美國對衝基金爲何變得客氣了
There must have been bemusement when Dan Loeb’s letter turned up in Vevey, home of Nestlé. In place of the hedge fund polemicist who once told a chief executive to “retreat to your waterfront mansion in the Hamptons where you can play tennis and hobnob with your fellow socialites”, the founder of Third Point came over as surprisingly supportive, even amiable.
Mr Loeb included some warning shots about Nestlé being “stuck in its old ways” but he pledged to be “an engaged, long-term shareholder” assisting Mark Schneider, its new chief executive, to reshape the 151-year-old pillar of the Swiss economy. Third Point would “play a constructive role to encourage management to pursue change with a greater sense of urgency”.
勒布在信中對雀巢“固步自封”提出了警告，但他承諾要作爲一名“積極參與的長期股東”幫助新任首席執行官馬克?施奈德(Mark Schneider)重塑這個具有151年曆史的瑞士經濟支柱。Third Point將會“扮演建設性的角色，鼓勵管理層以更強的緊迫感尋求變革”。As US hedge funds venture to Europe to take advantage of a resurgent economy and shake up vulnerable companies, constructivism is the new activism. Instead of standing outside the gates, bellowing threats at incumbent executives, they are talking politely to insiders. When even Mr Loeb uses the lingo of conciliation and compromise, something has shifted.
在美國對衝基金趁着歐洲經濟復甦來到歐洲並重組陷入困境的公司之際，建構主義是新的維權主義。他們禮貌地與內部人士交談，而不是站在門外大聲威脅現任高管。如果就連勒布也在使用和解和妥協的措辭，那就說明情況發生了變化。
It is partly a prudent adaptation to the old world. The crossfire cable-show style of US corporate activism, with its fiery rhetoric and proxy battles, does not translate easily to the waterfront of Lake Geneva. It is also a recognition of a new opportunity: that chief executives prefer a constructivist on the board assisting them to push through changes to a hostile takeover.
這在一定程度上是對舊世界的審慎適應。美國企業維權主義火力全開的有線電視節目風格，包括其激烈言辭和代理人爭鬥，不會很容易地在日內瓦湖畔奏效。另一方面這也是因爲他們意識到了新的機遇：與其面對一場敵意收購，首席執行官們寧可讓建構主義者進入董事會協助他們推行改革。Various interests are now strangely aligned. A new chief executive has only a few years to have an impact, or he or she will be out. The board appreciates someone keeping executives honest. Traditional investment managers want their portfolio companies to work better but lack the time and focus to make it happen. The constructivist promises to do each of them a favour.
不同利益方現在奇怪地看到了共同利益。一位新的首席執行官只有幾年時間打開局面，否則他或她將會出局。董事會樂於見到有人讓高管保持誠實。傳統的投資經理希望他們投資的公司表現更好，但缺乏時間和精力來實現這一點。建構主義者有望幫他們所有人的忙。The approach was pioneered by Cevian Capital, a European activist fund, and ValueAct of the US. Both take larger stakes in companies than Mr Loeb’s 1.25 per cent of Nestlé, and then gain seats on the boards of companies such as ThyssenKrupp and Rolls-Royce. From there, they offer other directors their views and research, and often argue for changes in strategy.
這種方式是由歐洲股東維權投資基金Cevian Capital和美國的ValueAct倡導的。與勒布持有雀巢1.25%的股份相比，這兩家基金在它們所投資的公司中持有更多的股份，後來還在蒂森克虜伯(ThyssenKrupp)和羅爾斯-羅伊斯(Rolls-Royce)等公司獲得了董事會席位。他們藉此機會向其他董事介紹自己的觀點和研究，往往主張改變戰略。There are merits to it. Activist investors tend to be diligent and analytical, rather than bound by sentiment. Compared with directors who may have limited industry expertise and rely on the briefings prepared by executives, they are independently minded and curious. “The other guys may read the pack but I show up with my own data,” says one.
這是有可取之處的。維權投資者往往勤奮且擅於分析，而不受情緒的約束。與那些行業經驗有限、依賴高管準備的簡報的董事相比，他們思想獨立，求知慾較強。一位維權投資者表示：“其他人可能閱讀簡報，但我在開會時拿出我自己的數據。”They bring the perspective of private equity to public companies, without necessarily all of the control. When constructivism works, it provides a medium-term vision of how to reshape a business rather than focusing on quarterly results. “It should mean working to make the company better, not just trying to earn a better return, often in the short term,” another activist says.
他們給公開上市公司帶去私人股本的視角，而未必接管所有的控制權。當建構主義奏效的時候，它提供瞭如何重塑企業而非聚焦於季度業績的中期願景。另一名維權投資者表示：“它應該意味着努力讓公司更好，而不僅僅是努力獲得更好的回報，往往是在短期內。”But enticing as it sounds, particularly when the alternative for companies such as Nestlé could be a takeover backed by 3G Capital, the cost-cutting private equity firm, the corporate targets should respond with care.
但是儘管建構主義聽起來誘人，目標企業仍應謹慎迴應，尤其是當雀巢等公司的替代選擇可能是由擅長削減成本的私人股本公司——3G資本(3G Capital)支持收購的時候。First, ask whether you are dealing with a constructivist, or simply a Wall Street wolf in constructivist clothing. One test is whether the investor is more interested in corporate strategy or in gaining a rapid reward by leveraging the balance sheet and forcing a special dividend or capital return.
首先，問一問你是在與一個建構主義者打交道，還是在與一個僅僅是披着建構主義外衣的華爾街狼打交道。一個測試是，投資者是對企業戰略更感興趣，還是對通過槓桿化資產負債表、迫使公司派發特別股息或進行資本返還，以便獲得快速回報更感興趣？Mr Loeb has called for Nestlé to double its net debt in order to finance a share buyback, and Mr Schneider last week announced a buyback programme of up to SFr20bn. Third Point also wants Nestlé to sell its 23 per cent stake in L’Oréal, which is worth about $25bn, to “optimise its capital return policies”. This is only one element of Mr Loeb’s proposal but it resonates.
勒布呼籲雀巢將淨債務增加一倍，以便爲股票回購融資，而施奈德上週宣佈了至多200億瑞士法郎的股票回購計劃。Third Point還想讓雀巢賣掉其在歐萊雅(L'Oréal)所持的價值約250億美元的23%股份，以“優化其資本返還政策”。這只是勒布提議的一部分，但它引起了共鳴。Second, ask whether the cost-cutting that such investors usually seek will make the business fitter and better able to reinvest in growth, or will damage its long run prospects. In fairness to Mr Loeb, his demands are not particularly aggressive: the improvement he wants in Nestle’s margins is modest compared with 3G’s zero-based budgeting onslaught at Kraft Heinz.
其次，問一問此類投資者通常尋求的削減成本，是會讓企業更健康，更有能力再投資於增長，還是會損害其長期增長前景？公平地說，勒布的要求並不特別激進：與3G資本在卡夫亨氏(Kraft Heinz)使出的“零基預算”狠招相比，他對於提高雀巢利潤率的想法很溫和。The difficulty is knowing whether you are eliminating waste or a prospect that has not yet matured. Nespresso, the premium coffee brand, was launched in 1986 and took more than a decade to become what it is today. It was nurtured by Nestlé for a long time.
困難在於，你怎麼知道自己是在消除浪費，還是在葬送一個尚未成熟的前景？高端咖啡品牌Nespresso於1986年推出，花了十多年時間才達到如今的地位。它被雀巢培育了很長時間。This is the third, most vital test. What is the constructivists’ time horizon? Most of them call three to five years — the traditional period for private equity investment — “long term” but that is a blip in Nestle’s history. A chief executive may bring greater efficiency to operations in that time, and even reshape the portfolio, but it is too brief to create and develop even one new brand.
這是第三點、也是最關鍵的測試。建構主義者的投資期有多長？他們當中的多數人把3到5年——這是私人股本投資的傳統期限——稱爲“長期”，但這在雀巢的歷史上只是一眨眼的功夫。一位首席執行官可能在這段時期提高運營效率，甚至重塑產品組合，但要創造和發展新品牌是來不及的。It calls for even greater humility on the part of investors, whether they are called activists, constructivists or whatever. The critical, engaged, supportive shareholder can play a role in helping companies to become better. But if they do their job properly, their investments will outlast them.
這需要投資者拿出更多的謙遜，無論他們是被稱爲維權主義者、建構主義者還是其他什麼。一個批評態度的、積極參與且支持性的股東能夠扮演一個角色，幫助公司變得更好。但如果他們正確履行職責，他們的投資將會比他們更加持久。
