题目内容
Text 3 Most firms’ annual general meetings (AGMs) owe more to North Korea than ancient Greece. By long-standing tradition, bosses make platitudinous speeches, listen to lone dissidents with the air of psychiatric nurses towards patients and wait for their own proposals to be rubber-stamped by the proxy votes of obedient institutional investors. According to Manifest, a shareholder-advice firm, 97% of votes cast across Europe last year backed management. So should corporate democrats be cheered by the rebellion over pay at Royal Dutch Shell At the oil giant’s AGM on May 19th, 59% of voting shareholders sided against pay packages for top executives. In particular they disliked 4.2 million ($ 5.8 million) in shares dished out to five executives, which comprised about 12% of their total pay for 2008．Under the firm’s rules, such awards should be granted only if Shell’s total return in the year is in the top three of its peer group. In 2007 and 2008, Shell came a very close fourth, so the firm decided to pay out anyway. Shell is hardly a poster child for malfeasance: it is performing well, its pay is similar to that at other big oil firms and its shareholders previously gave directors discretion to bend the rules. They have used it to cut pay in the past. Still, although the vote is not binding, it is seriously embarrassing. The turnout was decent, at about 50%, and several big fund managers were clearly furious. The payouts have already been made and probably cannot be reversed, but Shell will be in disgrace for a while. Jorma Ollila, its chairman, said he took the vote "very seriously" and promised to "reflect carefully". After GSK, a British drugs firm, had a rebellion on pay in 2003, it completely redrew its pay policy. It is not just Shell that is facing unrest. Rough markets and a wider political uproar over pay have fuelled discontent across corporate Europe. Almost half of the voting shareholders at BP, another oil giant, failed to support its pay policies in April. At Rio Tinto, a mining firm with a habit of digging holes for itself, a fifth of voting shareholders rejected its remuneration policy. So far this year 15% of votes cast on pay in Britain have dissented, compared with 7% last year. In continental Europe owners are grumpy, too: in February almost a third of voting shareholders at Novartis, a Swiss drugs firm, demanded the right to approve its remuneration policy each year. But taking bosses to task for their ever-escalating salaries is not a substitute for keen oversight of performance and strategy. At Royal Bank of Scotland, which had to be rescued by taxpayers last year, 90% of voting shareholders rejected its pay policies last month. Yet back in August 2007, 95% of them ticked the box in support of the acquisition of ABN AMRO, the deal that brought the bank to its knees. Why does the author put forward the example of Shell
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
第二篇 A profound change seems to have taken place in the economic relationship between Americans and their animals. In 1993, the pet business was a $16 billion field dominated by mom and pop outfits and independent veterinarians. Today, it is a $ 23 billion empire. Nearly 60 percent of Americans live with one or more animals. More than 30 million have dogs, and 27 million have cats. While the overall number of owners has remained relatively stable since the 1980s, they are spending ever greater amounts on their animals. Signs of the boom are everywhere. On the retail side, superstore chains are covering the country. Americans consider cats and dogs a "part of the family" rather than property, which, legally, at least, they remain. (Being property themselves, for instance, animals cannot legally inherit property in wills, though growing numbers of them are being provided for in estates, and some law firms have developed a specialty in the area. ) The reasons for this metamorphosis from property to person are mysterious. No one seems to know exactly why Americans have changed their views. A decline in warmth among homo sapiens may explain part of the phenomenon, says attorney Lane Gabeler. She says it actually helps the practice by giving her people a softer edge. "People hate lawyers, and we look more human with a dog," Gabeler insists. On the other hand, there are more reasons now to own pets than there were a generation ago. Adults in their 20s and 30s marry and have kids later, leaving more room in their lives to adopt a beast. Medical research has determined that contact with pets can lower blood pressure and fend off heart attacks, so more and more of the elderly have embraced the animal kingdom. The pet industry is confident that the future remains bright. On the health insurance side alone, for example, the market has hardly been scratched. In the United Kingdom, 13 percent of the country’s 15 million owners have policies, and in Sweden, 57 percent of 7 million have been insured. But in the United States, with a total of 114 million pets, fewer than 1 percent of pets are covered if they choke on a chicken bone or try to bite the UPS truck driver. So if the bond between people and their creatures truly exists, and if that bond keeps deepening economically as well as emotionally, the next wave of American moguls may well be pet insurance agents rather than Internet pioneers. The passage supports which of the following statements
阅读下面的短文，文中有15处空白，每处空白给出4个选项，请根据短文的内容从4个选项中选择1个最佳答案。 Plants still give us our oxygen. If every plant (51) , you’ll die too. Without plants, you can’ t breathe. But you also need energy. You need it to breathe and to move. In fact, you need (52) to live. Some of the first living things couldn’t (53) their own energy. They needed the energy of sunlight, but they couldn’t make it themselves. (54) could they get it There was only one answer at the (55) . That is still true today. Animals still have to get their energy from. plants. Plants keep you (56) . Sometimes we eat the plants (57) . But sometimes an animal eats the plants (58) , then we eat the animal. Apples and oranges grow on trees—plants. Bread comes from plants in a (59) . We get eggs from birds, but the birds eat plants. (Or they eat insects, and the insects have eaten plants. ) We can eat (60) from a deer, but the deer has eaten plants. We eat (61) , and the fish has already eaten plants. (Or it ate other fish—and they ate plants. ) We don’ t eat (62) , but we drink milk. And the cow has eaten the grass for us. Every part of your food comes from plants. When you eat part of an animal, ask yourself, what did this animal eat If it ate other animals, ask yourself, what did they eat You will always (63) a plant. So what is really keeping you alive The green plants of the world are catching sunlight for you. You are using the energy from our own (64) . You are (65) the sun.
2008年12月31日，甲公司将一台生产用大型机器设备以110万元的价格销售给乙公司，账面原价为200万元。同时甲公司与乙租赁公司签订了一份融资租赁合同将该设备租回。合同主要条款及其他有关资料如下： (1)租赁标的物：大型机器设备。 (2)租赁期开始日：2008年12月31日。 (3)租赁期：2008年12月31日～2011年12月31日。 (4)租金支付方式：自承租日起每6个月于月末支付租金22.5万元。 (5)该设备的保险、维护等费用均由甲公司负担，估计每年约1万元。 (6)该设备在租赁开始日的公允价值为110万元。 (7)租赁合同规定年利率为14%。 (8)该设备的估计使用年限为10年，已使用5年，期满无残值，承租人采用年限平均法计提折旧，没有计提减值准备。 (9)租赁期满时，甲公司享有优惠购买选择权，购买价6万元。估计期满时的公允价值为45万元。 (10)承租人在租赁谈判和签订租赁合同过程中发生的可归属于租赁项目的手续费、律师费、差旅费、印花税等初始直接费用共计1.5万元，以银行存款支付。[(P/A，7%，6)= 4.7665；(P/F，7%，6)=0.6663；(P/A，8%，6)=4.6229；(P/F，8%，6)=0.6302] 要求：根据上述资料，回答下列第9至第13题。 对于设备每年发生的保险、维护等费用，应该( )。
试述鼻咽癌的病因、好发部位，病理特点和转移途径。
微信支付 
支付宝支付