用投资改变世界？
资产为120亿美元、规模庞大的福特基金会(Ford Foundation)最近宣布聘请前摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)资深银行家罗伊•斯旺(Roy Swan)来掌管其部分投资。你可能会想，这没什么奇怪的，慈善事业如今在美国已是一项巨额的“生意”，这些基金会需要大量金融专业人士。
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.
但这次聘用有一个新动向：斯旺不仅要确保投资的市场回报，还要确保其“社会”效益。说具体些，福特基金会最近专门拨款10亿美元用于“使命”或“影响力”投资，即既促进社会变革、又获取传统回报的投资。
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.”
这是因为福特基金会的受托人不再认为慈善“仅仅”是将钱投入到有价值的事业上，慈善还要积极尝试利用资本主义和资本市场来推动变革。或如该基金会负责人达伦•沃克(Darren Walker，见文首照片)最近在英国《金融时报》一次会议上所说：“重要的不仅是你捐出的那5%，你如何处理另外那95%几乎更重要。”
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.
这是个好主意吗?在这个馈赠礼物的时节，这是个值得思考的有趣概念——尤其是考虑到许多富有的美国家庭正忙不迭地赶在税改前作出免税慈善捐赠。
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，大多数宗教还认为“行善”与“赚钱”是有区别的;乃至社会活动家对资本主义和银行家往往持怀疑态度。而且按税法要求，美国大部分捐赠基金每年至少要捐出其资产的5%，所以首席投资官首先考虑的是，几乎不惜代价地实现5%以上的投资回报。
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.
但人们的态度正暗中发生改变。福特10亿美元的专款就是这种转变中最大的一笔拨款。其他机构也在进行尝试，如洛克菲勒基金会(Rockefeller Foundation)、比尔及梅琳达•盖茨基金会(Bill-Melinda Gates Foundation)。还有许多家族理财室也是。而且私营部门的金融家也力争赶上这波潮流。举个例子，今年年初瑞银(UBS)宣布未来五年，要将“至少50亿美元”的客户资金用于影响力投资。事实上，据非营利组织Global Impact Investing Network估计，影响力投资已经是一项价值1140亿美元的业务，其中40%的资金来自美国，58%来自营利性资产管理界。摩根大通(JPMorgan)认为到2020年，这项业务可能达到1万亿美元。
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——或在节日礼物上比较抠门的人——可能对此不屑一顾，认为这不过是金融家的精明营销，想要帮助有钱人减轻负罪感。他们还指出，想用一笔投资实现两个目标，可能会在两方面都蒙混过关。
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.
也许是这样吧。目前很难评估影响力投资的真实表现。Global Impact Investing Network和麦肯锡(McKinsey)等咨询机构的研究表明，投资者认为它们的年回报率在5%到15%之间。但这一数据可能失真，因为一些影响力投资者故意瞄准低于市场平均水平的回报，以尽可能创造更多社会效益。而“使命投资”是个涵盖范围很广的概念。
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.
对于有些基金来说，这一概念意味着避开那些有害社会的证券，如枪支或烟草;或者是购买那些能够创造社会或环境效益的证券，如医疗或绿色能源。其他基金想要的是可量化的社会效益。
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，福特第一批项目中有一个就是在底特律和纽瓦克投资可负担性住房，他们认为(或希望)这能提供可计量的回报以及有关住宅建设的统计数字。这无疑是值得赞赏的，至于其想法能否取得预想的效果，或能否大规模复制，仍有待观察。
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.
好消息是许多影响力投资者明白这一不足，并正在推动更好的定义和报告体系。还有一个更好的消息：这一趋势似乎反映并强化了一种消费者态度的转变。例如，美国信托(US Trust)的一项调查显示，四分之三的千禧一代在投资时高度重视社会目标，这与婴儿潮一代形成鲜明的对比，后者的这个比例只有三分之一。
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.
也许等千禧一代步入中年，他们的想法会改变。如果到那时他们的想法依然不变的话，这将比福特或其他基金会可能付出的任何努力都更能改变投资行业的关注点。要知道，未来十到二十年，美国的千禧一代将继承约12万亿美元的资产。不管怎样，这都会令慈善变得比以往任何时候都更加有趣，且更加不可预测。在这个假期里，当你往募捐箱里丢进一枚硬币，不妨思考一下这件事。
gillian.tett@ft.com 译者/何黎
