评论
打印
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.
当丹?勒布(Dan Loeb)的信件出现在雀巢(Nestlé)总部所在地瑞士沃韦(Vevey)的时候，人们必定感到了困惑。曾经告诉一名首席执行官“躲到汉普顿斯(Hamptons)的海滨豪宅去打网球，并与其他社会名流交际”的这位对冲基金善辩者和Third Point创始人，令人意外地表现出支持的态度，甚至有点亲切。
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”.
勒布在信中对雀巢“固步自封”提出了警告，但他承诺要作为一名“积极参与的长期股东”帮助新任首席执行官马克?施奈德(Mark Schneider)重塑这个具有151年历史的瑞士经济支柱。Third Point将会“扮演建设性的角色，鼓励管理层以更强的紧迫感寻求变革”。
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.
在美国对冲基金趁着欧洲经济复苏来到欧洲并重组陷入困境的公司之际，建构主义是新的维权主义。他们礼貌地与内部人士交谈，而不是站在门外大声威胁现任高管。如果就连勒布也在使用和解和妥协的措辞，那就说明情况发生了变化。
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.
这在一定程度上是对旧世界的审慎适应。美国企业维权主义火力全开的有线电视节目风格，包括其激烈言辞和代理人争斗，不会很容易地在日内瓦湖畔奏效。另一方面这也是因为他们意识到了新的机遇：与其面对一场敌意收购，首席执行官们宁可让建构主义者进入董事会协助他们推行改革。
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.
不同利益方现在奇怪地看到了共同利益。一位新的首席执行官只有几年时间打开局面，否则他或她将会出局。董事会乐于见到有人让高管保持诚实。传统的投资经理希望他们投资的公司表现更好，但缺乏时间和精力来实现这一点。建构主义者有望帮他们所有人的忙。
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.
这种方式是由欧洲股东维权投资基金Cevian Capital和美国的ValueAct倡导的。与勒布持有雀巢1.25%的股份相比，这两家基金在它们所投资的公司中持有更多的股份，后来还在蒂森克虏伯(ThyssenKrupp)和罗尔斯-罗伊斯(Rolls-Royce)等公司获得了董事会席位。他们借此机会向其他董事介绍自己的观点和研究，往往主张改变战略。
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.
这是有可取之处的。维权投资者往往勤奋且擅于分析，而不受情绪的约束。与那些行业经验有限、依赖高管准备的简报的董事相比，他们思想独立，求知欲较强。一位维权投资者表示：“其他人可能阅读简报，但我在开会时拿出我自己的数据。”
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.
他们给公开上市公司带去私人股本的视角，而未必接管所有的控制权。当建构主义奏效的时候，它提供了如何重塑企业而非聚焦于季度业绩的中期愿景。另一名维权投资者表示：“它应该意味着努力让公司更好，而不仅仅是努力获得更好的回报，往往是在短期内。”
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.
但是尽管建构主义听起来诱人，目标企业仍应谨慎回应，尤其是当雀巢等公司的替代选择可能是由擅长削减成本的私人股本公司——3G资本(3G Capital)支持收购的时候。
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，问一问你是在与一个建构主义者打交道，还是在与一个仅仅是披着建构主义外衣的华尔街狼打交道。一个测试是，投资者是对企业战略更感兴趣，还是对通过杠杆化资产负债表、迫使公司派发特别股息或进行资本返还，以便获得快速回报更感兴趣？
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.
勒布呼吁雀巢将净债务增加一倍，以便为股票回购融资，而施奈德上周宣布了至多200亿瑞士法郎的股票回购计划。Third Point还想让雀巢卖掉其在欧莱雅(L'Oréal)所持的价值约250亿美元的23%股份，以“优化其资本返还政策”。这只是勒布提议的一部分，但它引起了共鸣。
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，问一问此类投资者通常寻求的削减成本，是会让企业更健康，更有能力再投资于增长，还是会损害其长期增长前景？公平地说，勒布的要求并不特别激进：与3G资本在卡夫亨氏(Kraft Heinz)使出的“零基预算”狠招相比，他对于提高雀巢利润率的想法很温和。
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.
困难在于，你怎么知道自己是在消除浪费，还是在葬送一个尚未成熟的前景？高端咖啡品牌Nespresso于1986年推出，花了十多年时间才达到如今的地位。它被雀巢培育了很长时间。
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.
这是第三点、也是最关键的测试。建构主义者的投资期有多长？他们当中的多数人把3到5年——这是私人股本投资的传统期限——称为“长期”，但这在雀巢的历史上只是一眨眼的功夫。一位首席执行官可能在这段时期提高运营效率，甚至重塑产品组合，但要创造和发展新品牌是来不及的。
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.
这需要投资者拿出更多的谦逊，无论他们是被称为维权主义者、建构主义者还是其他什么。一个批评态度的、积极参与且支持性的股东能够扮演一个角色，帮助公司变得更好。但如果他们正确履行职责，他们的投资将会比他们更加持久。
