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.
全球金融危机之后，美国政客想要讨好选民时，他们知道该去攻击谁：2008年执掌华尔街各大银行的“肥猫银行家”。
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，美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)访问乔治敦大学(Georgetown University)，跟学生们讨论了社会问题。但是，他没有抨击作为金融业卖方的银行家，反而把目标对准了作为买方的基金管理者、尤其是强大的对冲基金经理和私人股本机构管理人。奥巴马说：“美国前25大对冲基金经理赚的钱比全国所有幼儿园老师赚的钱还要多。”他主张，“社会的彩票中奖者”应为他们的经营活动上缴更多税款。“这里有一个公平问题。”

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.
投资者应该当心。奥巴马这番讲话之所以重要，原因起码有三点。第一，这表明，愤怒政治并未走远。别管美国经济已走上（温和的）健康增长轨道和金融危机的记忆正在消退的事实了。美国选民仍对收入不公感到不安。所以，像民主党参议员伊丽莎白•沃伦(Elizabeth Warren)那样擅于煽风点火的政客，会一直有市场。
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，奥巴马把注意力集中在金融业买方身上，（或许不经意间）强调了一场更大的权力转移。金融危机过去7年之后，多数主流银行（摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)是个引人注目的例外）早就没有了个性鲜明、虚张声势的首席执行官，也不能创造出令人目眩的利润。监管使它们变得更像公共事业公司。
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，买方仍具有极其强大的盈利能力，仍发出令人兴奋的光环，吸引聪明头脑不断加入。所以，当近年来美国前财长蒂莫西•盖特纳(Timothy Geithner)或者美联储(Fed)前主席本•伯南克(Ben Bernanke)等人物从政府离任时，几乎无一例外地奔向那个领域。不久前，国际货币基金组织(IMF)总裁克里斯蒂娜•拉加德(Christine Lagarde)表示，如果18世纪法国作家伏尔泰(Voltaire)今天还活着，他将建议我们不要“追随银行家”去赚钱，而要“追随金融家”去赚钱。
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，奥巴马这番讲话的重要之处在于其时机。危机刚刚过去时，全球监管机构的重中之重是显著提高银行的安全性。但过去几年里，随着监管改革逐步到位，重点转向了买方。负责协调全球监管机构的巴塞尔金融稳定委员会(FSB)和协调美国监管机构的金融稳定监督委员会(FSOC)警告称，他们想对资产管理公司实施更严格的监管。特别是，金融稳定委员会上月发表了一份报告，呼吁对自身资产负债表规模超过1000亿美元、或者管理他人资产规模高于10000亿美元的所有机构加强监管。
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”.
大型对冲基金、私人股本公司以及其他资产管理机构正怒不可遏地尝试回击。这些举动也让共和党政客感到惊恐：上月，美国证交会(SEC)的丹尼尔•加拉格尔(Daniel Gallagher)抨击了他所称的“对资产管理机构的侵犯”。但金融稳定委员会和金融稳定监督委员会的举动是处于一种担心：正如IMF上月在一份报告中所警告的那样，“即便共同基金等简单的投资基金也可能给金融稳定带来风险”。这两家机构补充称，“监管机构需要通过第一手的监督，加强对它们的了解”。
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.
我们可以想象出一种情形：这种恫吓只是逐步变弱，而监管机构除了要求加强监管，最后什么也没做成——毕竟目前的监管疲劳程度已经很高了。但如果今年市场波动显著加剧，主流投资机构发生亏损——比如说因为美联储加息——政客们或许就会寻找新的替罪羊。
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.
无论如何，有一件事是显而易见的：资产管理行业正处在一个关键节点。这意味着，各类型的投资机构——尤其是那些“彩票中奖者”——需要在政治上变得精明，并会先发制人；或者，起码表现得比危机爆发时华尔街的银行家们高明很多。
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.
这些机构不应仅把奥巴马的话视为出于嫉妒的阻击而置之不理，或者希望这个问题将会消失，而是应当努力提前解决问题。第一步应承认，投资界的某些税收结构——比如减轻了私人股本人士税负的“附带权益”规则——在非金融人士看来即便不是极其恶劣的，也是特殊的。如果买方自己提出一些改革建议，那就更好了。