金融業買方成爲監管新重點

When US politicians wanted to court voters after the global financial crisis, they knew who to attack: the “fat-cat bankers” running the Wall Street banks in 2008.

全球金融危機之後，美國政客想要討好選民時，他們知道該去攻擊誰：2008年執掌華爾街各大銀行的“肥貓銀行家”。

This week, President Barack Obama visited Georgetown University to discuss social issues with students. But instead of railing against the financial sell side — the bankers — he took aim at the asset managers who make up the buy side; in particular, powerful hedge fund managers and private equity players. “The top 25 hedge fund managers made more money than all the kindergarten teachers in the country,” he said, arguing that “society’s lottery winners” should be forced to pay higher taxes on their operations. “There’s a fairness issue here.”

不久前，美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)訪問喬治敦大學(Georgetown University)，跟學生們討論了社會問題。但是，他沒有抨擊作爲金融業賣方的銀行家，反而把目標對準了作爲買方的基金管理者、尤其是強大的對衝基金經理和私人股本機構管理人。奧巴馬說：“美國前25大對衝基金經理賺的錢比全國所有幼兒園老師賺的錢還要多。”他主張，“社會的彩票中獎者”應爲他們的經營活動上繳更多稅款。“這裏有一個公平問題。”

Investors should take note. For there are at least three reasons why Mr Obama’s comments are important. First, it shows that the politics of anger has not died away. Never mind the fact that the economy is on a (moderately) healthy growth trajectory and that memories of the financial crisis are fading. US voters remain exercised by income inequality. Hence the continued appeal of firebrand politicians such as Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren.

投資者應該當心。奧巴馬這番講話之所以重要，原因起碼有三點。第一，這表明，憤怒政治並未走遠。別管美國經濟已走上（溫和的）健康增長軌道和金融危機的記憶正在消退的事實了。美國選民仍對收入不公感到不安。所以，像民主黨參議員伊麗莎白•沃倫(Elizabeth Warren)那樣擅於煽風點火的政客，會一直有市場。

Second, by focusing on the buy side of finance, Mr Obama has (perhaps unwittingly) highlighted a bigger power shift. Seven long years after the crisis, most mainstream banks (with the notable exception of JPMorgan Chase) have long since lost their colourful, swashbuckling chief executives, as well as the ability to churn out dazzling profits. Regulation has made them more utility-like.

第二，奧巴馬把注意力集中在金融業買方身上，（或許不經意間）強調了一場更大的權力轉移。金融危機過去7年之後，多數主流銀行（摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)是個引人注目的例外）早就沒有了個性鮮明、虛張聲勢的首席執行官，也不能創造出令人目眩的利潤。監管使它們變得更像公共事業公司。

But the buy side still has pockets of extraordinarily high profitability and an aura of excitement that sucks in smart brains. So when figures such as Timothy Geithner, former Treasury secretary, or Ben Bernanke, former US Federal Reserve chairman, have left government service in recent years, they have almost invariably headed in that direction. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, recently said that 18th century French writer Voltaire would today advise us not to “follow the banker” in pursuit of money, but rather to “follow the financier”.

但是，買方仍具有極其強大的盈利能力，仍發出令人興奮的光環，吸引聰明頭腦不斷加入。所以，當近年來美國前財長蒂莫西•蓋特納(Timothy Geithner)或者美聯儲(Fed)前主席本•伯南克(Ben Bernanke)等人物從政府離任時，幾乎無一例外地奔向那個領域。不久前，國際貨幣基金組織(IMF)總裁克里斯蒂娜•拉加德(Christine Lagarde)表示，如果18世紀法國作家伏爾泰(Voltaire)今天還活着，他將建議我們不要“追隨銀行家”去賺錢，而要“追隨金融家”去賺錢。

The third reason Mr Obama’s remarks must be noted is their timing. In the immediate aftermath of the crisis, the overwhelming priority of global regulators was to make banks much safer. But in the past couple of years, as regulatory reforms have been put into place, the emphasis has shifted to the buy side. The Financial Stability Board in Basel (which co-ordinates global regulators) and Financial Stability Oversight Council (which organises American bodies) have warned that they want to extend tighter controls over asset managers. In particular, last month the FSB issued a report calling for all institutions to face intensified oversight if they either have more than $100bn on their own balance sheets, or manage more than $1,000bn worth of assets that belong to others.

第三，奧巴馬這番講話的重要之處在於其時機。危機剛剛過去時，全球監管機構的重中之重是顯著提高銀行的安全性。但過去幾年裏，隨着監管改革逐步到位，重點轉向了買方。負責協調全球監管機構的巴塞爾金融穩定委員會(FSB)和協調美國監管機構的金融穩定監督委員會(FSOC)警告稱，他們想對資產管理公司實施更嚴格的監管。特別是，金融穩定委員會上月發表了一份報告，呼籲對自身資產負債表規模超過1000億美元、或者管理他人資產規模高於10000億美元的所有機構加強監管。

Big hedge funds, private equity firms and other asset managers are furiously trying to fight back. The moves have also dismayed Republican politicians: last month Daniel Gallagher of the Securities and Exchange Commission attacked what he calls an “assault on asset managers”. But the FSB and FSOC moves are prompted by a concern that “even simple investment funds such as mutual funds can pose financial stability risks”, as the IMF warned in a report last month, adding that “regulators need to know more about them through hands-on supervision”.

大型對衝基金、私人股本公司以及其他資產管理機構正怒不可遏地嘗試回擊。這些舉動也讓共和黨政客感到驚恐：上月，美國證交會(SEC)的丹尼爾•加拉格爾(Daniel Gallagher)抨擊了他所稱的“對資產管理機構的侵犯”。但金融穩定委員會和金融穩定監督委員會的舉動是處於一種擔心：正如IMF上月在一份報告中所警告的那樣，“即便共同基金等簡單的投資基金也可能給金融穩定帶來風險”。這兩家機構補充稱，“監管機構需要通過第一手的監督，加強對它們的瞭解”。

It is possible to imagine a scenario where this sabre-rattling simply dies away, and regulators end up doing nothing more than demanding increased oversight — after all, levels of regulatory fatigue are high. But if the markets become dramatically more volatile this year and mainstream investors lose money — say, because the Fed increases interest rates — politicians might be looking for new scalps.

我們可以想象出一種情形：這種恫嚇只是逐步變弱，而監管機構除了要求加強監管，最後什麼也沒做成——畢竟目前的監管疲勞程度已經很高了。但如果今年市場波動顯著加劇，主流投資機構發生虧損——比如說因爲美聯儲加息——政客們或許就會尋找新的替罪羊。

Either way, the one thing that is clear is that the asset management world is at a critical juncture. And that implies that investment groups of all stripes — especially those “lottery winners” — need to be politically smart and proactive; or at least a great deal savvier than the Wall Street bankers when the crisis hit.

無論如何，有一件事是顯而易見的：資產管理行業正處在一個關鍵節點。這意味着，各類型的投資機構——尤其是那些“彩票中獎者”——需要在政治上變得精明，並會先發制人；或者，起碼錶現得比危機爆發時華爾街的銀行家們高明很多。

Instead of just dismissing Mr Obama’s comments as jealous sniping, or hoping the issue will go away, they should try to address them upfront. One place to start would be to recognise that some of the tax structures in the investment world — such as the “carried interest” rule that lightens the tax burden on private equity players — look peculiar, if not egregious, to most non-financiers. Better still, the buy side might float some proposals of its own.

這些機構不應僅把奧巴馬的話視爲出於嫉妒的阻擊而置之不理，或者希望這個問題將會消失，而是應當努力提前解決問題。第一步應承認，投資界的某些稅收結構——比如減輕了私人股本人士稅負的“附帶權益”規則——在非金融人士看來即便不是極其惡劣的，也是特殊的。如果買方自己提出一些改革建議，那就更好了。