理解商业原理

  · 利用了解美国法律的机会更好地了解中国的法律和实践

  · 故事分享：当我讲授美国公司法代理成本时开始思考中国的应用

Many students and scholars are concerned about how to effectively transfer their research results to practice and, more generally, whether their research is down-to-earth. With your extensive theoretical and practical experience in corporate and financial law, we would like to ask you the following.

许多学生和学者关心研究成果是否能有效转化，是否切合实际。您在公司法、金融法等领域拥有丰富理论和实践经验，我们希望向您请教。

What do you think are misunderstandings that need to be avoided in theoretical research?

您认为在理论研究中需要避免哪些误区？

Answer to Question a

对问题a的回答

There is a common misperception that practice and academia are two separate things, with little overlap. But strong, experienced practitioners think about the law very much in the same way as academics.  

有一种普遍的误解，认为实践和学术界彼此独立而且没什么交集。但是，强大的、有经验的从业者对法律的思考方式与学者非常相似。

Academics focus not just on the law itself, but on the implications of the law – where there are weaknesses and how they can be fixed, the rationale for a particular law and whether it is applicable to a particular set of circumstances. Senior practitioners think in much the same way. They do this because it’s relevant to their practice. For example, if I represent a client in a transaction, and the law in this area is evolving, I should know where the law is going and the issues my client needs to consider. It’s analogous to how academics think. If the laws have weaknesses, or if the law is changing, I must be able to advise my client of them to better understand what protections it needs. If I can address those issues through contract or in some other way, I should do so. 

学者不仅关注法律本身，还关注法律的含义——法律的弱点，如何修正这些弱点，特定法律的基本原理，以及它是否适用于特定情况。资深的从业者以同样的方式思考。他们这样做是因为这与实践有关。例如，如果我在交易中代表客户，并且该领域的法律正在发展，我应该知道法律的发展方向以及我的客户需要考虑的问题。这类似于学者思考的方式。如果法律有弱点或正在变化，我必须能够建议我的客户更好地了解所需要的保护。如果我可以通过合同或其他方式解决这些问题，我应该这样做。

In Delaware, there’s a very active bar that every year updates the Delaware corporate code to reflect changes in the market. Very thoughtful, senior corporate lawyers turn to this topic each year, with the changes often appearing over the summer. I tell my students that every summer, while they are getting suntans, I’m reading the revised Delaware code. 

特拉华州的法律界非常活跃，每年都会更新特拉华州的公司法规以反映市场的变化。深思熟虑的资深公司律师每年都会转向这个话题，而且公司法规的变化经常出现在夏天。我告诉我的学生，每年夏天，当他们晒黑的时候，我都会阅读修订后的特拉华州法规。

When you are both a lawyer and business manager, as I was, you can see quite clearly how law impacts business. I would regularly write short memoranda on changes in the law because businesspeople without legal training don’t read law reviews. My memos would describe where the law was and where I thought the law was going and what the implications were for our business. We would base our strategy for growth, in part, on this analysis. If you’re working in a regulated industry, as I was, it is critical to know whether new regulations A, B and C will affect your business and your ability to grow. You may need to adjust your business to reflect the increased regulation or, perhaps, consider shifting to a different market. 

当你像我一样既是律师又是业务经理时，你可以清楚地看到法律如何影响商业。我会定期写关于法律变化的简短备忘录，因为没有受过法律培训的商人不会阅读法律评论。我的备忘录将描述法律（变化）在哪里，我认为法律将如何发展，以及对商业的影响。我们将部分基于这一分析来制定我们的增长战略。如果你像我一样在受监管的行业工作，那么了解新法规A、B和C是否会影响你的业务和发展能力非常重要。你可能需要调整你的业务以反映加强的监管，或者可能考虑转向不同的市场。

That approach to the law is consistent with how academics think. Academics say, here’s what the law is, the weaknesses, where the law is going (or should go), and the likely impact. When I’m a businessperson or senior lawyer, I’m thinking about the actual application of the law to a business as opposed to its theoretical application, but otherwise it’s the same basic thought process.

这种对法律的方式与学者思考的方式是一致的。学者们说，这是法律的内容、弱点、发展方向（或应该发展的方向）以及可能的影响。当我是一名商人或资深律师时，我考虑的是法律对企业的实际应用而不是理论应用，但除此之外，这是相同的基本思维过程。

How can I cultivate myself to think like this?

如何培养自己形成这样的思考方式？

Answer to Question b

对问题b的回答

I am joking when I say this, but “become old.” When I was a young lawyer, I would study statutes, rules, and cases carefully. And I would come up with my own analysis of how I thought the law should be applied to a particular problem. After completing the research, I would sit with the senior partner and tell him what I thought needed to be done. Almost inevitably, the partner would lean back in his chair and say, “Well, I understand your analysis, but there’s a history here that you also need to consider.” Then he would explain the norms of practice in the industry, how the practice had evolved, and why the law had taken the particular approach it did. Everything I had researched was accurate, but there was no way I could have known about the practice norms, because they were often based on things that weren’t written down. As a young lawyer, this was incredibly frustrating -- after all the work I did, here was a senior partner walking me through a history I could never have known on my own. 

“变老”，虽然我这样说是在开玩笑。当我还是一名年轻律师时，我会仔细研究法律、规则和案例。之后我会提出自己的分析，即我认为法律应该如何应用于特定问题。完成研究后，我会和高级合伙人坐在一起，告诉他我认为需要做什么。几乎不可避免地，合伙人会靠在椅子上说：“好吧，我理解你的分析，但你同样需要考虑一段历史。”然后他会解释行业中的实践规范、实践是如何演变的，以及为什么法律采取了它所采取的特定方法。我研究的一切都是准确的，但我无法知道实践规范，因为它们通常基于没有写下来的经验。作为一名年轻的律师，这非常令人沮丧——在我所做的所有工作之后，这里有一位高级合伙人带领我经历了一段我自己永远无法了解的历史。

But here’s the problem I face today. I’ve become the old guy. If someone asks me to explain a part of the law, most likely I will lean back in my chair and walk through the history of a particular statute or regulation, perhaps tie it to practice norms. The only difference is that I do this with students, not law firm associates.

但这是我今天面临的问题，我变成了老家伙。如果有人要求我解释法律的一部分，我很可能会靠在椅子上，回顾特定法规或规则的历史，也许把它实践规范联系起来。唯一的区别在于，我是和学生一起回顾，而不是和律所的律师。

The point is that, with experience, you’ll grow to better understand the practice and its application to statutes and regulations. Over time, you will become more perceptive, and you'll better understand why things are done the way they’re done. And with that background, you will also better understand the law, what it is intended to do, and what changes would be optimal under the circumstances. 

关键是，随着经验的积累，你会更好地理解实践及其在法规和规则中的应用。随着时间的推移，你会变得更有洞察力，你会更好地理解为什么事情会以这样的方式进行。有了这样的背景，你也会更好地理解法律，它的目的是什么，以及在这种情况下哪些变化是最佳的。

For the first two or three years after graduating, many students have no concrete idea of what they’re doing. Like I was, they will be in a bit of a fog since they will have just come out of law school. You will say, “Hey, what’s going on here? I just graduated from a top law school. I know everything I need to know about the law. But now, in practice, I have only a limited understanding of what to do.”

在毕业后的前两三年，许多学生对自己在做什么并没有具体的概念。和我一样，他们会有点迷茫，因为他们刚从法学院毕业。你会说：“嘿，这是怎么回事？我刚从顶尖的法学院毕业。我知道我需要知道的有关法律的一切。但现在，在实践中，我对该做什么只有有限的理解。”

Don’t worry. This is true for everyone, including when I was a starting lawyer. It’s frustrating, but everybody is going through the same transition. About two or three years after you graduate, there will come a time when the light goes on and suddenly you will understand more clearly what is going on in practice – why deals are structured the way they're structured, and you'll understand why the different pieces fit the way they fit. At that point, anyone can throw any deal at you, even if you've never done that type of deal before, and you’ll be able to handle it without a problem.

别担心。这对每个人都是如此，包括当我还是一名初级律师时。这很令人沮丧，但每个人都在经历同样的转变。大约在你毕业两三年后，你会恍然大悟，突然间你会更清楚地理解实践中发生了什么——为什么交易的结构是这样的，为什么不同交易会有这样的组合方式。到那时，无论任何人向你抛出任何交易，即便你之前从未遇到过，你也能够毫无问题地处理它。

What you won't necessarily know will be the norms of the business. Or some of the history behind the laws or the practice. But, over time, with experience, you will pick that up as well. 

你不一定知道的是商业规范，或者法律或实践背后的一些历史。但是，随着时间的推移，随着经验的积累，你也会学会这一点。

Example:

例子：

I remember quite clearly when all the pieces began to fit together, when I understood how and why deals were structured in a certain way. Shortly after this, I was asked to do a very complicated structured finance transaction in the oil and gas industry, something I had not done before. 

我清楚地记得当所有部分开始组合在一起时，当我理解交易如何以及为什么以某种方式构建时。此后不久，我被要求进行一项石油和天然气行业的非常复杂的结构性融资交易，这是我以前没有做过的。

Even though I had not done this kind of deal before, I felt fine structuring it. Of course, there were issues. I needed to become more familiar with oil and gas regulation, and I had to learn some new concepts and terminology that were special to the oil and gas industry. And, of course, I needed to understand the business objectives. But I could rely on my general knowledge of deal structuring for most of what needed to get done. The general approach to deals that I had picked up as a starting associate could now be applied to the specifics of a new deal after I learned about the particular industry.

尽管我以前没有做过这种交易，我觉得搭建这个交易比较轻松。当然，也有一些问题。我需要更加熟悉石油和天然气监管，并且必须学习一些石油和天然气行业特有的新概念和术语。当然，我需要了解商业目标。但我可以依靠我对交易结构的一般知识来完成大部分需要完成的工作。在我了解特定行业后，我作为初级律师所学到的一般交易方法现在就可以应用于新交易的特定方面。

To me, what that means is that theoretical research, a broad analysis that applies to general models, is fine and quite useful. You want to develop the ability to see the big picture. But, at the same time, even though the details can weigh you down, you must be very careful to understand them. The details should inform the big picture. An academic might consider the broader issues around the law, the problems with it, and what can be improved. A good practitioner will do the same – but because they are closer to the details, based on their practice, they should also be able to more accurately identify and address the big-picture issues and how to address them, much like an academic. 

对我来说，这意味着理论研究（一种适用于一般模型的广泛分析）非常好，而且非常有用。你想培养专注大局的能力，但是，与此同时，即使细节会让你失望，你也必须非常小心地理解它们。细节应反映大局。学者可能会考虑有关法律的更广泛问题、法律的问题以及可以改进的地方。好的从业者也会这样做——但因为他们更接近细节，根据他们的实践，他们也应该能够更准确地识别和解决大局问题以及如何解决这些问题，就像学者一样。

Academics and practitioners are both looking at the big picture, just from different directions. You can think of academics as being top-down and practitioners as being bottom-up, but they end up in the same place. The problem with a bottom-up approach is practitioners sometimes get lost in the detail. The problem with the top-down approach is academics don't necessarily know all the details. The goal is to find the right balance, to be sensitive to both sides of this.

学者和从业者都着眼于大局，只是从不同的方向。你可以认为学者是自上而下关注，从业者是自下而上，但他们最终都在同一个地方。自下而上方法的问题是从业者有时会迷失在细节中，自上而下方法的问题在于学者不一定知道所有细节。我们的目标是找到适当的平衡，对这两个方法都敏感。

It means that when you are working on a deal, perhaps working on a trial, take a step back and think about what is being done and why. Why is the deal structured this way? What are the laws in this area, and what’s the effect of those laws? It's what we do in law school and, over time, it is what I hope all of you will do in practice.

这意味着当你在做一笔交易时，也许在进行试验，退后一步，想想正在做什么以及为什么。为什么交易是这样安排的？这方面的法律是什么，这些法律的影响是什么？这是我们在法学院所做的，随着时间的推移，我希望你们所有人在实践中都会这样做。

Example: 

例子：

A friend of mine was the dean of one of the major law schools. As a student he was at the top of his class at Yale Law School. He was the editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, he had the dream resume in terms of law school and career.

我的一位朋友是一所著名法学院的院长。在耶鲁法学院时，他在班上名列前茅。他是耶鲁法律杂志的主编，在美国最高法院担任书记员。因此，他在法学院和职业方面拥有了令人艳羡的简历。

After clerking, when he was still very junior, he decided to join one of the major Wall Street law firms.

担任书记员后，他还很年轻，他决定加入华尔街的主要律所之一。

On his first day, the law firm’s managing partner decided to work with him. So, the managing partner came to my friend’s office and said, “Congratulations, welcome to the firm. As your first assignment, I’d like you to do a markup of the corporate secretary’s certificate for an upcoming closing.” My friend responded, “I’m thrilled to be here and working on this deal, but I have three questions. What’s a markup? What’s a corporate secretary’s certificate? And what’s a closing?” 

在他上任的第一天，律所的管理合伙人就决定与他合作。于是，管理合伙人来到我朋友的办公室，说：“恭喜，欢迎来到律所。作为你的第一个任务，我希望你为未来交割的公司秘书证书做一个标记。” 我的朋友回答说：“我很高兴来到这里并为这笔交易工作，但我有三个问题。什么是标记？什么是公司秘书证？什么是交割？”

And that’s the point. Going to law school sets you up to learn how to be a lawyer. It doesn't necessarily walk you through all the details. But you will pick them up in practice. 

这就是重点。去法学院让你学习如何成为一名律师，它不一定会引导你了解所有细节，但是你会在实践中学会它们。

As you’re practicing, also think about the business. Think about what you’re doing and why. What is the business context? What is the legal context? Why are the documents written in a particular way? What could be improved? Sometimes your answers will be completely off, but you should start thinking this way. 

在你实践的时候，同时想想商业。想想你在做什么以及为什么这样做。商业环境是什么？法律背景是什么？为什么文件以特定方式编写？有什么可以改进的？有时你的答案会完全错误，但你应该开始这样思考。

Example:

例子：

When I was a third-year associate, I worked with a group of equity arbitrageurs at a major investment bank to invent a new security, which was traded on the American Stock Exchange. The Amex is now part of the New York Stock Exchange. The securities were called “equity index warrants,” and they were basically the same as index options. Up to this point, all options were traded on a specialized exchange called the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). They had never been sold on a stock exchange to retail investors, like Mom and Dad, and they had never been underwritten like a standard securities offering. On the CBOE, the options all rely on standardized terms. On the Amex, in deciding how to structure the new securities, we were making up the terms as we went along. 

当我担任三年级律师时，我与一家大型投资银行的一群股票套汇者合作，发明了一种在美国证券交易所交易的新证券。Amex（American Stock Exchange，简称为“Amex”）现在是纽约证券交易所的一部分。这些证券被称为“股票指数权证”，基本与指数期权相同。直到那时，所有期权都在芝加哥期权交易所（Chicago Board Options Exchange，简称为“CBOE”）的专业交易所进行交易，从未向散户投资者出售，也从未像正常发行那样被承销。在CBOE上，期权都依赖于标准化的条款。在Amex，在决定如何设计新证券时，我们一直在制定条款。

When they were introduced, these securities became very popular. They were the most hotly-traded securities on the Amex for the next 12 months. 

当这些证券被引入后，它们变得非常受欢迎。在接下来的12个月里，它们是美国证券交易所交易最火爆的证券。

Why am I mentioning this? Because I drafted all the documents a year earlier for this new type of security. After it became a big business, a lot of other law firms jumped in. About a year later, I was on the phone negotiating with a senior partner from another law firm. We were going through the documents, and he was using my form (but he didn’t know it was my form). We got to a provision in the main agreement, and he said, “I think this section needs to be amended, because as you know, the purpose of this section is . . .”, and he started to describe why the section was there and why it needed to be changed for this deal.  

我为什么要提这个？因为我在一年前为这种新证券起草了所有文件。在Amex成为大生意后，许多其他律所加入。大约一年后，我在与另一家律所的高级合伙人电话谈判。我们正在查看文件，他正在使用我的格式文件（但他不知道这是我的格式文件）。我们找到了主要协议中的一项条款，他说，“我认为这部分需要修改，因为如你所知，这部分的目的是。。。”然后他开始描述为什么该部分存在以及为什么需要为这笔交易进行更改。

The truth is that I had drafted the particular provision to address an entirely different problem from what the senior partner was describing. Recall that this was a brand-new security, and my client did not know how it would trade in the secondary market. So we sat down late one Friday with beer and ham sandwiches, considered all the possible ways the securities might trade, and included that provision because it was “close enough.”

事实是，我起草了特定条款来解决与高级合伙人所描述的完全不同的问题。回想一下，这是一种全新的证券，我的客户不知道它将如何在二级市场上交易。因此，一个周五，我们坐下来喝啤酒、吃火腿三明治，考虑了证券交易的所有可能方式，并纳入了该条款，因为它“足够接近”。

What did this teach me? It taught me three things. First, standard forms can be deceptive. The reason for particular provisions may not always be apparent on their face. Second, it taught me that it’s important to understand why a particular law, regulation, or standard form was drafted the way it was. Knowing the history can be important in understanding the meaning, as well as how it should be applied under the circumstances before you. It’s not that the senior partner was wrong. His points were valid, because the market had continued to evolve after the forms were first drafted. And so, third, this taught me that, even though there may be a standard practice (or, in this case, a standard form), you should always consider whether its application remains valid today, in light of changes in the world up to today.

这教会了我什么？它教会了我三件事。首先，标准合同可能具有欺骗性。特定条款的原因可能并不总是显而易见。其次，它教会我，理解为什么特定的法律、法规或标准形式是这样起草的很重要。了解历史，对于理解法律含义以及在你目前的情况下应如何应用它，非常重要。不是高级合伙人错了，他的观点是正确的，因为在标准形式首次起草后市场继续发展。因此，第三，这教会我，即使可能存在标准做法（或者，在这种情况下，标准合同），鉴于世界直到今天一直在变化，你应该始终考虑标准合同的应用在今天是否仍然有效。

And that’s similar to how academics think – to better understand law and its weaknesses, and how it is likely to develop today and going forward. Sometimes a mythology develops around a particular law or practice – where people understand it to have a particular meaning or purpose – and it may or may not be accurate. 

这与学者的思考方式类似——更好地理解法律及其弱点，以及它在当今和未来可能会如何发展。有时，围绕特定的法律或实践会形成一种普遍的看法——人们将其理解为具有特定的含义或目的——它可能准确，也可能不准确。

What kind of studies do you recommend for Chinese students in an LL.M. program? Which law review/journal/newsletter do you recommend Chinese LL.M. students to follow?

对于LL.M.项目的中国学生，您推荐他们阅览哪些法律评论/期刊/时事通讯？可以做怎样的法律研究？

Answer to Question c

对问题c的回答

My advice to all students is to read The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times. You will begin to better understand the business world, deal structuring, and the business rationale for different transactions. Often, the law is incorrect or incomplete in the articles. Don’t read them to understand the law. But they are a great way to understand better the business rationale for different deals, the motivations, and why people did what they did. If you want to read only one, I prefer the Financial Times, but the Journal does a fine job too. 

我给所有学生的建议是阅读《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》和《金融时报》。因为你将开始更好地了解商业世界、交易结构和不同交易的商业原理（business rationale）。通常这些文章中的法律是不正确或者不完善的，不要通过阅读他们来理解法律。但它们是帮助你们更好理解不同交易的商业原理、动机以及为人们这样做的原因的很好方式。如果你只想阅读其中之一，我倾向于《金融时报》，《华尔街日报》同样很不错。

Regarding research, if you’re a Chinese LL.M. student in the United States, take advantage of learning about U.S. laws to understand better the laws and practices in China.

关于研究，如果你是在美国学习的LL.M.学生，利用了解美国法律的机会更好地了解中国的法律和实践。

Example: 

例子：

When we teach corporate law, we often adopt an economics approach to understanding corporations and markets in the United States. As you may know, a large part of corporate governance is intended to minimize “agency costs.” The basic idea is that, to the extent an organizational form can enhance informational transparency and align the interests of various stakeholders, such as shareholders and managers, it can lower agency costs and create a more efficient economic organization. And so a principal goal of U.S. corporate law is to minimize the agency costs that arise around the corporate form. 

当教授公司法时，我们经常采用经济学的方法来理解美国的公司和市场。正如你所知，公司治理过程中的一大部分工作是为了减少“代理成本”。其基本思想是，在一定程度上，组织形式可以提高信息透明度并协调股东和经理等各种利益相关者的利益，从而降低代理成本并创建更高效的经济组织。因此，美国公司法的一个主要目标是尽量减少围绕公司形式产生的代理成本。

The United States has a very deep and active equity market. For that reason, when a company raises capital, the lowest cost means of doing so is to issue stock into the public market. We focus on agency problems between shareholders and managers because we want to minimize inefficiencies that arise when a company goes public as one means to enhance value in the stock market. And this is a principal reason why fiduciary duties in the United States typically are for the benefit of a public company’s shareholders rather than other stakeholders. It is one way to reduce inefficiencies – lower the agency costs that arise when a company goes public – and, in the process, lower the cost of capital for U.S. public companies.

美国有一个非常深入和活跃的股票市场。因此，当一家公司筹集资金时，成本最低的方式是向公开市场发行股票。我们关注股东和经理之间的代理问题，因为我们希望最大限度地减少公司上市时出现的低效率，作为提高股票市场价值的一种手段。这就是为什么美国的信托义务通常是为了上市公司的股东而不是其他利益相关者的利益的主要原因。 这是减少效率低下的一种方法——降低公司上市时产生的代理成本——并在此过程中降低美国上市公司的资金成本。

Take that concept, apply it to China, and let’s consider those Chinese companies whose shares trade publicly but which may not have a substantial public float, a less-active stock market. Perhaps those firms receive their capital funding in the debt market or from other sources, including the government. Does it make sense, under those circumstances, for fiduciary duties to benefit the shareholders and not others? Probably not. 

把这个概念应用到中国，让我们考虑一下那些股票公开交易但可能没有大量公众持股量的中国公司，一个不太活跃的股票市场。也许这些公司从债务市场或其他来源（包括政府）获得资本资金。在这种情况下，让股东而不是其他人受益的信托义务是否有意义？可能没有。

Of course, Chinese companies still must address their own agency costs. Those costs may not arise between public shareholders and managers, as in the standard U.S. model; they may now arise between the Chinese government, managers, other capital sources, and the public shareholders. The agency cost analysis we use in the United States is still applicable. An approach to corporate governance that minimizes agency costs by aligning interests and enhancing disclosure can still apply in the Chinese context – but because the stakeholders are different, the optimal approach may also be different. 

当然，中国企业仍然必须解决自己的代理成本问题。这些成本可能不会像标准的美国模式那样在流通股股东和管理者之间产生；它们现在可能出现在中国政府、管理者、其他资金来源和流通股股东之间。我们在美国使用的代理成本分析仍然适用。一种通过协调利益和加强信息披露来最小化代理成本的公司治理方法在中国仍然适用——但由于利益相关者不同，最佳方法也可能不同。

In fact, there may be other ways to minimize agency costs beyond U.S.-style corporate governance. Due to common government ownership in China among a range of companies, there may be greater coordination across businesses that reduces inefficiencies. To the extent there is central management, a more consolidated view of how companies should operate may enhance efficiency in a way that does not exist in the United States.

事实上，除了美式的公司治理模式之外，可能还有其他方法可以最大限度地降低代理成本。由于在中国，许多公司都拥有共同的政府所有权，因此企业之间可能会加强协调，从而减少效率低下的情况。就集中管理的程度而言，对公司运作的更统一的观点可能会以美国所没有的方式提高效率。

The point is that Chinese LL.M. students shouldn’t study U.S. law simply to learn what we do in the United States. Of course, this may be relevant in practice, and so understanding the U.S. approach to corporate or securities regulation can be very useful. But there is more. If you were to study the U.S. system and bring that knowledge back to China, and nothing more, it might not make much sense. We are an equity-based system, while China relies more on public finance and debt. But by recognizing this, and understanding the reasons behind the U.S. approach, perhaps you might conclude that more consideration should be given to banks and other capital providers in China than in the United States. To the extent the goal is to lower the cost of capital, having fiduciary duties benefit China’s main capital providers, rather than defaulting to the standard U.S. shareholder model, may be more applicable, whether it’s banks or the national or local government or other capital providers who benefit.  

要点是，中国的LL.M学生不应该仅仅为了了解我们在美国所做的事情而学习美国法律。当然，这在实践中可能是相关的，因此了解美国对公司或证券监管的方法可能非常有用。但还有更多，如果你要研究美国的制度并将这些知识带回中国，仅此而已，这可能没有多大意义。我们是一个基于股权的体系，而中国更多地依赖公共财政和债务。但通过认识到这一点，并了解美国做法背后的原因，也许你可能会得出结论，与美国相比，中国的银行和其他资本提供者应该得到更多的对价。就降低资金成本而言，无论对银行、国家或地方政府或其他资金提供者，更适用的可能是有利于中国的主要资金提供者的信托义务，而不是默认美国的标准股东模式。

Take the same thought process, the same general model, that you learn in the United States and consider how to apply it in different contexts. There is real value to doing this. A Chinese student in the United States should do more than simply understand the U.S. system. Understand the lessons that can apply to China, that can benefit China. That’s the better approach.

采用你在美国学习的相同思维过程，相同的通用模型，并考虑如何在不同的环境中应用它，这样做有真正的价值。在美国的中国学生应该做的不仅仅是了解美国的制度，而是了解适用于中国、有益于中国的经验教训。这是更好的方法。