经济学人中英文版
Taking its medicine.自尝苦果。
A drug giant coughs up to settle bribery charges.
一个制药巨头被迫出钱就撤销行贿指控与司法部达成和解。
IN AMERICA, it was once common for drug firms to offer doctors "perks" to encourage them to prescr ibe theirpills. Regulators now frown on such iffy sales techniques, and drug firms have more or less st opped using them.But in emerging markets, it is a different story, as a settlement on August 7th betw een America's Department ofJustice and Pfizer, a big American drug firm, made clear.
在美国，制药公司给医生"回扣"鼓励他们开处方时使用该公司生产的药物曾是很常见的事。现在相关管理部门开始禁止这样不规范的销售技巧，因此一些制药公司也或多或少不再使用这种技巧。 8月7日，美国大型制药公司辉瑞就海外贿赂行为与美国司法部达成了和解，此事正好表明新兴市场的情况与美国的有所不同。
In China Pfizer established a "club" that provided "high-prescribing" doctors with all kinds of entertain mentunder the guise of attending conferences. In Kazakhstan Pfizer awarded an exclusive distribution deal to a local firmafter it was told there was no other way to secure government approval for a Pfize r product.
辉瑞公司在中国成立了一个"俱乐部"，该俱乐部以开会的名义邀请那些"开药量较大"的医生参加各种娱乐活动。辉瑞公司还与哈萨克斯坦一家当地公司签订了独家经销协议，因为此前辉瑞得知，除此之外没有其他的办法可以获得哈萨克斯坦政府对辉瑞制药的批准。
Unfortunately for Pfizer, such acts violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), an American law thatcriminalises bribery abroad. Doctors in many of the countries in question are state employees, m aking the giftsbribes to government officials. This week Pfizer agreed to pay a fine to settle corruption charges and to disgorgerelated illegally earned profits to the Securities and Exchange Commission. T he settlement, which will cost it $60mor so, covers similar offences committed by Wyeth, another dru g firm, before it was acquired by Pfizer in 2009.
不幸的是，辉瑞的这些行为违反了美国专门用来定罪海外行贿的《反海外腐败法》(FCPA)。受到质疑的多国医生都是国家机关的工作人员，于是这些礼物也就成了贿赂政府官员的赃物。本周，辉瑞公司为了了结腐败指控同意支付罚款，并愿意向美国证券交易委员会上缴相关非法所得利润。辉瑞公司进行此次和解将需要花费六千万美元左右，这笔费用还包括了对惠氏公司贿赂行为的罚款，惠氏制药公司于2009年被辉瑞公司收购，此前它也曾涉嫌海外贿赂。
Johnson & Johnson, another big drugmaker, paid $70m last year to settle civil and criminal bribery ch arges. OnAugust 6th Teva, an Israeli firm that is the world's largest generic drugmaker, said it was co -operating with SECinvestigators. Indeed, eight of the world's ten biggest drug firms have warned of potential costs related to chargesof corruption in markets abroad, according to Reuters. So Pfizer's be haviour seems to have been normal for theindustry, not an aberration.
去年，另一家大型制药公司强生因民事和刑事行贿受到指控，并为达成和解花费了七千万美元。今年8月6日，世界上最大的学名药（通用名药）生产公司以色列梯瓦制药工业有限公司称，它正在协助美国证券交易委员会调查员的调查工作。据路透社报道，事实上，世界上十大制药公司中有八家公司都在警惕因受控海外贪污可能造成的潜在开支。所以这样看来，辉瑞公司的行为在这个行业里并非异常。Citing the settlement, regulators will crow that the FCPA is being enforced more vigorously than at an y timesince it became law in 1977. They will also hope that it is evidence that their new carrot-and-sti ck approach isstarting to work. Most successful prosecutions in the past have been the result of whistl e-blowing or a lucky break;regulators have long suspected that many companies have publicly suppor ted the law while privately turning ablind eye to dodgy activities abroad, doubtless assuming that the
y would never be caught. The new approach isdesigned to encourage companies to police themselves , by punishing them only lightly when they turn themselvesin.
相关管理人员拿此次和解做文章，自鸣得意地称这是自1977年《反海外腐败法》(FCPA)颁布以来实施最有力的一次。同时，他们还希望此次事件能证明他们采取的软硬兼施的措施已经开始生效。以往一些控诉成功的案件不是有人揭发就是运气使然，监管者一直怀疑许多公司虽然在公开场合坚决拥护法律，但私底下却对那些海外不法行为视而不见，还相信自己永远不会被绳之以法。现在新的监管方法目的在于鼓励那些公司进行自我监督，并对他们采取坦白从宽的政策。
The relatively small fine imposed on Pfizer was the Justice Department's way of showing that firms th at co-operate will be treated leniently, says Ben Heineman of Harvard's Kennedy School of Governme nt. Pfizer has goneout of its way to placate prosecutors: it has been co-operating on the case since 2 004, helping to identify illegalpractices throughout its industry. It also oversaw the process that uncov ered the misbehaviour at Wyeth.
哈佛肯尼迪政治学院的Ben Heineman称，此次美国司法部门对辉瑞公司罚款力度相对较轻就是为了表明会对那些协助调查的公司宽大处理。辉瑞公司早就开始煞费苦心地讨好检察官：从2004年起辉瑞就开始协助调查员调查此案，帮助其调查全行业的非法行为。辉瑞还监督了一项揭发惠氏不法行为的调查。The regulators have accepted Pfizer's claim that the offences were committed by local staff acting wit hout theknowledge of head office in America. This follows April's decision by the SEC to charge a seni or executive atMorgan Stanley, a bank, with corrupt activity in Shanghai, but not to impose legal pen alties on the bank, whichtipped off regulators about its rogue employee. A few more examples of suc h regulatory forbearance and perhapsbusiness will get the message.
辉瑞公司称，这些不法行为都是当地一些员工在美国总公司不知情的情况下做出的，监管者也接受了这一说法。在此前的四月，美国证券交易委员会控告摩根史坦利投资银行的一位高管在上海涉嫌贪污。但由于该银行主动向监管者揭发了员工的不法行为，因此美国证券交易委员会并未对该银行做出处罚。或许这样宽恕处理的例子再多一些，企业就能更好地领会监管者的意图了。
ooks and Arts; Book Review;
文艺；书评；
The political waning of America;
美国在衰落吗？？？
Unconvincing;
不足为信；
Every Nation For Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World. By Ian Bremmer.
《独自为战：G零世界的赢家与败者》，作者伊恩·布雷默
Brazil and Turkey, once reliable backers of America's geostrategic goals, conspicuously went their ow n way in2010 when they sought to broker a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme, even as Amer ica pushed for newsanctions. Their new-found assertiveness was a product of both their growing eco nomic weight and America'sdiminished clout.
巴西和土耳其都曾经是美国地缘政治中可靠的盟友，但是2010年在美国已经对伊朗推行新的制裁政策时，这两个国家却追求以仲裁和和谈的形式让伊朗走出核危机，这标志着它们开始奉行相对独立的外交政策。这种新的魄力是它们经济增长的结果，也是美国影响力下降的结果。
This is an example of what is in store for the world, predicts Ian Bremmer in “Every Nation For Itself”. Countrieslike Brazil and Turkey want the status of a bigger global role. But they “balk at assuming th e risks and burdens”that global leadership entails. Ideally a web of multilateral institutions and laws w ould impose order and holdwayward countries in line. But with America unable to afford, or unwilling
to exercise, global leadership, and Chinastill not ready to assume its responsibilities, there is no one t o enforce these rules.
这就是伊恩·布雷默在他新著《各自为战》中所预言的世界。像巴西和土耳其这样的国家想要在全球政治中扮演更重要的角色。但是“他们想要避免领导全球所必须承担的风险和负担”。理想主义的观念认为，一个多元化的组织网络和法律可以带来秩序，让那些不驯服的国家服从。但是随着美国没有能力或者不愿意承担全球领导的角色，而中国目前还没有做好准备承担责任，没有一个国家可以来强制执行这些规则。
In the 1960s President Lyndon Johnson could divert a fifth of America's wheat crop to alleviate starva tion inIndia. That could not happen now, when biofuels are aggravating food shortages and exporters hoard supplies fortheir own people. Global warming, nuclear proliferation and internet regulation are all harder to address, with the G7and G20 supplanted by what the author calls the “G-Zero”.
20世纪60年代，总统林登·约翰逊可以将美国小麦产量的五分之一用于缓解印度的饥荒。现在这根本不可能发生，因为生物燃料的发展正在造成并加剧粮食短缺现象，而且出口商们正为了他们自己的人民储存粮食。随着G7和G20被被作者称为G-0的世界所代替，全球变暖、核扩散以及网络管理等都将是更难处理的问题。
Mr Bremmer, founder of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, specialises in big thoughts. His pr eviousbooks tackled the path that developing countries travel from autocracy to democracy, and the growth of state-sponsored capitalism. “Every Nation For Itself” enters a more crowded field. Innumer able books and essays havealready plumbed the consequences of America's loss, or possible loss, of global leadership, with the best providingeither fresh insight or original reporting. Unfortunately, “Every Nation For Itself” does neither. It devotes endlesspages to describing disparate arenas of glob al conflict, from cyberspace to water shortages, but these are largely arehash of headlines and conve ntional wisdom. Their only purpose is to provide Mr Bremmer with repeatedopportunities to assert tha t “in a G-Zero world” such conflicts can no longer be solved from above.
布雷默是一家政治风险咨询机构欧亚集团的创始人，该机构专门从事大的战略思想研究。他的前一本书主要追述了发展中国家从专制独裁到民主的转变以及国有资本主义的增长。而这本《各自为战》进入了一个更加拥挤的领域。已经有无数本专著和论文在探究美国衰落或者可能衰落可能会带来的结果，其中好的著作要么有创新的视角要么在原始材料方面比较突出。但是很不幸，《各自为战》这两方面都没有做到。作者花了大量的篇幅描述全球问题的冲突，从网络空间到水资源短缺，但是这些论述大部分只是对已经报道过的文章和传统观点进行了重新处理。它们唯一的用处只是给布雷默机会让他重复了一个观点，即在G零世界中这些冲突都不可能自上而下得到解决。
Mr Bremmer is certainly right that a world without America's global leadership is a more dangerous pl ace, but heoverstates his case. Even when it stood alone as the world's superpower, America struggle d to impose its will. In1993 it pulled its troops out of Somalia when murderous warlords foiled its atte mpts to deliver food relief to thestarving country. The global groups that Mr Bremmer imagines once ran the world were seldom that effective. TheG7 occasionally influenced the direction of the dollar or the relations between rich countries and the emergingmarkets, but more often it issued anodyne, for gettable communiqués.
当然，布雷默认为一个失去美国领导的世界将会更加危险，在这一点上他是正确的，但是关于这一点他却有所夸大了。即使美国独霸世界，美国也很难强制执行它的意志。 1993年，当时残忍的军阀阻止美国将粮食救援输送到饥饿的国家时，美国将军队撤出了索马里。可见布雷默所认为的曾经掌控全球的各个团体事实上并没有那么有效。 G7峰会偶尔会影响美元的方向或者富裕国家与新兴市场之间的关系，但是更多情况下，它只是发布一些类似于止痛剂一样的公告，那些公告也很快就被会被人们抛诸脑后。
Neither America nor the multilateral institutions are as impotent today as Mr Bremmer claims. Brazil a nd Turkeyfailed in their negotiation over Iran's nuclear programme. The fact that Iran has been dragg ed back to thenegotiating table and Myanmar is veering back towards democracy contradict Mr Brem mer's thesis that sanctionsare becoming ever less effective. He is right that the World Bank and the I nternational Monetary Fund have beenweakened by China's growing power. But the opposite is true f or the World Trade Organisation, whose clout hasbeen enhanced significantly by the fact that both A merica and China abide by its rulings. “Every Nation For Itself”is a useful summary of current events. But as a guide to a complex world, it falls short.
其实目前不管是美国还是多国体系都不像布雷默所认为的那样虚弱无力。巴西和土耳其在他们的伊朗科项目问题的谈判中失败了。事实上，伊朗已经从谈判桌上撤退，缅甸正在向民主的方向转变，这些事实都驳斥了布雷默认为制裁变得无效的观点。他认为世界银行和国际货币基金组织由于中国力量的崛起受到了削弱，这一点是正确的。但是另一方面由于美国和中国都支持世界贸易组织的裁决，所以世贸组织的影响力显著地加强了。《各自为战》对当前重大事务做了很好的总结，但是并没有对当前复杂世界形势提出有益的分析和指导。
IN DENVER four years ago, an inspiring presidential candidate announced that he would change America. Barack Obama promised to put aside partisan differences, restore hope to those without jobs, begin the process of saving the planet from global warming, and make America proud again.
四年前，在丹佛市，一位意气风发的总统候选人宣布他将改变美国。当时，巴拉克?奥巴马承诺：他将放下党派分歧、让失业人员重获希望、开始应对全球变暖并再次为美国带来荣耀。
Next week Mr Obama will address his fellow Democrats at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with little of this hopeful agenda completed. Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, and the national debt is $5 trillion bigger. Partisan gridlock is worse than ever: health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement, has become a prime source of rancour. Businessfolk are split over whether he dislikes capitalism or is merely indifferent to it. His global-warming efforts have evaporated. America?s standing in the Muslim world is no higher than it was under George W. Bush, Iran remains dangerous, Russia and China are still prickly despite the promised resets, and the prison in Guantánamo remains open.
下周，民主党将在北卡罗来纳州的夏洛特市召开全国代表大会，届时奥巴马将向党内同僚致辞，但他的这番雄心壮志却并未实现多少。相比四年前，美国失业人数增加了300万人，国家债务也上升了5万亿美元。党派之间的僵局更甚以往：医疗改革实际上是一项杰出的成就，但却成了两党敌意的主要来源。商界之中有些人认为奥巴马厌恶资本主义，有些人认为他对资本主义简直漠不关心。奥巴马针对全球变暖做出的努力也化为乌有。相比乔治?W?布什当政时期，美国在穆斯林世界的地位并没有提高多少。伊朗仍然很危险。尽管奥巴马许诺重新调整与俄中两国的外交关系，但这两个国家对于美国来说依然棘手。恐怖主义阴云未散，仍然不断有囚犯被送进关塔那摩监狱。
So far, so underwhelming
目前看来政绩平平
The defence of Mr Obama?s record comes down to one phrase: it could all have been a lot worse. He inherited an economy in free fall thanks to the banking crash and the fiscal profligacy that occurred under his predecessor; his stimulus measures and his saving of Detroit carmakers helped avert a
second Depression; overall, he deserves decent if patchy grades on the economy (see article). Confronted by obstructionist Republicans in Congress, he did well to get anything through at all. Abroad he has sensibly recalibrated American foreign policy. And there have been individual triumphs, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden.
若要为奥巴马的履历进行辩护，尽可一言以蔽之：如果没有他的话，情况可能会更糟糕。布什执掌白宫时，银行业崩溃、政府肆意挥霍财政开支。拜这位前任总统所赐，奥巴马接手政权时美国经济正在直线下滑。他推出了刺激措施，拯救了底特律的汽车制造商，从而帮助美国避免了第二次大萧条。如果要在经济方面进行打分的话，尽管奥巴马有得有失，但总体来说表现尚可。在国会里，奥巴马受到了共和党的蓄意阻扰，但他还是成功地通过了一些议案。在国际上，奥巴马明智地重新调整了美国的外交政策。他还取得了一些非同寻常的成就，比如击毙了奥萨马?本?拉登。
But this does not amount to a compelling case for re-election, in the view of either this paper or the American people. More than 60% of voters believe their country to be on the wrong track. Mr Obama?s approval ratings are well under 50%; almost two-thirds of voters are unimpressed (however harshly) by how he has handled the economy. Worn down by the difficulties of office, the great reformer has become a cautious man, surrounded by an insular group of advisers. The candidate who promised bold solutions to the country?s gravest problems turned into the president who failed even to back his own commission?s plans for cutting the deficit.
但想要进行连任，仅有这些还不够令人信服——这不仅是本报的观点，也是美国人民的观点。有60%以上的选民认为美国已经偏离了正确的轨道。奥巴马目前的支持率远低于50%；有近三分之二的选民认为他处理经济的方式不尽如人意（尽管这样说有些苛刻）。由于政途坎坷，这位伟大的改革者被拖垮了，变成了一个谨小慎微的人，周围则是一群保守狭隘的顾问。当年的那位候选人曾承诺，要果敢地解决美国最为严重的一些问题；可当他成为总统之后，甚至无法为自己的委员会削减赤字的方案提供支持。
Were he facing a more charismatic candidate than Mitt Romney or a less extremist bunch than the Republicans, Mr Obama would already be staring at defeat. The fact that the president has had to “go negative” so early and so relentlessly shows how badly he needs the election to be about Mr Romney?s weaknesses rather than his own achievements. A man who four years ago epitomised hope will arrive in Charlotte with a campaign that thus far has been about invoking fear.
作为总统候选人，米特?罗姆尼没有多少个人魅力；作为政治群体，共和党较为极端。若非如此，奥巴马的败局可能早就注定了。奥巴马被迫这么早、这么决绝地“采取了消极策略”——这说明他急需让民众在这场竞选中去关注罗姆尼的弱点，而不是去关注他本人的政绩。四年前，奥巴马曾是希望的化身；如今他将抵达夏洛特市，当下的竞选之路却只能让人焦虑不安。
Mr Obama must offer more than this, for three reasons. First, a negative campaign may well fail. The Republicans are a rum bunch with a wooden leader; but Mr Romney?s record as an executive and governor is impressive, and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, is a fount of bold ideas. Mr Obama?s strategy of blaming everything on Republican obstructionism will strike many voters as demeaning.
奥巴马要做的还有很多，原因有三。其一，消极参选很可能会失败。共和党是个古怪的群体，其领导人也有几分木讷；但罗姆尼曾任商界高管及马萨诸塞州州长，他的履历可圈可点——而且他的竞选搭档保
罗?瑞安也是有勇有谋。如果奥巴马把一切都归咎于共和党的阻扰，许多选民会觉得他这么做有失身份。
Second, even if negative campaigning works, a re-elected Mr Obama will need the strength that comes from a convincing agenda. Otherwise the Republicans, who will control the House and possibly the Senate too, will make mincemeat of him. And, third, it is not just Mr Obama who needs a plan. America does too. Its finances and its government require a drastic overhaul. Surely this charismatic, thoughtful man has more ideas about what must be done than he has so far let on?
其二，即使消极竞选有效，连任的奥巴马也将需要给出一份令人信服的议程表。否则共和党人（他们届时将控制众议院，可能连参议院也控制了）将把他批驳的体无完肤。其三，需要方案的不仅仅是奥巴马个人，美国也同样需要。从经济到政府，美国需要进行大刀阔斧的彻底改革。至于如何去做，想必颇具魅力、心思缜密的奥巴马还另有良策吧?
A tempting option will be to galvanise his party base, with talk of more health reform and threats of higher taxes on business and the rich. Rather than redesigning government, he could suck up to the public-sector unions by promising that jobs will not be cut. Rather than cutting entitlement programmes, he could reassure the elderly that America can actually afford them.
他面临着一个诱人的选择：可以进一步去宣传医疗改革，并声称要加大对商业和富人的征税力度，借此来巩固民主党的党派基础。若要取悦公共部门工会，他不必去进行政府重组，承诺不去减少工作岗位即可。他可以安慰老年人说美国完全养得起他们，而不用去减少福利项目。
Such an approach would fit the pattern of too much of his presidency, and his campaign so far; but it would do America a disservice, and it might not help Mr Obama either. His victory in 2008 relied on reaching beyond the groups that traditionally vote Democratic and bringing in young voters and wealthier whites. Many of them are centrists who are suspicious of Mr Romney, but since they have to foot the bill for government profligacy, they will not vote for a president who promises more of the same.
迄今为止，这种方式符合奥巴马就任总统的大部分模式，也符合他的竞选风格；但这么做会对美国造成危害，同样也帮不了奥巴马多少忙。他之所以在2008年胜选，是因为他当年得到了通常投给民主党的群体的支持，同时也吸引了年轻选民和更为富有的白人选民。现在，他们之中有很多人是怀疑罗姆尼的中间派；但由于他们得为政府挥霍财政开支买单，如果奥巴马不在这方面做出改变的话，这些选民不会把票投给他。
Reach for the radical centre
争取激进的中间派
Appealing to the centre is not easy for Mr Obama. His allies on the left are powerful and, in a country so polarised, the middle ground can be a dangerous place. But there are plenty of things that many on both sides of the political aisle could agree on, including tax and immigration reform, investment in schools and aid to businesses that are creating jobs. Crucially, Mr Obama could explain how he intends to cut the still-soaring debt without pretending that taxing only the rich will help in any meaningful way.
拉拢中间派对于奥巴马来说并不容易。他在左派的盟友势力庞大，而在一个两极分化如此严重的国家，采取中间立场可能会十分危险。但政界的左右两派能够在很多方面达成共识，包括税收和移民改革、教育投资以及对创造工作岗位的企业提供援助等等。关键在于奥巴马应当解释一下他打算如何去削减居高不下的债务——他不能再妄称只向富人征税对美国有任何好处了。
Mr Obama has a strong belief in social justice. It drove his health-care reform. But he needs to distinguish between a creditable desire to help the weak and a dangerous preference for the public over the private sector. The jobs that poor Americans need will be created by companies. Smothering firms in red tape is not the way to help them; Mr Obama should vow to stop adding to it, and to start cutting some of it away. The party faithful in Charlotte might not like centrist ideas much. But they would appeal to the voters Mr Obama needs to win over and, should he be re-elected, they will strengthen him in his dealings with the Republicans in Congress.
奥巴马在社会公平方面有着坚定的信念，这推动了他的医疗改革。但他需要做出区分：帮助弱者的良好愿望并不等于让公共部门压过私营部门——这种偏爱很危险。为需要就业的美国穷人创造岗位正是各大公司。用繁文缛节来限制公司发展对其有害无益；奥巴马应当承诺不再继续进行此类限制，并开始在这方面进行精简。夏洛特市那些忠诚的民主党人可能对中间派的理念并没有太多好感，但仍然会拉拢这些选民，因为奥巴马需要赢得他们的支持。而且如果奥巴马顺利连任，今后在国会里与共和党人周旋时，这些中间派会助他一臂之力。
Incumbents tend to win presidential elections, but second-term presidents tend to be disappointing. Mr Obama?s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks. That?s why he needs a good answer to the big question: just what would you do with another four years?
现任总统往往更容易赢得选举，但连任后通常表现欠佳。如果连任，奥巴马可能是历届总统中最为“跛脚”的“鸭子”，这从他的第一任期履历可见一斑。因此，他需要对一个重大问题给出令人满意的答复：如果再给您四年，您有何打算呢？
Business books quarterly; Book Review;
商业书籍；书评；
The success of hedge funds
对冲基金的成功
Masterclass
大师级
Two books analyse what makes hedge-fund managers great—and reach very different conclusions.
两本介绍对冲基金的成功之处的书——其结论大相径庭。
The Alpha Masters: Unlocking the Genius of the World's Top Hedge Funds. By Maneet Ahuja.
阿尔法（注）大师：揭秘世界顶尖对冲基金的智慧，Maneet Ahuja著。
The Hedge Fund Mirage: The Illusion of Big Money and Why It's Too Good To Be True. By Simon Lac k.
对冲基金的海市蜃楼：巨资的幻象及其难以置信的原因，Simon Lack著。
Forget the one percent denounced by the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Hedge-fund managers have madeso much money for themselves that they are in the top percent of the one percent. The billions
they have rakedin make bankers' bonuses look titchy. Their vaunted success trading stocks, bonds an d other instruments hashelped to transform a cottage industry into a behemoth; today hedge funds o versee more than $2.1 trillion. Aclass of moneymen who once only managed funds for buccaneering, rich families now count the world's largestpublic pension funds and endowments as clients.
忘记"占领华尔街"运动中所诋毁的那百分之一。对冲基金经理帮自己赚的钱足以让其成为这百分之一中的佼佼者。他们捞回来上百亿的资金让银行家的分红显得寒碜。他们在股票，债券和衍生品交易上取得了令人赞赏的成绩，这也帮助产业从一家庭作坊式的产业成为龙头产业，今天对冲基金管理着超过2.1万亿美元。曾经为喜欢投机的富翁家族理财的金融家，现今已让世界上最大的公共养老金，基金会成为其客户。
Have hedge funds succeeded because of their investment genius, or their crafty marketing? Two new booksdisagree on whether the hedge-fund managers' golden chalice is half-full or half-empty. Manee t Ahuja, a CNBCproducer who worked briefly on Wall Street before taking a job at the Wall Street Jou rnal, has written a homageto hedgies. She was in awe of Wall Street already when she was an intern at Citigroup (“I left the building with anoffer for a semester internship in hand, convinced I had found my calling with the good guys—good guys withnice shoes”). She has never shed it. “The Alpha Maste rs” profiles 11 of the industry's best-known bosses, andlooks at their investment philosophies and thei r famous trades. John Paulson made billions predicting the burstingof America's housing bubble; Jam es Chanos, a short-seller, disrobed Enron; and Ray Dalio, the boss ofBridgewater, the world's largest hedge fund, makes a killing for his investors and keeps calm doing transcendentalmeditation.
对冲基金的成功真的是因为他们投资的智慧么？还是因为他们处心积虑的市场企划？两本新书在对冲
基金经理们的金杯里究竟是半桶水还是半桶空气的问题上产生异见。曾短暂任职于华尔街而后加入华尔街日报的CNBC制片人Maneet Ahuja，向对冲这帮家伙写了篇致敬。在她在花旗实习的时候就十分敬畏华尔街（"当我拿着一学期实习的录取通知书离开大楼的时候，这让我确信自己找到了一群好人——穿着名牌鞋的一群好人"）。她至今没有改变这一印象。《阿尔法大师》列举了11位业界最知名的总裁，并分析他们投资哲学和经典案例。约翰?保尔森因预测到美国房地产泡沫而赚了几十亿美元；卖空家James Chanos剥光了安然公司；世界上最大的对冲基金Bridgewater总裁Ray Dalio，为其投资者抓住猎杀机会而通过冥思竟作来保持冷静。
Throughout her book Ms Ahuja seems to be in a trance herself, in thrall to the glamour of her subject s. Shenever questions the judgment of her alpha-men and always gives them the last word. She devo tes dozens ofpages to Mr Paulson's rise in the hedge-fund industry, but glosses over his poor perform ance in 2011. His resultshave led some to speculate that he may have the unfortunate record of both earning and losing the most moneyin hedge-fund history. She quotes one of his 2011 letters to invest ors asserting that bank stocks—whosestruggles pulled down his funds' performance—would rebound when the economy improves, never criticising whathe did or pointing out that investors will have to w ait ages to claw back such massive losses. Nor does she grasp atbigger themes or the many common factors that hedge-fund managers share. Is it ego, courage, good networksor charisma that has brou ght them more success than their fellow financiers?
Ahuja在她的整本书里都好似被催眠，完全被其采访对象的成功所迷住。她从来没有质疑她书中的阿尔法大师的判断力，视他们的话为至理名言。她为保尔森在对冲基金行业的冉冉升起洋洋洒洒写了十几页，而对他在2011年的糟糕表现则一笔带过。一些人怀疑保尔森可能会创造一个悲剧性纪录——对冲基金史上既是盈利最高也是亏损最多的经理。她引用了保尔森2011年写给股东信件里的话，他坚称连累该基金业绩的银行股在经济状况恢复时将反弹。而她从来没指责过他的所作所为，也并没有指出投资者需要等到天长地久才能从如此之深的亏损里爬出来。她也并没有抓住整个大环境或其他一些对冲基金经理的共通因素。究竟是自信，勇气，有关系还是魅力使得他们比金融业同行更成功？
“The Hedge Fund Mirage” attacks the Wall Street worshippers' blind adulation. Simon Lack, who spen t 23 yearsat JPMorgan, an investment bank, selecting hedge funds to invest in, grew tired of the free hand that investors alltoo often gave managers. He has written a provocative book questioning a cent ral tenet of the hedge-fundindustry: its performance is always worth paying for. The promise of super ior performance is wrong, he says. Ofcourse some investors make a killing, but on average hedge fun ds have underperformed even risk-free Treasurybills. This is because the bulk of investors' capital has flooded in over the past ten years, whereas hedge fundsperformed best when the industry was small er than it is now. What is more, it is hard to know how hedge fundsactually fare, since indices that tra ck industry performance tend to overstate the returns. Funds that do badly orimplode are not usually included in the indices at all.
《对冲基金的海市蜃楼》对华尔街追随者的盲目崇拜进行了攻击。曾在投资银行摩根大通(JPMorgen)
工作23年的Simon Lack，当时的任务是分配在对冲基金的投资，后来厌倦了投资者常常给予管理者过多的自由。他写了本具有挑衅性的书来质疑对冲基金的核心：它的业绩是物有所值的。他写道，这些对优秀业绩的承诺是错误的。当然一部分投资者是会有所猎获的，但平均来说对冲基金的表现连无风险的美国国债都不如。这是因为大部分投资者的资金都是最近这十年才涌入的，而对冲基金表现最佳的时候是比现在小的时候。更有问题的是不知道对冲基金的表现究竟如何，因为追踪业界表现的的指数通常夸大回报。那些表现很差或破产了的通常都不包括在这些指数里。
Why would any client continue to pay for such mediocre returns? One reason is that hedge-fund man agersare incredibly good salesmen. In addition, industry insiders who are all too aware of hedge fund s' shortcomingschoose not to expose them, Mr Lack argues. Moreover, the common fee structure, in which hedge-fundmanagers keep 2% of assets as a “management” fee to cover expenses and 20% o f profits generated byperformance, has made many managers rich, but not their clients. Mr Lack calc ulates that hedge-fund managershave kept around 84% of profits generated, with investors only getti ng 16% since 1998. “Where are thecustomers' yachts?” is the title of one chapter. What is worse, the disastrous dive of equity markets in 2008 mayhave wiped out all the profits that hedge funds have e ver generated for investors.
为什么客户要继续为如此普通的回报付费呢？其中一个原因是对冲基金的经理都是不可思议的优秀销
售人员。同时Lack认为，非常了解对冲基金软肋的业内人士选择不披露它们。再加上通用的费用结构使得许多经理变得富裕，而非他们的客户，这些费用包括对冲基金经理每年保留总资产的2％作为支付开销的"管理费"和盈利业绩的20％。 Lack计算自1998年起，对冲基金经理大约保留了84％的总利润，而投资者只拿到了16％。 "客户的游艇去哪里？"是第一章的标题。更可恶的是2008股票市场灾难性跳水可能已经把对冲基金为投资者赚的所有利润都抹杀掉了。
Mr Lack places a good deal of the blame for this on investors who fail to ask tough enough questions and havenot grasped that they “want yesterday's returns without yesterday's risk”. They invest mone y with the biggest,best-known funds “that look nothing like those whose aggregate performance” the y want to emulate. Insteadinvestors should stand up to managers, negotiate more favourable terms a nd put their money into smaller funds,which tend to perform better.
Lack将大部分指责都指向投资者，因为他们没有问足够深入的问题，并且没有意识到他们自己是在祈求"获得以前的回报却不希望承担对应的风险"。他们投资给最大，最有名的基金，而这些基金的累积表现跟投资者所希望模仿的表现相差甚远。投资者应该挑战经理们，跟他们协商一些更有利的条款，并将他们的钱放入小型基金里，因为这些小基金往往表现更好。
Mr Lack points out that large institutional investors always like to invest in bigger hedge funds. That way theyneed not worry about being the bulk of a small fund's investor-base. But he offers no solutio n for these largeinvestors, who cannot put big sums into the small, nimble funds that he touts. Nor d
oes he analyse how hedge-fund performance compares with other asset classes, such as private equit y. As a result, the reader is left with anagging unanswered question: would investors do better to avo id hedge funds altogether and, if so, where shouldthey put their money in future?
Lack还指出大型机构投资者都喜欢投资大型对冲基金。这样他们不需要担心自己成为小基金的主要客户。大型机构不可能将大额资金放入他所推崇的那些敏捷的小基金里，而他并没有提出如何解决这些大型投资者所面临的问题。同时他也没有进行对冲基金跟其他基金的表现对比，例如私募基金。因此，这给读者留下了一个令人困惑的问题：投资者如果完全退出对冲基金，表现是不是会更好呢？如果是的话，他们以后又应该把钱投到哪里呢？
In his conclusion Mr Lack argues that most hedge-fund books are written by their “proponents”. His a mbitionwas to spark debate and help to change the industry. Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen. Hedge-fund executives have already reacted angrily to “The Hedge Fund Mirage”, which sug gests that looking into themirror may be painful. They rightly worry the days of easy praise are over. 在他的总结里他写道，大多数关于对冲基金的书都是由它的＂拥护者＂写的。他的野心在于将这场辩论点燃，并寄希望于此以改变整个行业。至于他在这一点上是否成功了，还有待考证。对冲基金总裁们已经对《对冲基金的海市蜃楼》一书表示愤怒，这显示了要面对镜子里的自己是痛苦的。他们担心民众对其慷慨赞美的日子已经终结，这倒不是杞人忧天。
THE new headquarters of Citigroup India are nearly finished. The lobby walls are made of stone sculpted by lasers, the lifts are from Finland and there is delirious talk of a London pizza chain setting up shop there. The building cost over $300m, including land. Citi, as an anchor tenant, will have paid a big chunk of that. The rumour—unverified—is that Vikram Pandit, Citi?s boss, who was born in India, has bought a luxury pad nearby.
花旗集团印度分公司的新总部即将落成。总部大堂由激光雕刻的石材砌成，电梯由芬兰进口，人们还疯传伦敦的比萨连锁店会在那开设分店。整座大厦费用超过3亿美元，买地的费用也包括在内。这笔钱的很大一部分将由作为主力租户的花旗集团支付。传闻（未经证实）花旗集团那位在印度出生的老板维克拉姆?潘伟迪已在附近买下了一栋豪宅。
The aura is one of exclusivity and solidity, which is not a bad description of Citi?s business in In dia, as well as that of Standard Chartered and HSBC, the two other big foreign banks there. All cater mainly to investors, businesses and wealthy consumers in cities; they have combined pre-tax profits of $2.2 billion. Yes, there have been mistakes—both Citi and HSBC had ill-advised forays into consumer finance. But the Indian arms of these firms are among their best businesses. And they punch above their weight, with 0.3% of the Indian banking industry?s branches and perhaps 5% of all loans, but a meaty 11% of profits.
这种排场是舍我其谁的姿态和实力雄厚的一种表现。而这两点用来形容花旗集团还有另外两家外国大型银行——渣打银行和汇丰银行——在印度的业务还是挺贴切的。这三家银行的主要客户都是城里的投资者、商人和有钱人；三者税前利润加起来高达22亿美元。没错，它们也曾经犯错——花旗集团和汇丰银行都没有考虑妥当便一头扎进了消费金融领域。但三者的印度分公司都是它们业绩最好的业务之一。而且这三家银行都表现不俗，虽然只占印度银行业份额的0.3%，贷款可能也只占总额的5%，但利润却很丰厚，占总额的11%。
Imagine, then, the three firms? horror at the prospect of being forced to venture into India?s countryside, where, in the words of V.S. Naipaul, every tiny turbulence of dust betrays a peasant. Such a
requirement already applies to local banks. On top of being forced to hold about a quarter of their deposits in government bonds, which helps the state to finance its deficit, they must direct 40% of all loans to “priority” sectors, mainly farming and very small businesses. These loans default more than average and can be subject to political meddling. A rule of thumb is that priority lending cuts bank profits by a fifth.
那么试想一下，将来不得不进入印度的农村地区，这三家银行该有多恐惧。用V.S.奈保尔的话来说，印度的农村就是鸟不生蛋的荒芜之地。印度本土的银行现在已经要遵循这一规定。除了一定要用四分之一的存款来购买政府债券之外（帮助国家填补赤字），它们向“重点”领域（主要是农业和比较小型的企业）发放的贷款要达到总额的40%。这种贷款比较容易遭到违约，也会受政治干预的影响。根据以往经验，重点贷款会使银行的利润减少五分之一。
Although foreign banks must also hold big slugs of bonds, they had more lenient priority-lending rules until now. The target was only 32%, and unlike local banks they could meet most of it by making export loans, often to quality firms involved in trade. Now the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the regulator, wants local rules to apply to foreign banks with over 20 branches in India. In practice that means the big three. One bigwig says the rules will make India a harder place to operate in than China.
尽管外国银行也必须持有大量债券，但到目前为止针对它们的重点贷款规定比较宽松。外国银行的重点贷款额指标仅为总额的32%，而且不像本土银行，它们可以通过出口贷款（通常是面向交易中涉及的业绩好的公司）完成大部分指标。现在，监管机构印度储备银行想让在印度拥有超过20家分行的外国银行也遵循本土的规定。实际上这指的就是那三家大银行。有位大人物说，这些规定会使在印度经营业务比在中国更难。
It is easy to sympathise with the foreigners. They know nothing about the price of ploughs. Foreign banks have just 21 ATMs in rural India, home to 830m people. But the RBI?s stance is understandable, too. Why should big foreign banks be treated differently when 70% of farming households have no access to formal finance?
人们很容易会同情这些外国银行，它们对种地一无所知。外国银行在人口八亿三千万的印度农村地区只有21部自动柜员机。不过印度储备银行的立场也是可以理解的。既然70%的农民家庭都接触不到正规的金融服务，那为什么要对大型外国银行进行区别对待呢？
The trickier question is whether priority lending works. It diverts credit from infrastructure and manufacturing, sectors which create jobs and are far too puny. Having been around since the late 1960s priority lending has a lacklustre record in reducing poverty. For now, though, the authorities are wedded to it. The hope must be that innovations—such as electronic identity cards, the use of mobile devices and more credit bureaux—can make the system work better for banks and the poor. Something to chew over, along with pizzas, in flash offices in Mumbai.
有一个问题更难回答，那就是重点贷款是否有效。重点贷款会令基础设施行业和制造业这些能够创造就业、同时十分薄弱的领域流失贷款。早在20世纪60年代末，重点贷款就已经出现，但一直以来在扶贫方面无甚建树。不过现在当局却大力支持这项措施。当局肯定是希望一些创新——如电子身份证、移动设备的应用和更多的信用机构——能够使这个体制更好地为银行和贫困阶层服务。看来在孟买浮夸奢华
的办公室里，吃着比萨的人们还有一些问题要深思。
iPhone, uCopy, iSue
“我的手机”！你敢抄，我就告
Not every innovation deserves a patent. Not every copycat deserves a punishment
并不是每一项创新都值得拥有专利，也不是每一个模仿者都应受到惩罚
WHEN Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he changed an industry. Apple?s brilliant new device was a huge advance on the mobile phones that had gone before: it looked different and it worked better. The iPhone represented innovation at its finest, making it the top-selling smartphone soon after it came out and helping to turn Apple into the world?s most valuable company, with a market capitalisation that now exceeds $630 billion.
当2007年史蒂夫?乔布斯推出苹果手机时，他改变了一个行业。苹果公司这项杰出的新设备标志着移动电话史上又一次巨大的进步：该手机外观更加新颖，性能也更加良好。苹果手机在最大程度上体现了创新，因此在推出不久后它就成了最畅销的智能手机，并使苹果公司成为世界上市值最高的公司，现在该公司市值已超过6300亿美元。
Apple?s achievement spawned a raft of imitators. Many smartphone manufacturers now boast touch-screens and colourful icons. Among them is Samsung, the world?s biggest technology manufacturer, whose gadgets are the iPhone?s nearest rivals and closest lookalikes. The competition and the similarities were close enough for Apple to sue Samsung for patent infringement in several countries, spurring the South Korean firm to counterclaim that it had been ripped off by Apple as well. On August 24th an American jury found that Samsung had infringed six patents and ordered it to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages, one of the steepest awards yet seen in a patent case (see article).
苹果公司所取得的成果令许多公司竞相模仿，现在许多智能手机制造商的产品都拥有触摸屏以及多彩的图标，三星便是其中之一。三星是世界上最大的科技产品制造商，它的产品是苹果最具竞争力的对手，外观上也与苹果产品最为相近。三星产品的竞争力之大、与苹果产品的相似度之高使苹果公司在多国发起了对三星的专利侵权诉讼，这促使这家韩国公司发起反诉，称苹果同样侵犯了它的专利。8月24日，一个美国陪审团裁定三星公司侵犯了苹果公司6项专利，并要求三星赔偿苹果10亿多美元的侵权费，该案是迄今为止所判赔偿费最高的专利案件之一（见另文）。
Some see thinly disguised protectionism in this decision. That does the jury a disservice: its members seem to have stuck to the job of working out whether patent infringements had occurred. The much bigger questions raised by this case are whether all Apple?s innovations should have been granted a patent in the first place; and the degree to which technology stalwarts and start-ups alike should be able to base their designs on the breakthroughs of others.
一些人认为这一判决中的保护主义显而易见。这种说法对陪审团有些不公：陪审团成员看起来一直都在努力工作，试图查清两家公司是否真的有专利侵权行为。该案件引发的其他问题则要严重的多：在案件起初，是否该给苹果公司所有的创新都颁发专利；较为成熟的公司和类似的新创立的公司在设计自己的产品时能在多大程度上借鉴其他公司的创新突破，才能不被算作是专利侵权。
It is useful to recall why patents exist. The system was established as a trade-off that provides a public
benefit: the state agrees to grant a limited monopoly to an inventor in return for disclosing how the technology works. To qualify, an innovation must be novel, useful and non-obvious, which earns the inventor 20 years of exclusivity. “Design patents”, which cover appearances and are granted after a simpler review process, are valid for 14 years.
回想一下专利为什么会存在有助于解决上述问题。专利制度是为公众提供利益而建立的一个协调机制：国家同意授予技术发明人一定的独占权，而发明者则需公开如何使用该项技术①。一项技术要获得专利必须具有新颖性、实用性和创造性，发明人对其专利拥有20年的独占权。“设计专利”包括产品的外观设计，其审查的过程比其他专利简单，有效期为14年。
The dispute between Apple and Samsung is less over how the devices work and more over their look and feel. At issue are features like the ability to zoom into an image with a double finger tap, pinching gestures, and the visual “rubber band” effect when you scroll to the end of a page. The case even extends to whether the device and its on-screen icons are allowed to have rounded corners. To be sure, some of these things were terrific improvements over what existed before the iPhone?s arrival, but to award a monopoly right to finger gestures and rounded rectangles is to stretch the definition of “novel” and “non-obvious” to breaking-point.
苹果与三星的争论更主要的是围绕二者产品的外观和用户体验而展开，而非产品的工作原理。存在争议的产品特征有双击放大图片功能，双指捏展缩放功能以及将页面滚动到底部时的“回弹”视觉特效。案件还涉及到了三星产品及其屏幕上的图标是否有权使用苹果设计的圆角方形图标。诚然，苹果公司设计的一些功能相比苹果手机出现前的同类产品来说的确是有了巨大的进步，但如果手势操控和圆角矩形图标都要被赋予独占权，那么我们只能将“新颖”和“创造”的定义拓展到极限了。
A proliferation of patents harms the public in three ways. First, it means that technology companies will compete more at the courtroom than in the marketplace—precisely what seems to be happening. Second, it hampers follow-on improvements by firms that implement an existing technology but build upon it as well. Third, it fuels many of the American patent system?s broader problems, such as patent trolls (speculative lawsuits by patent-holders who have no intention of actually making anything); defensive patenting (acquiring patents mainly to pre-empt the risk of litigation, which raises business costs); and “innovation gridlock” (the difficulty of combining multiple technologies to create a single new product because too many small patents are spread among too many players).
专利范围的扩大会给公众带来三方面的危害。首先，这样做意味着科技企业会花更多时间在法庭上争斗，而非努力在市场上竞争——而这种情况似乎正在发生。其次，这样做也会使一些公司依赖现有的技术，阻碍他们对这些技术进行后续开发。最后，这样做会引发美国专利系统许多更为广泛的问题，如专利流氓②（本身并不制造专利产品，而是购买专利的所有权或使用权，再借专利诉讼赚取巨额利润）；防御专利（主要是为了防止诉讼风险而申请的专利，这种专利会增加企业成本）；创新僵局（许多小型专利为不同的竞争者所有，这给结合多项技术创造新产品带来了困难）。
Some basic reforms would alleviate many of the problems exemplified by the iPhone lawsuit. The existing criteria for a patent should be applied with greater vigour. Specialised courts for patent disputes should be established, with technically minded judges in charge: the inflated patent-damage awards of recent years are largely the result of jury trials. And if patents are infringed, judges should favour
monetary penalties over injunctions that ban the sale of offending products and thereby reduce consumer choice.
一些基本的改革能减轻苹果手机案体现出来的许多问题。我们应该加大运用现有专利标准的力度，同时为专利纠纷建立专门的法庭，并由技术知识丰富的法官来掌管法庭：近些年专利侵权赔偿费飞涨，这些案件的判决大多是由陪审团做出的。如果一项专利受到侵犯，法官应倾向于罚款，而非禁止那些侵权产品销售，因为这样做会缩小消费者的产品选择范围。
Pinch and bloom
修剪，开花
A world of fewer but more robust patents, combined with a more efficient method of settling disputes, would not just serve the interests of the public but also help innovators like Apple. The company is rumoured to be considering an iPad with a smaller screen, a format which Samsung already sells. What if its plans were blocked by a specious patent? Apple?s own early successes were founded on enhancing the best technologies that it saw, notably the graphical interface and mouse that were first invented at Xerox?s Palo Alto Research Centre. “It comes down to trying to expose your self to the best things that humans have done—and then try to bring those things in to what you?re doing,” said Jobs in a television documentary, “Triumph of the Nerds”, in 1996. “And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
控制好专利数量，但同时提高专利质量，再结合一套更高效的纠纷解决办法，这样做不仅对公众有益，而且对苹果公司这样的创新者也十分有益。有传言说苹果公司正在考虑设计一款屏幕更小的平板电脑，而三星早已在销售类似的产品。如果苹果公司的计划因一项缺乏实质内容的专利而受到限制，那么它该如何？苹果公司早前的成功都是通过发展它所发现的先进技术而取得的，尤其是它的图形界面以及鼠标，这两者都是在施乐公司的帕洛阿图研究中心最先发明出来的。乔布斯在1996年的电视纪录片《书呆子的胜利：微软发家史》中说道，“归根结底就是要将你自己置身于人类的最佳发明之中，然后试图将这些融入到你所设计的东西中去。他说，“我们从不为借鉴伟大的想法而感到羞愧”。
Have yuan, will travel
中国游客：钞票在手，游遍全球
China’s new middle class goes farther for its holidays
新一代中产阶级选择更远的地方度假
YANG RONGLIN, a teacher, usually spends his summer holidays in China. This year Mr Yang, who is 50, decided to venture abroad for the first time, booking a two-week coach tour of America. Mr Yang joins a multitude of Chinese tourists venturing overseas. In the first half of this year 38m Chinese took international trips, 18% more than in the same period last year. In 2011 they spent $73 billion while travelling abroad, third only to Germans and Americans.
杨荣林（音译）是一位教师，往年暑假，他都呆在国内。然而今年，年届半百的老杨一改往常，预定了去美国两周的大巴游，决定到国外转一圈。老杨是中国出境旅游大军中的一员。今年上半年，共计三千八百万中国游客到国外度假，这一数字比去年同期增长18%。而中国游客去年海外旅游消费达七百三十亿美元，仅次于德美。
Holidaying abroad is a recent luxury. Not until the early 1990s did the government approve foreign countries as holiday destinations, and a passport was hard for ordinary people to obtain. Now applying for a passport is easier and 140 countries are on the approved list.
近年来，出国旅行方成为一种奢侈享受。事实上，中国政府直到九十年代初才开放出境旅游，过去，对普通老百姓而言，护照可谓“一证难求”。现如今，申请出国护照省事多了，出境旅游目的地国家也达到了140个。
Competition to lure Chinese tourists has become fierce, says Andrew McEvoy, managing director of T ourism Australia. To give them an edge, Australian hotels have introduced Chinese television channels and congee on the breakfast menu. In July, America announced that it had processed a million tourist visa applications from China since October 2011, an increase of 43% on the same period a year earlier. Foreign governments know that Chinese tourists like to splurge: they spend about $6,000 per trip to America, according to the US Travel Association, a third more than the average outlay of other visitors. 澳大利亚旅游局局长安德鲁?麦伊沃说，各国争相招揽中国游客，现在竞争日趋白热化。为胜人一筹，澳洲各酒店引进中国电视频道，早餐中也增加了粥类。今年7月，美国称，自2011年10月起，该国处理的中国游客旅行签证申请已达百万，比2010年同期增长43%。外国政府了解中国游客热衷败金挥霍的嗜好，据美国旅游协会统计，赴美中国游客每次出行约消费6000美元，较其他国家游客平均消费高出三分之一。
Some countries, such as Britain, have been slow to capitalise. Last year only 147,000 Chinese tourists visited Britain compared with 1.2m who went to France. So the British have launched a campaign to triple the number of Chinese visitors by 2015. They have also pledged to improve Britain?s onerous visa process. While the Schengen visa system allows holders to visit multiple European countries, Britain requires a separate visa.
一些国家，如英国，还没抓牢这棵摇钱树。去年游览法国的中国游客达一百二十万人，相比之下，赴英旅游的人数仅有十四万七千。据此，英国政府开展活动，要在2015年实现中国游客数量增加三倍。同时还承诺精简繁琐的签证手续。申根签证允许其持有者游览欧洲多国，而英国则要求另外办理签证。
The way Chinese tourists are travelling is changing too: wearing matching caps and following a guide with a flag are becoming less popular. Younger Chinese tourists are seeking a deeper experience of travel, says Lou Jiajun, a tourism scholar. Even middle-aged travellers want to be more independent. Mr Yang, the teacher, plans next year to hire a car in Belgium. Besides tasting the beer, he says he will take lots of photos. His elderly parents have never been abroad, and they like to see pictures of their son making the most of his freedom.
中国游客的旅游习惯也有所改变。旅游学者娄家俊（音译）说道，现在的人们不怎么喜欢带清一色小帽，尾随挥旗导游这一套了。年轻一代旅行者追求更深层次的出游体验。哪怕是中年游客也希望自主性强些。教师老杨计划明年在比利时租车游。他说，在品尝当地啤酒之余，他会多拍些照片回来。老杨年迈的父母未曾踏出过国门一步，他们喜欢看看照片，看看儿子如何尽情享受这份自由。
B?r’s leap
宝盛银行进军新兴市场
A Swiss bank bets on emerging markets
一家瑞士银行下注新兴市场
WHO would want to be a Swiss private banker right now? This summer many of them were advised to
holiday within Swiss borders rather than risk arrest or other forms of harassment by American and European tax authorities. In some cases their own bosses have been pressed into sending employee details to America?s Department of Justice, which is investigating 11 Swiss banks for encouraging tax evasion by American residents. Although consolidation is needed, few banks are interested in buying each other at the moment, mainly for fear of inheriting some horrible lawsuit in America. There is trouble closer to home, too: German politicians are threatening to tear up a treaty designed to head off attacks on Swiss banking secrecy.
眼下有谁会想当瑞士私营银行家？这个夏天，很多瑞士私营银行家被建议留在瑞士度假，免得被美国或欧洲税务机构逮捕或骚扰。有些银行的老板还被勒令将员工的详细资料交给美国司法部，而后者正在调查11家瑞士银行鼓励美国居民逃税的事件。尽管瑞士银行业内需要合并，但目前没几家银行有兴趣收购其他对手，主要是因为担心要接手美国的一些难缠的官司。麻烦还出现在离瑞士更近的国家：德国的政客正威胁要撕毁一项条约，这项条约是为阻止人们抨击瑞士银行业的保密原则而订立的。
But at least one Swiss private banker is willing to stick his head above the parapet. Earlier this month Boris Collardi (pictured), the boss of Julius B?r, cemented the bank?s position as the country?s third-biggest wealth manager, still some way behind UBS and Credit Suisse (see chart), in a deal that should also double the bank?s presence in growing markets such as Asia and South America. Julius B?r is buying the non-American business of Merrill Lynch?s International Wealth Management (IWM) division, which manages $84 billion of clients? money. The seller is Bank of America, whic h picked up Merrill during the worst of the 2008 financial crisis and will take a SFr240m ($249m) stake in Julius B?r as part of the deal.
不过，至少有一位瑞士私营银行家愿意冒险。本月较早前，瑞士宝盛银行的老板鲍里斯?科拉德（如图）达成了一项交易，巩固了宝盛银行作为瑞士第三大理财机构的地位，但与瑞士联合银行和瑞士信贷集团仍有很大差距（见图）。这项交易将令宝盛银行在新兴市场（如亚洲、南美洲）中的份额加倍。宝盛银行还即将收购美林证券公司（IWM）国际理财部门在美国以外的业务，这个部门为客户理财的金额达840亿美元。卖方是在2008年金融危机最严重的时候收购美林证券的美国银行。在这项交易中，美国银行将接收宝盛银行价值2.4亿瑞士法郎（2.49亿美元）的股票。
Mr Collardi, still only 38, has been changing the face of the once rather staid, family-dominated B?r since he took over in 2009. Last year he bought into GPS, a Brazilian wealth-management firm, and beefed up B?r?s workforce in Germany. More recently he has struck co-operation agreements with Macquarie, an Australian investment bank, and Bank of China. (In the interim, an attempt to buy Sarasin, a private Swiss bank owned by Rabobank of the Netherlands, came to nothing.) The aim is to have 50% of his business in emerging markets by 2015. The IWM deal may help him achieve that goal sooner than planned. B?r already has foreign offices in 29 cities, including Moscow, Cairo and Jakarta. IWM overlaps with some of those but will add eight others, and around 300 extra people in London. 在2009年接管宝盛银行以来，年仅38岁的科拉德不断地改变着这家一度十分保守、家族化经营的银行的面貌。去年，他入股巴西理财公司GPS并增加了德国办事处的人手。最近，他与澳大利亚投资银行麦格里集团及中国银行达成了合作协议。（在这期间他曾试图收购荷兰拉博银行所有的一家私营银行——嘉盛莱宝银行，但以失败告终。）科拉德的目标是到2015年宝盛银行的业务有一半在新兴市场。与IWM 的交易可能会助他提前达成目标。宝盛银行已在29个城市设有办事处，其中包括莫斯科、开罗和雅加达。
IMW也在那其中的部分城市拥有办事处，但会在另外8个城市设立办事处，并在伦敦增加300名员工。
Stock analysts fear Mr Collardi may have bitten off more than he can chew. B?r?s share price plummeted once the IWM deal became public; to alleviate shareholder concerns about dilution, on August 20th B?r reduced the size of a planned rights issue. IWM is overstaffed and loss-making, according to analysts? calculations. B?r will have to cut staff, reconcile two clunky IT systems and force a new culture on the Merrill bankers: they are rewarded deal by deal, whereas B?r?s bonuses depend on the bank?s overall performance. B?r is putting aside SFr400m for “restructuring” costs, including payments to retain staff; Bank of America is also chucking in $125m to keep people in place. B?r will pay only for the assets that are successfully transferred—it anticipates that at least SFr10 billion will be withdrawn by IWM clients.
股票分析师担心科拉德“吃”得太多，无法消化。与IWM的交易一公布，宝盛银行的股价就大跌；为了缓解股东对股票被稀释的担忧，宝盛银行在8月20日减少了预计发行权利股的数量。据分析师们的估计，IWM人浮于事，处于亏损状态。宝盛银行将必须进行裁员、整合两臃肿的IT系统，还要将新的企业文化强加到美林银行家头上：目前他们的奖金是按交易量计算的，而宝盛银行的奖金则要视银行整体业绩而定。宝盛银行将拿出4亿瑞士法郎作为“重组”费，其中包括留住员工的费用；美国银行也将花费1.25亿美元来留住他们的人。宝盛银行只会为成功转移的那部分资产买单——银行预计至少有100亿瑞士法郎将被IWM的客户取走。
It will take time to judge whether B?r?s leap has been successful. Critics wonder whether Mr Collardi?s youthful ambition is leading him to risk a solid franchise for an uncertain future. But his boldness has logic. UBS and Credit Suisse, the two giants of Swiss banking, still have to convince wealth-management clients that their investment-banking arms will not cause them more trouble; the IWM deal consolidates B?r?s status as the biggest “pure play” wealth manager in S witzerland.
宝盛银行大胆的策略能否成功仍需拭目以待。评论人士认为科拉德年少气盛的野心很可能令他前途未卜。不过他这么大胆是有道理的。瑞士联合银行和瑞士信贷集团这两个瑞士银行业巨头仍然得说服理财客户们其投资银行业务不会给他们惹更多的麻烦；与IWM的交易巩固了宝盛银行作为瑞士最大的“专营”理财公司的地位。
And the industry can no longer rely on Swiss banking secrecy to attract assets. The Department of Justice will not be placated; tax treaties with Britain, Germany and Austria that preserve bank secrecy may well be torpedoed by Swiss citizens in a referendum planned for November. Even some Swiss bankers are now calling for Switzerland to fall into line with the Eu ropean Union?s savings directive, which requires cross-border exchange of information. Hans B?r, who ran the bank from 1975 to 1993, shocked the Swiss when he wrote in 2004 that banking secrecy “makes us fat, but impotent”. His latest successor is right to seek out new sources of growth.
而银行业也不能再依靠瑞士银行业的保密原则来吸引投资了。美国司法部不会那么好说话；与英国、德国和澳大利亚达成的保留银行业保密原则的税务条约很可能会被计划在11月进行的瑞士公投所破坏。就连一些瑞士银行家现在也呼吁瑞士要执行欧盟储蓄指令，这项指令要求国于国之间互通信息。2004年，宝盛银行前掌门人汉斯?贝尔（1975-1993年任职）写到：银行业保密原则“让我们长胖，却得了阳痿”，这句话震动了瑞士。由此看来，他的新任接班人寻求新的业绩增长点是明智之举。
：在《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》被废除13年后，花旗集团前CEO桑迪?威尔重新提出分拆全能银行，甚
至还有人提出应建立更丰富和更深入的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》。这种做法是不是太过激进，银行体系改革还有没有别的出路？
Sticking together团结一致，绝不分拆
Breaking up universal banks is a bad idea. There are better ways to make them safer
分拆全能银行并不是个好主意，因为还有更好的办法能提高其安全性
SURGERY is an appealingly radical way of dealing with a diseased organ, but it can have a damaging effect on the rest of the body. That?s one reason why separating the investment and commercial wings of large “universal” banks is the wrong way of going about protecting taxpayers from reckless bankers.
对于病变的器官来说，进行外科手术是一个诱人且较为彻底的处理方法，但同时它也会给身体的其他部位带来破坏性的影响。这也是为什么分拆全能银行①的投资业务与商业业务是一个错误选择的原因之一，因为这样做并不能帮助纳税人规避那些不计后果的银行给他们带来的风险。
The debate about splitting up universal banks has been rumbling since the start of the crisis, when behemoths such as Citigroup and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) nearly collapsed, but has reignited recently. Sandy Weill was the man who stitched Citigroup together in the 1990s and in the process helped bury the Glass-Steagall act, a Depression-era law separating retail and investment banking. Last month he performed a perfect pivot: he now wants regulators to undo his previous work. The idea is also on European minds. Wolfgang Sch?uble, Germany?s finance minister, says he would “not exclude”
a division of this kind. And Vince Cable, Br itain?s business secretary, fancies carving up RBS.
在经济危机开始之时，银行业巨头如花旗集团②和苏格兰皇家银行（RBS）③几乎面临倒闭。早在那时，有关分拆全能银行的讨论就已经声势浩大地展开了。但最近，这一话题再次引发了人们的争论。作为一部大萧条时代的法案，《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》④规定银行的零售业务与投资业务必须划分开来。而桑迪?威尔⑤在上世纪90年代将花旗银行与旅行者集团合并，同时也借此帮忙“埋葬”了这部法案。上个月，他来了一次华丽的转身：现在他希望银行监管者能撤销他之前做下的决定。欧洲人也同样在考虑是否要分拆银行的零售业务与投资业务。德国财政部长沃尔夫冈?朔伊布勒⑥称他并不“排除”采取这种行动的可能性。而英国商务部大臣文斯?凯布尔⑦则幻想着把苏格兰皇家银行的业务给分拆开来。
Bashers of universal banks have three sticks with which to beat them. The first is based on the idea that there something rotten about inv estment banking, a cultural miasma that infects the “good” bits of the banks where companies and individuals get loans and place deposits. The second is that they are a threat to financial stability, because universal banks tend to be bigger and more complex than more focused peers. And the third is that universal banks are a dreadful deal for investors. Mr Weill?s former bank has lost 94% of its value in the past five years; RBS is down by a regal 96%.
痛斥全能银行的人拿出了三大论点对之大加挞伐。第一个理由基于这样的一种想法：投资银行业务存在腐败现象，这种文化上的不良影响会蔓延到银行其他“健康”的部门，也就是企业和个人贷款存款的那些部门。第二个理由是全能银行的存在对金融稳定构成了威胁，因为全能银行通常都比那些专注于某些特定业务的其他银行（同业/同行）更大更复杂。而第三个理由就是投资全能银行极不划算。威尔先生之前担任过CEO的花旗银行，在过去的五年中已丧失了其94%的价值，而苏格兰皇家银行则丧失了其96%的价值，着实具有“皇家风范”。
None of these criticisms, however, would justify a full-scale break-up. The idea that all finance?s problems stem from the investment-banking “casino” is a misdiagnosis. At its heart the crisis was a problem of too much debt, much of it secured against property. It is true that the wholesale market played an important role in the build-up of this debt, but it was propelled by bad lending to individuals and developers from retail and commercial banks. And with these credit channels now blocked up, investment-banking activities such as helping companies to issue debt and equity are a crucial way of channelling savings to businesses with good ideas.
然而，所有这些批评都不足以证明对全能银行进行全面分拆是合理的。所有的金融问题都来源于投资银行业务这一“赌场”的说法本身就是错误的。经济危机的核心问题是债务过重，而且这些债务中有很大一部分都是由房产作担保的。诚然，批发市场在积累这些债务上扮演了很重要的角色，但正是零售银行和商业银行将贷款借贷给个人或开发商最终变成了不良贷款才推动了这一过程。现在由于这些信用渠道都被堵住了，因此帮助企业发行债券和股票等投资银行业务就成了为信誉良好的企业输送资金的一个重要方式。
The stability argument is dubious, too. Because they are diversified, universal banks spread their risks. During the crisis, for example, banks such as JPMorgan Chase saw a sudden slump in investment banking offset by their retail-banking income, and vice versa. Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns had no such hedge—and imploded. Many firms are now choosing to issue bonds rather than take out bank loans. This means pure retail banks lose out, but those with wholesale arms boost profits by taking firms to the bond market.
全能银行会对金融稳定构成威胁这样的说法也是令人质疑的。因为全能银行从事的业务是多种多样的，因此他们能将风险分散开来。比如，在此次经济危机中有一些银行，如摩根大通公司⑧在投资银行业务⑨方面遭受了巨大损失，但它可以通过零售银行业务⑩收入加以抵消，反之亦然。而雷曼兄弟?和贝尔斯登?没有这样的对冲来防止经济损失，最后便崩溃了。现在许多公司都选择发行债券，而非向银行贷款。这意味着单纯的零售银行将会亏损，而那些拥有批发部门的银行则能通过把一些公司引向债券市场提高他们的利润。
The notion that universal banks are worse for shareholders than other banks is also open to question. Poorly as they have performed, they are grabbing market share from pure investment banks in areas such as bonds, currencies and commodities (see article). Finally, though it is easy to call for banks to be carved up, it would be hellishly difficult in practice.Disentangling which shareholders and bondholders should own which bit of a divided bank would be a nightmare.
对股民来说全能银行比其他银行更差这样的说法也是值得商榷的。尽管全能银行表现并不良好，但它们正在从单纯的投资银行手中夺取一些领域的市场份额，如债券、货币和大宗商品等（见另文）。最后，尽管呼吁分拆全能银行轻而易举，但实际执行却是异常艰难。银行分拆后，股东和债券持有者应当获取分拆后的一部分资产。但想要理顺具体哪一部分资产应当由何人持有很困难，无异于一场噩梦。
Better medicine
更好的方法
Change is certainly needed to protect taxpayers from having again to fork out billions to save the
banking system from the consequences of its own mistakes. The very size of universal banks makes them dangerous, for they know the state will bail them out if things go bad. But most are so large that simply slicing them in two would not solve the problem. The effect of splitting up banks like Citigroup, RBS and Deutsche Bank, all of which have assets well over $1 trillion, would be to create six systemically important banks instead of three.
当然，为了避免纳税人再次支付数十亿美元将银行体系从它自己摆下的烂摊子中拯救出来，做出改变是十分必要的。正是由于全能银行具有此等规模，它们才变得十分危险，因为它们知道，一旦出现问题政府一定会为其纾困。但大部分全能银行规模太大，以至于直接将它们一分为二并不足以解决问题。像花旗银行、苏格兰皇家银行、德意志银行等银行拥有的资产都远超过了一万亿美元，对这样的银行直接进行分拆，结果就会出现6家而非3家系统重要性银行?。
More effective medicine is already on offer. The British government is set to adopt the recommendations of an independent commission in Britain, which include the adoption of a “ring fence” that would force the retail and investment-banking armsof universal banks to have their own capital buffers, shielding depositors from losses in the investment bank but retaining some diversification benefits. Add in new rules requiring all types of banks to hold more capital, and (crucially) efforts to impose losses on private creditors of a failing institution, and the case for radical surgery is blunted. 现在已经有人为银行分拆问题提供了更好的方法。英国一个独立委员会提出了一些建议，包括采用“围栏”来强制全能银行的零售银行部门与投资银行部门建立起自己的资本缓冲区，保护存款人免遭投资银行带来的损失，但与此同时保留一些多样化的收益。而英国政府也打算采纳这些建议。如果能再增加一些方法，如要求各类银行持有更多资金这样的新条例，以及（关键的是）努力让私人债权人来承担这个破产的机构带来的损失，这样，一次彻底的外科手术带来的伤害就不会如此严重了。
以史为镜，可以知兴替
Selective memory
选择性记忆
A timely meditation on shaping narratives of the past
对于如何记述历史的及时反思
AS THE ghosts of the Pacific war judder back to life in Asia, it seems appropriate to consider how nation states remember, and misremember, the p ast. Japan?s current tiffs with its neighbours, China and South Korea, are rooted in the march to war and its undigested aftermath, more than 75 years ago. They are inflamed, however, by different narratives of history, and by national media coverage that is often parochial and amnesiac.
近日，在亚洲，太平洋战争的亡魂再次萦绕在人们心头。现在来思考一个民族国家是如何铭记及误记历史的，似乎正是时候。日本最近和中韩两个邻国之间起了种种争执，这都源于75年多以前发动的那场战争和它所带来的尚未平复的创伤。然而，各国对历史的记述不同，国家媒体的报道也往往狭隘而有所回避。因此，这些争执被激化了。
Conflict and memory are the themes that animate this new collection of essays by John Dower, author of the Pulitzer prize-winning “Embracing Defeat” (1999), which looked at Japan after the second world war. Mr Dower is particularly interested in Japan?s sanitisation of its military past, but also the way