尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
New Orleans is (in)famous for being a party town that seems to inhabit a parallel universe — what happens on Bourbon Street usually stays there, however wild. Not so, however, in America’s fast-expanding private capital world.
紐爾良因其派對之城而聞名於世，它似乎是一個平行宇宙--無論多麼狂野，波旁街(Bourbon Street)上發生的一切通常都會留在那裏。然而，在美國快速擴張的私人資本世界裏，情況並非如此。
On Wednesday, the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in favour of six private equity and hedge fund groups to toss out a transparency rule introduced last year by Securities and Exchange Commission. This had required private equity, hedge fund and real estate groups to start issuing quarterly performance and fee reports, perform annual audits, and to stop giving some investors preferential treatment over redemptions and special access to portfolio holdings.
週三，總部位於紐爾良的美國第五巡迴上訴法院裁定支援六傢俬募股權和對沖基金集團，廢除了美國證券交易委員會去年引入的透明度規定。該規定要求私募股權、對沖基金和房地產集團開始發佈季度績效和費用報告，進行年度審計，並停止對某些投資者提供贖回和特殊訪問投資組合持有的優惠待遇。
Such concepts have long been standard in public markets. But they are anathema to many powerful private capital players. Wednesday’s ruling has thus sparked jubilation among many financiers — and dismay from progressives and consumer protection groups.
這些概念在公共市場中早已成爲標準。但對許多強大的私人資本參與者來說，它們是令人憎惡的。因此，週三的裁決在許多金融家中引發了歡呼，但也令進步派和消費者保護組織感到失望。
So what should sober-minded investors conclude? There are three key points to note.
那麼，理智的投資者應該得出什麼結論呢？有三個關鍵點需要注意。
First, this saga will underscore the impression that the US judiciary is becoming ever more partisan. After all, the reason the case was brought in New Orleans is that Louisiana is a red state whose Republican leaders are predisposed to dislike what the Democrat-controlled Washington administration does. Two of the three judges in the case were appointed by Donald Trump and the other by George W Bush.
首先，這個事件將凸顯美國司法系統越來越黨派化的印象。畢竟，該案件在紐爾良提起的原因是路易斯安那州是一個紅色州，其共和黨領導人傾向於不喜歡民主黨(Democrat)控制的華盛頓政府所做的事情。該案件中的三位法官中有兩位是由唐納•川普(Donald Trump)任命的，另一位是由喬治•W•布希(George W Bush)任命的。
Such legal forum shopping is not new, of course. But the stink of political partisanship in the US is rising today. And insofar as the New Orleans ruling reinforces the sense of a partisan judiciary, it is deeply unfortunate.
當然，這種法律論壇購物並不新鮮。但是，美國政治黨派之間的爭鬥正在加劇。就像紐爾良的裁決加強了黨派司法的感覺一樣，這是非常不幸的。
The second point is that because Republicans are forum shopping, more SEC initiatives may now be overturned. Recent proposed reforms to Treasury market trading and climate-linked reporting, say, look particularly vulnerable.
第二點是由於共和黨在尋找論壇，更多的美國證交會(SEC)的舉措可能會被推翻。最近提出的對國債市場交易和與氣候相關的報告的改革，看起來特別脆弱。
This is also unfortunate. Chopping and changing these rules will undermine confidence in the predictability of American policymaking. Moreover, the proposed reforms to the bond market and climate-change reporting are sensible: the former aims to reduce the (very real) risk that the Treasuries market will malfunction; the latter would just echo where most other major countries are heading.
這也是不幸的。頻繁修改這些規則將削弱對美國政策制定的可預測性的信心。此外，對債券市場和氣候變化報告的擬議改革是明智的：前者旨在減少國債市場可能發生故障的風險；後者只是回應了大多數其他主要國家的方向。
The third big lesson from New Orleans is perhaps the most important: investors of all stripes need to get much savvier about the risks lurking in the private capital world. “Business” and “finance” news tends to focus on public companies which are, by definition, easier to track. But one oft-ignored reality of American capitalism is that private companies have always played a huge role in the economy. Another is that the footprint of private capital has exploded in the past two decades.
紐爾良的第三個重要教訓可能是最重要的：各種類型的投資者需要更加精明地瞭解私人資本世界中潛藏的風險。"商業"和"金融"新聞往往關注的是公共公司，這些公司從定義上來說更容易追蹤。但美國資本主義經常被忽視的一個現實是私人公司在經濟中一直扮演著重要角色。另一個現實是私人資本在過去二十年間的影響力急劇擴大。
The American Investment Council says that the US now has 32,000 private equity-backed companies, employing 12mn, while 34mn Americans have pensions invested in this sector. Meanwhile, FTI Consulting estimates that average returns have been 15 per cent in the past 20 years — 50 per cent more than the S&P 500.
美國投資委員會(American Investment Council)表示，美國現在有32,000傢俬募股權支援的公司，僱傭了12百萬人，而有34百萬美國人的養老金投資於這個行業。與此同時，富事高諮詢(FTI Consulting)估計過去20年的平均回報率爲15%，比標準普爾500指數高出50%。
Private capital players argue that tighter regulations would crush those amazing returns and insist they are unnecessary since their investors are highly sophisticated. There is some truth to both points: the high-net-worth individuals who used to dominate the sector could and should understand the principle of caveat emptor; and public company reporting burdens are costly and clumsy.
私人資本參與者認爲，更嚴格的監管將會壓制那些驚人的回報，並堅稱這是不必要的，因爲他們的投資者非常精明。這兩點都有一定道理：曾經主導該行業的高淨值個人本應理解買方自負的原則；而上市公司的報告負擔則是昂貴且笨拙的。
Indeed, FTI calculates that the SEC’s disclosure proposals run to 650 pages, and points out that “unlike their large publicly traded counterparts . . . most private equity firms and real estate funds typically do not have large in-house compliance departments” to handle this.
事實上，FTI計算出美國證交會的資訊披露提案達到了650頁，並指出「與其大型上市公司的對應物不同……大多數私募股權公司和房地產基金通常沒有大型內部合規部門」來處理這個問題。
But the sector is no longer just about sophisticated rich individuals; the reason those 34mn Americans have their pensions exposed to private equity is that numerous mainstream funds and endowments have recently rushed in. Given that, the SEC’s desire to inject more transparency and protection seems entirely understandable and laudable, particularly since higher interest rates will reduce returns in the coming years.
但這個行業不再僅僅涉及富有的個人；之所以有3400萬美國人的養老金暴露在私募股權市場上，是因爲許多主流基金和捐贈基金最近紛紛湧入。鑑於此，美國證交會希望增加更多的透明度和保護似乎完全可以理解和值得讚賞，特別是由於未來幾年的利率上升將會降低迴報率。
Of course, there is another way to resolve this problem: the asset owners themselves could now demand better disclosure — or vote with their feet, by leaving. I very much hope that more asset owners now do precisely this; it is the only rational response to Wednesday’s ruling.
當然，解決這個問題還有另一種方式：資產所有者們可以要求更好的披露，或者透過離開來表達自己的立場。我非常希望更多的資產所有者能夠採取這樣的行動；這是對週三裁決的唯一合理回應。
But one problem with this scenario — that is, trusting in the power of market forces — is that private capital funds typically have long lock-up periods. Another is that financial history shows asset owners usually only demand basic levels of transparency after, and not before, a disaster hits.
然而，這種情況存在一個問題——即對市場力量的信任——私人資本基金通常具有較長的鎖定期。另一個問題是，金融歷史表明，資產所有者通常只在災難發生後，而不是之前，纔要求基本的透明度水準。
Maybe private capital investors will be wiser this time? After all, the impact of rising interest rates on the business model of private capital is already becoming clear. But unless those asset owners do wake up and demand the type of transparency and fair treatment that the SEC can no longer enforce, some will face nasty shocks in the future. And such post-party hangovers are never pleasant, least of all when they’re unexpected. Just ask any hardened visitor to Bourbon Street.
也許這一次私人資本投資者會更明智？畢竟，升息對私人資本的商業模式的影響已經變得明顯。但是，除非那些資產所有者醒悟過來並要求美國證交會無法再執行的透明度和公平待遇，否則他們中的一些人將在未來面臨嚴重的衝擊。而這種派對後的宿醉從來都不愉快，尤其是當它們出乎意料時。只需問問任何曾經流連波旁街的人。
