We love to engage on the issues of the day. We love it. We comment on the news, we post our views on social media, we march, we protest ... But who among us is working on solutions, big solutions to big issues, like gun violence, mistreatment of workers, flood, famine, drought? Who is on it? Boom! These guys.
我們熱愛參與每日熱門議題。 我們很熱愛。 我們對新聞發表意見, 我們在社交媒體上 張貼我們的看法, 我們遊行,我們抗議…… 但我們當中有誰在努力找解決方案, 大議題的大解決方案, 像是槍枝暴力、 對工人的不當對待、 食物、饑荒、乾旱? 誰在處理它? 砰! 這些人。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
What? You were hoping for Peter Parker? The Avengers? You don't expect this beacon of diversity, these good-looking, nicely dressed dudes just oozing charisma to solve the issues? Well good, because they're actually not going to solve the issues. But before you dismiss them, let me say, they're not going to solve the issues, but they will show us how. So who are they? They're activist investors: Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb, Paul Singer, Barry Rosenstein. These are the modern-day OGs of Wall Street.
怎樣?不然你們期待看到 彼得帕克(蜘蛛人)嗎? 復仇者聯盟? 你們不期望這種多樣性的指引, 這些長相好看穿著也好看的傢伙, 散發魅力來解決這些議題? 嗯,很好,因為實際上 他們並不會解決議題。 但在你把他們打發掉之前, 讓我說句話,他們不會解決議題, 但他們會讓我們看到要怎麼做。 所以,他們是誰? 他們是行動派投資者: 卡爾伊坎、丹勒布、 保羅辛格、貝瑞羅森斯坦。 他們是現代的華爾街老前輩。
(Laughter) These are scary dudes.
(笑聲)這些可怕的傢伙。
I don't mean Green Goblin scary. I mean real scary. The fear they strike in the hearts of a company's CEO and board when they enter its stock is the same fear you feel when you hear a bear outside your tent, and it's dark, and you're sitting there with a mouthful of Doritos --
不是綠惡魔(蜘蛛人反派)的 那種可怕。是真的可怕。 當他們進入一間公司的股份, 會讓該公司的執行長 和董事發自內心感到恐懼, 有種情境也會產生同樣的恐懼: 就是你得知你的帳篷外面有隻熊, 且外面很黑, 且你還滿口都是多力多滋 坐在那裡時——
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
that just moments ago, you had snuck out of the tent to pull down from the bear hang, because you had the munchies. That fear. And in that moment, you are praying, "Oh Lord, please let this bear be passing through." That bear is not passing through! That bear made a detour for you. Bears like Doritos!
沒多久之前,你溜出帳篷, 因為想吃零食而拿了包多力多滋。 那種恐懼。 在那一刻,你在祈禱: 「喔,主啊,希望這隻熊只是路過。」 那隻熊並不是路過! 那隻熊為了你專程繞路。 熊很愛多力多滋!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Activists like money. Some activists also like Doritos, but they definitely want money. And the way they make money, the way they create value, is by getting management of corporations to make changes.
行動派喜歡錢。 有些行動派也愛多力多滋, 但他們肯定是想要錢的。 而他們賺錢的方式, 他們創造價值的方式, 是讓企業的管理階層 去做改變。
Now, some will argue that the changes they create, the value they create, is too short-term in nature. And others will say the tactics they use are egregious. I agree. Long, drawn-out lawsuits, public smear campaigns -- there is no need for that. But I must say, there's a small handful of activists, very small, that go to great lengths to be constructive and collaborative. And overall, we have to give credit where credit is due. As a group, they have managed to catalyze large-scale change in large corporations, and that's no small feat.
有些人可能會主張, 他們所創造的改變, 他們所創造的價值, 在本質上太短期了。 其他人則會說, 他們用的戰略很過份。 我同意。 拖很久的漫長法律訴訟, 公開抹黑的宣傳活動—— 這實在沒有必要。 但我必須要說,有一小群行動派, 非常小群, 不遺餘力去做到 建設性和同心協力。 整體來說,我們必須要 歸功給應得功勞的人。 以群體來說,他們有辦法 在大企業中促進大規模的改變, 那可不是小功而已。
Now, imagine a world where all investors were working with management to make change, not just to make more money, but to improve the environment and society. Imagine what a greener and better world this would be. Now, why? Why would an investor bother? And at first, blush I'm with you: Why would an investor care? Because if doing well on ESG issues -- environmental, social and governance issues -- was just an act of good corporate citizenship, then I agree, investors would not care. But the good news, and perhaps the saving grace for our collective futures, is that it's so much more than an act of good corporate citizenship. It's good business. There's now enough evidence that shows a clear correlation between ESG performance and financial performance. Companies that do good for the environment and society also do well financially. And some of the best companies are catching on.
想像一個世界, 在那裡,所有投資者都 和管理層級合作創造改變, 不只是賺更多錢, 還要改善環境和社會。 想像一下,那會是個 多麼綠意盎然、多麼棒的世界。 那,為什麼? 投資者為什麼要費心? 一開始,我和你們一樣臉紅: 投資者為何在乎? 因為如果能處理好 ESG 的議題—— 環境、社會、治理的議題—— 那只是一種好的企業公民行為而已, 那麼我同意投資者不會在乎。 可是,有好消息, 也許對我們集體的未來而言 是可補償缺點的優點, 那就是它遠遠超過只是 一種好的企業公民行為。 它是好的生意。 現在有足夠的證據可以顯示, 在 ESG 表現和財務表現 之間有明確的相關性。 在環境和社會上做得很好的公司, 在財務上也會很出色。 一些最好的公司開始理解到這一點。
Like Adidas: Adidas is cleaning up the ocean and making money in the process. Adidas teamed up with an organization called Parley for the Oceans. Parley goes out and collects plastic waste from the ocean. Adidas uses the plastic waste to make shoes. Shoes made with plastic from the ocean: good for the environment and good for business. Because if you know that rapidly growing consumer segment known as hipsters -- and I know you know hipsters -- then you know that a hipster faced with the choice between a no-name shoe and an Adidas made with plastic from the ocean will pick the Adidas every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and then walk around like it's no big deal but look for every opportunity to talk about them. Like, in an Uber Pool.
比如愛迪達: 愛迪達在清理海洋, 並在過程中賺錢。 愛迪達和海洋會議 (Parley for the Oceans)組織合作。 該組織會實際行動, 收回在海洋上的塑膠廢物。 愛迪達則用塑膠廢物來製作鞋子。 用海洋塑膠做成的鞋子: 對環境很好,對事業也很好。 因為如果你知道有一種快速成長的 客戶群叫做「文青 (hipsters)」—— 我知道你們都知道文青—— 那麼你們就知道,當文青要選擇 非名牌的鞋子或是 用海洋塑膠製成的愛迪達鞋子, 他們會選擇每天穿愛迪達, 星期日還要穿兩次, 四處走動,好像這雙鞋 也沒什麼大不了的, 卻完全不錯失任何可以 談論這雙鞋的機會。 比如,在 Uber Pool 共乘時。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
"Hey, I noticed you looking at my feet."
「嘿,我注意到 你一直在看我的腳。」
"What? Dude, no, I'm just making slides. I'm a consultant. I make slides. I'm making PowerPoint slides, I'm not looking --"
「什麼?老兄,沒有, 我只是在做投影片。 我是顧問,我做投影片, 我沒有在看——」
"No, it's fine. I get why you'd be looking. The plastic on my shoe must be bothering you. Well, let me talk about it for the rest of this ride. You see, the plastic on my shoe is from the ocean, on my feet, not in your fish, being walked on, not being munched on. Happy feet. Happy fish. Happy ocean. Doing my part. I got eco-shoes. I got eco-shoes. You need some eco-shoes?"
「不,沒關係。 我能了解你會想看。 我鞋子上的塑膠一定讓你覺得礙眼。 讓我用所有剩下的共乘時間 來跟你談談它吧。 我鞋子上的塑膠是來自海洋, 在我的腳上, 不是在你吃的魚的肚子裡, 是拿來穿的,不是拿來咀嚼的。 開心的腳。開心的魚。 開心的海洋。 我盡我的本份。 我買環保鞋。我買環保鞋。 你需要環保鞋嗎?」
And so on, just cornering him. We've all been there.
諸如此類,一直嚕他。 我們都遇過這種事。
"Hey, pass me your cell phone. I'll give you a discount code. Let me give you a discount code."
「嘿,把你的手機傳給我。 我要給你一個優惠碼。 讓我給你優惠碼。」
We've all been -- Folks, I have jumped out of moving Uber Pools.
我們都遇過—— 我曾從行駛中的 Uber Pools 共乘車上跳車過。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Just, moving, highway, I'm out. I'm out.
就,行駛中,高速公路, 我要下車了。我要下車了。
But we've got to forgive the hipsters, we need to love the hipsters. We need hipsters, and we need companies like Adidas, and what we need most is for investors to convince other companies to behave like Adidas.
但,我們得要原諒文青。 我們得要愛文青。 我們需要文青,我們需要 像愛迪達這樣的公司, 我們最需要投資者 能夠說服其他公司 做出像愛迪達這樣的行為。
And herein lies the challenge. There's a growing group of investors, call them "conscious investors." Conscious investors care about ESG issues. And they talk a lot about engaging management on ESG issues. But they don't actually get management to make changes that will improve the environment and society. And this is where conscious investors can take a page from the playbook of the activist investors, because the activist investors have no issues getting management to make changes. They have no issues turning up the heat.
挑戰的地方就在這裡了。 有一種投資者叫「有意識的投資者」, 人數越來越多。 有意識的投資者在乎 ESG 議題。 他們常會談論要讓 管理階層參與 ESG 議題。 但他們並不會真的讓管理階層做出 能夠改善環境和社會的改變。 這就是有意識的投資者可以 向行動派投資者學習的地方了, 因為要讓管理階層做出改變, 對行動派投資者來說並不是問題。 要施壓完全不成問題。
Take Paul Singer. He's an old-school Wall Street OG, now in his 70s, loves Doritos, loves making money. Argentina owed Paul 600 million dollars and would not pay. Big mistake. You can't take money from an OG and not pay it back. Paul went to war with Argentina. I am not inventing. This is big. This was huge. This was bigger than Tyson vs Holyfield, Ali vs Foreman. This was man vs country. Paul Singer started going around the world trying to seize up Argentinian assets. At one point, he tried to seize an Argentinian navy vessel off the coast of Ghana. He tried to take over a 350-foot ship while big navy officers with big guns were on the ship. He got the police in Ghana to show up with a crane and threaten to board the ship, and it wasn't until the navy officers drew their weapons that they called off the operation. That's what I call turning up the heat.
比如保羅辛格。 他是老派的華爾街前輩, 現在七十多歲了, 愛吃多力多滋,愛賺錢。 阿根廷欠保羅六億美金, 不願意付錢。 大錯特錯。 你不能拿了前輩的錢卻不還錢。 保羅和阿根廷開戰。 我沒無中生有。 這是件大事,非常大。 超越泰森和霍利菲爾德的對決, 阿里和福爾曼的對決。 這是一個人和一個國家的對決。 保羅辛格開始遊走全世界, 試圖扣押阿根廷的資產。 他一度試圖扣押 阿根廷在迦納海岸的海軍船艦。 他試圖接管一艘 350 英呎的船艦, 船艦上還有武裝的重要海軍軍官。 他讓迦納的警方帶著 一台起重機一起現身, 威脅要登上船艦, 直到海軍軍官亮出武器, 他們才取消行動。 這就是我所謂的施壓。
Now, you may say Paul lost the battle. And I'll say, Paul won the war, because Paul didn't get paid one time, he got paid 20 times his original investment.
你們可能會說, 保羅輸了這場仗。 我會說,保羅贏了戰爭, 因為保羅拿回的錢不是一倍, 是他最初投資的二十倍。
Then you have Barry Rosenstein. His fund, Jana Partners, started stealth-mode buying up stock in Whole Foods, at a time when Whole Foods was struggling. They got to eight percent, came out, and pushed Whole Foods to sell itself to Amazon, and not because Barry wanted same-day delivery of his organic Doritos.
接著,還有貝瑞羅森斯坦。 他的基金,JANA Partners, 開始偷偷摸模式, 買進所有全食超市股票, 當時全食超市經營得很辛苦。 他們得到了 8%,公開表態, 逼迫全食超市 把它自己賣給亞馬遜, 並不是因為貝瑞希望他的 有機多力多滋當能日配送。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
He wanted to make some money. Now, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, and the board did not want to sell themselves to Amazon, because that would be the prime example of selling out. But in the end, they caved. Why? Because Barry turned up the heat, and he made 300 million dollars in the process. And he did not leave a very nice impression on John. You're not going to see John and Barry just hugging it out at the Whole Foods café.
他想要的是賺錢。 全食超市的執行長 約翰麥基以及董事會 並不想要把他們自己賣給亞馬遜, 因為這就是出售企業的例子。 但最終,他們屈服了。 為什麼?因為貝瑞施壓, 過程中,他賺了三億美元。 他並沒有留給約翰很好的印象。 你們不會看到約翰和貝瑞 在全食超市的咖啡廳 相互擁抱一下就沒事了。
Let's take a very different example now: the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund, a $10 billion conscious investor. They recently came out hard against private prisons in the US, and good for them. As a new parent, I tell you, I am troubled by devastating images of young children being ripped out of the arms of their parents at the US border and being placed in private detention facilities that did too little to help the kids maintain contact with their parents.
現在,咱們來舉個 很不一樣的例子: 芝加哥教師養老基金, 這個有意識的投資者 擁有一百億美金。 他們最近在美國嚴厲打擊私人監獄, 這對他們很好。 讓我這位新手家長 告訴各位,我很受不了 一種毀滅性的影像: 在美國邊境,小孩子被從 父母的懷抱中強行拉開, 被送到私人收容機構, 這些機構幾乎沒有做什麼 來協助這些孩子 維持和父母的聯絡。
So what did the Chicago teachers do? Did they get management to make changes? Did they turn up the heat? Did they look management in the eye and say, "This is no way to run a business. There's a different way to do things. Let me show you"? No. They just sold their stock. Selling did nothing. It's not like management woke up the next day and had an epiphany and said, "Gosh, the teachers sold their stock. We'd better be nice to the kids." No. That didn't happen. And despite a decade of several high-profile divestitures in private prison stock in the US, the stock has continued to climb. The stock over that same period has outperformed the market. And the biggest issue is, we went from a set of conscious investors owning the stock to it potentially being owned by investors who don't care about these issues and don't care what you think about these issues.
所以,芝加哥的教師怎麼做? 他們有讓管理階層做出改變嗎? 他們有施壓嗎? 他們有沒有看著管理階層的眼睛, 說:「事業不是這樣經營的。 有一種不同的做事方式。 讓我告訴你」? 沒有,他們只是售出他們的股票。 售出是沒有效果的。 管理階層並不會 在隔天早上起床時, 突然頓悟並說: 「天,教師們售出了他們的股票。 我們得要對孩子好一點。」 不,沒有發生這種事。 儘管在美國,私人監獄 股票在十年間 出現數次高調的剝奪財產事件, 股票仍然持續攀升。 同時段的股票勝過了市場。 最大的議題是, 股票本來是在一群 有意識的投資者手上, 可能變到完全不在乎 這些議題的投資者手上, 他們也不在乎 你對這些議題的看法。
And this is my issue with conscious investors. Their MO is to divest or divert money into ESG-focused funds. You can't divest your way to a greener world. You can divest your way to a greener portfolio, not to a greener world.
這就是我認為有意識的 投資者的問題所在。 他們的主要目標是要撤資 或將錢轉移到 以 ESG 為中心的基金。 你不能光靠撤資就創造出 更綠化的世界。 你可以靠撤資來達成 更綠化的投資組合, 但更綠化的世界是不可能的。
So what's it going to take? What's it going to take to flip the script, to get conscious investors to go from divesting to engaging, to go from talking about engaging to actually working with management to make changes that will improve their ESG performance? Because there's a lot suggesting they should and they could. They should, given the clear correlation between ESG performance and financial performance. They could because the activists have shown us they could. A shareholder can drive change in a company. The difference is, Paul and Barry do what they do to make money. The conscious investors would do it to improve society and the environment and make money in the process and do it a little more collaboratively and constructively. And they have the backing of the some of the largest investors. Vanguard and BlackRock -- together, they manage trillions. They've been increasingly vocal about the importance of ESG. The CEO of BlackRock has been increasingly vocal in his annual letters about this issue. Even Jana Partners, the same OGs that John called "greedy bastards," recently co-wrote an open letter to the board of Apple, saying, "Hey, your smartphones are addictive for children. Fix it." Apple is working on it.
那,要怎樣才能做到? 怎樣才能出奇招, 讓有意識的投資者 從撤資轉為參與, 從談論參與轉為 真正和管理階層合作, 來做出改變,改善他們的 ESG 表現? 因為怎麼看他們都 應該或能夠這麼做。 他們應該這麼做,因為 ESG 表現 和財務表現之間有明確的相關性。 他們能夠這麼做,因為行動派 已經證明他們做得到。 股東能夠帶動公司的改變。 差別在於,保羅和貝瑞 是為了賺錢而做。 有意識的投資者會為了 改善社會和環境而做, 在過程中順便賺錢, 且用比較同心協力、 有建設性一點的方式來做。 有一些最大的投資者在支持他們。 領航投資和貝萊德 合起來管理的金額是數兆美元。 對於 ESG 的重要性, 它們越來越暢所欲言。 貝萊德的執行長 在他的年度報告中, 對於這個議題越來越暢所欲言。 就連 JANA Partners, 被約翰稱作 「貪心的雜種」的前輩, 最近也共同撰寫了一封公開信 給 Apple 的董事會,說: 「嘿,你們的智慧手機 會讓孩子上癮。 解決這問題。」 Apple 正在努力想辦法。
So what it's going to take is some pressure. It's going to take some pressure on conscious investors to, in turn, put some pressure on management to make changes that will improve the environment and society. And where do they start? They start by picking an issue that matters to them and taking a stand on it. Take a stand on an issue that lines up with your purpose: water preservation, labor rights, diversity. As long as it lines up with your purpose, you are golden. And the biggest unlock? Get the senior-most investment professionals focused on this. Today, when an activist shows up to a campaign, it's the senior investment professional talking to the CEO and the board and everyone hears about it. When a conscious investor shows up to talk about an ESG issue, it's some junior person in the risk department talking to some junior person in the investor relations department, and nobody hears about it, and that needs to change. And it's not some massive leap. Today, when a company underperforms financially, who is on the hook? The senior investment professional. So what do they do? They drop everything and work with management, collaboratively and constructively, to make changes to improve the company's financial performance. The same should be true when the company underperforms on ESG issues. And yes, that requires standardization on how we measure ESG, but we're on it.
所以,需要的就是一些壓力。 需要對有意識的投資者 施加一些壓力, 他們接著就會 對管理階層施加壓力, 做出改變,改善環境和社會。 他們要從何開始?可以先挑選出 對他們有重要性的議題, 並對它採取堅定的立場。 對這個議題,採取 和你的目的一致的立場: 水資源保育、勞工權益、多樣性。 只要和你的目的一致就行了。 而最大的資金釋放呢? 讓最資深的投資專家 把注意力放在此。 現今,當一個行動派 出現在一場宣傳活動中, 那就是資深投資家 去和執行長及董事會恰談, 每個人都會聽到這件事。 當一名有意識的投資出現 並談論 ESG 議題, 那只是風險部門的菜鳥 和投資者關係部門的菜鳥恰談, 沒有人會聽到這件事, 這點必須要改變。 這並不是什麼大躍進。 現今,當一家公司 在財務上表現差勁時, 誰要負責?資深的投資專家。 所以,他們會怎麼做? 放下一切與管理階層合作, 同心協力且有建設性地合作, 來做出改變, 改善公司的財務表現。 當公司在 ESG 議題上的表現不佳時, 應該也是如此。 是的,我們會需要 訂定測量 ESG 的標準。 但我們在努力了。
So folks, here's my call to action: it's your money. It's your pension fund, it's your sovereign wealth fund. it's your university's endowment. It's your money. And it's your right to have your money managed in line with your values. So use your voice and trust that it matters. It was your voice that got the investors more conscious in the first place. You protested for years, because you didn't feel right about your money being invested in companies whose values don't line up with yours. It's time to use that voice again. But this time, instead of pushing them to divest, push them to engage, truly engage, truly work with management to make changes that will improve their ESG performance.
所以,各位,這是我的行動呼籲: 這是你的錢, 這是你的退休金, 這是你的主權財富基金。 這是你的大學的資助。 這是你的錢。 你有權要求管理你的錢的方式 要和你的價值觀一致。 所以,要發聲, 並且相信發聲是重要的。 一開始就是你的聲音 讓投資者更有意識的。 你抗議了數年, 因為你覺得你的錢被投資到 價值觀與你不同的公司, 讓你感覺不太對。 該是再次使用那聲音的時候了。 但這一次,不要迫使他們撤資, 改成迫使他們參與,真正參與, 真正與管理階層合作, 做出改變,改善他們的 ESG 表現。
You made them aware of the issues. You can now focus them on fixing them.
你已經讓他們注意到這些議題。 現在你可以讓他們專注於解決它們。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)