點解公司的董事擁有管理權, 而非股東擁有管理權?

跟據公司法(company ordinace),股東(shareholders)與董事(directors)之間是代理人關係(agency relationship). 股東是一間公司的擁有者(owner),而董事是由股東所委(appointment)作為公司的管理層,管理公司一切運作。而股東本身並非沒有管理權,而是將管理權授權與某些人。我們稱之為seperation of power(即管理權與擁有權分開),董事有權召開董事大會(meeting of board of directors)商討公司方針等事宜(包括清盤winding-up),董事亦有權在股東大會上行駛權力。但最終同意與否皆決於股東的股東大會(general meeting)

2007-01-25 14:27:54 補充：
董事與股東之間是有代理人與授權人之間的關係(尤如保險經紀與投保人之間的關係),所以董事在公司裏有任何蓄意隱瞞存在的利益衝突(conflict of interest)與私人利益(secret profit)或者不適當地行駛權力(exercise their power not in proper propose),而沒有向股東報告並得到其同意,亦即遺反代理人條例,股東發現後可從法律途徑解決(以下方法省略)。

董事制
股東作為公司的擁有人, 他有權買賣手上的股票, 有權投決定票, 有權投票換董事, 但沒有菅理權, 除非他身任董事
董事作為公司的管理人及經營運作, 可以使用專業知識/經驗去推動公司前進, 增加搵錢能力, 又可使用財務技巧, 增加擴大公司及業務.

CEO - chef executive officer is elected by the shareholders.
Shareholders own certain percent stocks of the company but they are not necessary to have the knowledge or expertise to run the company.
A lot firms are selling their shares in the public (HKSE, NYSE, etc)
Anyone can be the shareholder once you step into the market, but not all the shareholders have the authorities or rights to make decisions for the firm.
Only some of the shareholders who own some "called" warranty have certain authorities to do so.

When the CEO is making certain crucial decisions for the company, they need approval from the big shareholders. If the shareholders rejected the proposal, then CEO cannot process it.

The advantage of this system is increasing the cash flow from the public for financing the company and make certain amount of investment. And the big shareholders elect the best person who's full knowledge and experience to be the CEO and run the company.