用投資改變世界？

The mighty $12bn Ford Foundation announced last week that it has recruited Roy Swan, a senior Morgan Stanley banker, to run a portion of its investments. No surprise there, you might think: philanthropy is now such a multibillion-dollar “business” in the US, that foundations need plenty of financial savvy.

資產(chǎn)為120億美元、規(guī)模龐大的福特基金會(huì)(Ford Foundation)最近宣布聘請(qǐng)前摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)資深銀行家羅伊•斯旺(Roy Swan)來(lái)掌管其部分投資。你可能會(huì)想，這沒(méi)什么奇怪的，慈善事業(yè)如今在美國(guó)已是一項(xiàng)巨額的“生意”，這些基金會(huì)需要大量金融專業(yè)人士。

But this recruitment has a twist: Mr Swan is not only being tasked with producing market returns, but “social” returns, too. More specifically, the Ford Foundation recently earmarked $1bn for “mission” or “impact” investing, or investments that are supposed to promote social change and old-fashioned profits.

但這次聘用有一個(gè)新動(dòng)向：斯旺不僅要確保投資的市場(chǎng)回報(bào)，還要確保其“社會(huì)”效益。說(shuō)具體些，福特基金會(huì)最近專門撥款10億美元用于“使命”或“影響力”投資，即既促進(jìn)社會(huì)變革、又獲取傳統(tǒng)回報(bào)的投資。

That is because the Ford trustees no longer think that charity is “just” about handing out cash for worthy causes; it is also about aggressively trying to harness capitalism and capital markets to promote change. Or as Darren Walker, the foundation head, recently told a Financial Times conference: “It’s not just 5 per cent of your money you give away that matters. What you do with the other 95 per cent is almost more important.”

這是因?yàn)楦Ｌ鼗饡?huì)的受托人不再認(rèn)為慈善“僅僅”是將錢投入到有價(jià)值的事業(yè)上，慈善還要積極嘗試?yán)觅Y本主義和資本市場(chǎng)來(lái)推動(dòng)變革。或如該基金會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)人達(dá)倫•沃克(Darren Walker，見文首照片)最近在英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》一次會(huì)議上所說(shuō)：“重要的不僅是你捐出的那5%，你如何處理另外那95%幾乎更重要。”

Is this a good idea? It is a fascinating concept to ponder during this gift-giving season, particularly since many wealthy American families are scurrying to make tax-free philanthropic donations before tax reforms bite.

這是個(gè)好主意嗎?在這個(gè)饋贈(zèng)禮物的時(shí)節(jié)，這是個(gè)值得思考的有趣概念——尤其是考慮到許多富有的美國(guó)家庭正忙不迭地趕在稅改前作出免稅慈善捐贈(zèng)。

Until recently, most religions assumed that “doing good” was different from “making money”; so much so, that social activists tend to be suspicious of capitalism and bankers. And since most US endowments are required by tax laws to give away at least 5 per cent of their assets each year, the priority for chief investment officers has been to deliver returns above 5 per cent — at almost any cost.

直到最近，大多數(shù)宗教還認(rèn)為“行善”與“賺錢”是有區(qū)別的;乃至社會(huì)活動(dòng)家對(duì)資本主義和銀行家往往持懷疑態(tài)度。而且按稅法要求，美國(guó)大部分捐贈(zèng)基金每年至少要捐出其資產(chǎn)的5%，所以首席投資官首先考慮的是，幾乎不惜代價(jià)地實(shí)現(xiàn)5%以上的投資回報(bào)。

But behind the scenes, attitudes are changing. Ford’s $1bn pot is the biggest of this kind. But other entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are experimenting too. So are many family offices. And private sector financiers are scrambling to catch the wave. Earlier this year UBS, to cite one example, declared it was “committing at least $5bn” of its clients’ money to impact investing over the next five years. Indeed, the Global Impact Investing Network, a non-profit, estimates that impact investing is already a $114bn sector, with 40 per cent of funds originating in the US and 58 per cent from the for-profit asset management world. JPMorgan thinks this could hit $1tn by 2020.

但人們的態(tài)度正暗中發(fā)生改變。福特10億美元的專款就是這種轉(zhuǎn)變中最大的一筆撥款。其他機(jī)構(gòu)也在進(jìn)行嘗試，如洛克菲勒基金會(huì)(Rockefeller Foundation)、比爾及梅琳達(dá)•蓋茨基金會(huì)(Bill-Melinda Gates Foundation)。還有許多家族理財(cái)室也是。而且私營(yíng)部門的金融家也力爭(zhēng)趕上這波潮流。舉個(gè)例子，今年年初瑞銀(UBS)宣布未來(lái)五年，要將“至少50億美元”的客戶資金用于影響力投資。事實(shí)上，據(jù)非營(yíng)利組織Global Impact Investing Network估計(jì)，影響力投資已經(jīng)是一項(xiàng)價(jià)值1140億美元的業(yè)務(wù)，其中40%的資金來(lái)自美國(guó)，58%來(lái)自營(yíng)利性資產(chǎn)管理界。摩根大通(JPMorgan)認(rèn)為到2020年，這項(xiàng)業(yè)務(wù)可能達(dá)到1萬(wàn)億美元。

Some cynics — or holiday Scrooges — might just dismiss this as clever marketing by financiers, keen to assuage wealthy guilt. They also point out that trying to chase both goals with one investment risks muddying both parameters.

一些疑心重的人——或在節(jié)日禮物上比較摳門的人——可能對(duì)此不屑一顧，認(rèn)為這不過(guò)是金融家的精明營(yíng)銷，想要幫助有錢人減輕負(fù)罪感。他們還指出，想用一筆投資實(shí)現(xiàn)兩個(gè)目標(biāo)，可能會(huì)在兩方面都蒙混過(guò)關(guān)。

Perhaps so. At present, it is frustratingly hard to assess how impact investing has really performed. Research by GIIN and consultancies such as McKinsey suggests that investors think they are achieving annual returns of between 5 and 15 per cent. But this may be distorted because some impact investors are deliberately targeting sub-market returns to maximise the social good. And the phrase “mission investing” covers a wide spectrum.

也許是這樣吧。目前很難評(píng)估影響力投資的真實(shí)表現(xiàn)。Global Impact Investing Network和麥肯錫(McKinsey)等咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)的研究表明，投資者認(rèn)為它們的年回報(bào)率在5%到15%之間。但這一數(shù)據(jù)可能失真，因?yàn)橐恍┯绊懥ν顿Y者故意瞄準(zhǔn)低于市場(chǎng)平均水平的回報(bào)，以盡可能創(chuàng)造更多社會(huì)效益。而“使命投資”是個(gè)涵蓋范圍很廣的概念。

For some foundations, the concept means shunning securities that promote harm (such as guns or tobacco) or buying those that can deliver social or environmental benefits (such as healthcare or green energy). Others want quantifiable social returns.

對(duì)于有些基金來(lái)說(shuō)，這一概念意味著避開那些有害社會(huì)的證券，如槍支或煙草;或者是購(gòu)買那些能夠創(chuàng)造社會(huì)或環(huán)境效益的證券，如醫(yī)療或綠色能源。其他基金想要的是可量化的社會(huì)效益。

One of Ford’s first projects, for example, will be to invest in affordable housing in Detroit and Newark; the idea (or hope) is that this will provide measurable returns and statistics about home formation. This is undoubtedly admirable; whether it can work, or be replicated on a large scale, remains to be seen.

例如，福特第一批項(xiàng)目中有一個(gè)就是在底特律和紐瓦克投資可負(fù)擔(dān)性住房，他們認(rèn)為(或希望)這能提供可計(jì)量的回報(bào)以及有關(guān)住宅建設(shè)的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字。這無(wú)疑是值得贊賞的，至于其想法能否取得預(yù)想的效果，或能否大規(guī)模復(fù)制，仍有待觀察。

The good news is that many impact investors are aware of this shortcoming — and are pushing for better definitions and reporting systems. The even better news is that this trend seems to be both reflecting and intensifying a shift in consumer attitudes. A survey by US Trust, for example, shows that three-quarters of millennials put a high priority on social goals when they invest; that is a stark contrast to baby-boomers, where the proportion was only a third.

好消息是許多影響力投資者明白這一不足，并正在推動(dòng)更好的定義和報(bào)告體系。還有一個(gè)更好的消息：這一趨勢(shì)似乎反映并強(qiáng)化了一種消費(fèi)者態(tài)度的轉(zhuǎn)變。例如，美國(guó)信托(US Trust)的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查顯示，四分之三的千禧一代在投資時(shí)高度重視社會(huì)目標(biāo)，這與嬰兒潮一代形成鮮明的對(duì)比，后者的這個(gè)比例只有三分之一。

Maybe this will change when the kids grow up. If not, this will change the tenor of the investing industry more than anything that Ford, or other foundations, might do. After all, US millennials are slated to inherit around $12tn of assets in the next decade or two. Either way, this is making the philanthropy game far more interesting — and unpredictable — than ever before. Think of that, if you slip a coin into a charity tin over the holiday.

也許等千禧一代步入中年，他們的想法會(huì)改變。如果到那時(shí)他們的想法依然不變的話，這將比福特或其他基金會(huì)可能付出的任何努力都更能改變投資行業(yè)的關(guān)注點(diǎn)。要知道，未來(lái)十到二十年，美國(guó)的千禧一代將繼承約12萬(wàn)億美元的資產(chǎn)。不管怎樣，這都會(huì)令慈善變得比以往任何時(shí)候都更加有趣，且更加不可預(yù)測(cè)。在這個(gè)假期里，當(dāng)你往募捐箱里丟進(jìn)一枚硬幣，不妨思考一下這件事。

[email protected] 譯者/何黎