倫敦能涌現(xiàn)出硅谷嗎

倫敦市長鮑里斯•約翰遜(Boris Johnson)在造訪紐約的一周里一直在搖旗擂鼓。但他并非在宣傳自己對(duì)于歐洲、英國保守黨或是他的新書的主題——溫斯頓•丘吉爾(Winston Churchill)的看法。

Instead, Mr Johnson is doing the cyber version oftaking coals to Newcastle: telling American techentrepreneurs that London is a cool place to work and invest. Never mind Silicon Valley or NewYork’s Dumbo (Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass); US entrepreneurs and investorsshould head to Shoreditch and Bournemouth. Or so Mr Johnson’s sales pitch goes.

相反，約翰遜做的是網(wǎng)絡(luò)版的“將煤炭帶到紐卡斯?fàn)?rdquo;(紐卡斯?fàn)柺怯拿禾慨a(chǎn)地，“將煤炭帶到紐卡斯?fàn)?rdquo;意為多此一舉——譯者注)。他告訴美國高科技創(chuàng)業(yè)家：倫敦是一個(gè)很適宜工作和投資的地方。不要只盯著硅谷(Silicon Valley)或是紐約的小飛象街區(qū)(Dumbo);美國創(chuàng)業(yè)家和投資者應(yīng)當(dāng)奔向肖爾迪奇(Shoreditch)和伯恩茅斯(Bournemouth)。約翰遜是這樣推銷的。

It is something of a quixotic mission but is nevertheless notable for at least two reasons.First, it offers a useful reminder of how fashions in the political economy can change. A decadeor so ago, when British trade missions tried to “sell” London to New York, they talked moreabout banks than computer bytes. Back then, people such as Ed Balls, when he was a Treasuryminister, were keen to extol London’s light touch, “principles-based” regulation as acompetitive advantage versus New York.

這是一項(xiàng)不切實(shí)際的任務(wù)，但至少有兩個(gè)原因使它值得關(guān)注。首先，它不無裨益地提醒我們：政治經(jīng)濟(jì)的潮流會(huì)發(fā)生怎樣的變化。大約10年前，當(dāng)英國貿(mào)易代表團(tuán)設(shè)法在紐約“推銷”倫敦時(shí)，他們更多談?wù)摰氖倾y行，而非信息技術(shù)。那時(shí)，英國財(cái)政部的部長級(jí)官員埃德•鮑爾斯(Ed Balls)等人熱衷于將倫敦“點(diǎn)到為止”且“基于原則”的監(jiān)管鼓吹為相對(duì)于紐約的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。

These days no British politician wants to talk too much about banks, or wave a light touchregulatory regime as a lure. Memories of the 2008 crisis are too painful. Instead, the politicallycorrect message for politicians is to extol the digital start-up scene. These companies are oftensmall and create relatively few jobs — although the bigger tech picture is good, with a reportthis month suggesting that the tech industry in London employs more than 250,000 people[SOURCE?](against almost 350,000 in financial services in Greater London). This is cheering.

如今，英國政界人士誰也不愿意過多談?wù)撱y行，或是炫耀點(diǎn)到為止式的監(jiān)管制度，將其作為引資的誘餌。2008年金融危機(jī)留下的記憶太痛苦了。取而代之的是，如今政客們政治上正確的做法是支持?jǐn)?shù)字初創(chuàng)企業(yè)。這些企業(yè)往往規(guī)模較小，創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)也不多。但高科技企業(yè)總體局面不錯(cuò)——本月的一份報(bào)告顯示，倫敦的高科技產(chǎn)業(yè)雇傭了超過25萬人(相比之下，整個(gè)大倫敦區(qū)(Greater London)金融服務(wù)業(yè)吸納近35萬人就業(yè))。這值得歡呼。

The second reason why Mr Johnson’s visit is striking is that it inadvertently shows thedistortions that still haunt the financial world. In some ways — as the British trade team pointout — London has attractive features for entrepreneurs. [??WHY PLURAL - WHAT ARE WETALKING ABOUT HERE?]It is, for example, a truly international centre and the government is(belatedly) trying to make the visa regime more liberal. [REALLY - WE HEAR A LOT OFCOMPLAINTS FROM FOREIGN BUSINESS ABOUT THE OVERLYU STRICT VISA REGIME]Britishofficials told New Yorkers this week that some visas will be provided for the employees of digitalstart-ups and they promised to fast track other applications. British labour costs are lowerthan those in San Francisco, say, [AND COMPARED WITH OTHER EUROPEAN CENTRES?BERLIN?]and there is scientific innovation aplenty spreading out to the regions outsideLondon. Cultural attitudes towards entrepreneurship are becoming more welcoming. Techclusters are emerging, too.

約翰遜的訪問引人注目的第二個(gè)原因是，它無意中展示了仍在困擾金融世界的各種扭曲現(xiàn)象。正如英國貿(mào)易代表團(tuán)所指出的，倫敦對(duì)于創(chuàng)業(yè)家來說在某些方面具有吸引力。例如，倫敦是一個(gè)真正的國際中心，英國政府正(姍姍來遲地)試圖使簽證制度更加自由。就在約翰遜造訪紐約的同一周，英國官員告訴紐約人，他們將為數(shù)字初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的部分員工提供簽證，并承諾加快審批其他申請(qǐng)。英國的勞動(dòng)力成本低于美國舊金山，而且倫敦周圍地區(qū)有豐富的科技創(chuàng)新活力。對(duì)企業(yè)家精神的文化態(tài)度也變得更加熱情。高科技集群正在涌現(xiàn)。

But the rub, as so often outside the US, is cash. [IS THIS NOT A BIG ISSUE EVERYWHEREAOUTSIDE THE US - NOT JUST LONDON. ]If you look at the raw data in isolation, the trajectoryseems cheering. Last year $1.4bn worth of new funding was invested in digital ventures inLondon, while $2.1bn was invested across the UK as a whole. That is twice the level of 2013 —and, strikingly, 20 times higher than five years ago.

但就像美國以外經(jīng)常遭遇的情況一樣，困難在于資金。如果只單獨(dú)看原始數(shù)據(jù)的話，發(fā)展軌跡似乎值得歡慶。去年，倫敦的數(shù)字企業(yè)吸引了14億美元的新投資，而整個(gè)英國的此類投資為21億美元。這是2013年水平的兩倍——更是比5年前高出20倍。

Half of that money was supplied by US venture firms, such as Accel Partners and Union SquareCapital. The Silicon Valley-based Andreessen Horowitz, for example, recently put $58m into afinancial technology company called TransferWise. Indeed, foreign direct investment (FDI) intoLondon is now rising faster than in Berlin and New York, according to Gerard Grech, chiefexecutive of Tech City UK.

其中一半的投資來自美國的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資公司，如阿塞爾伙伴公司(Accel Partners)和合廣資本(Union SquareCapital)。最近，位于硅谷的風(fēng)投公司Andreessen Horowitz向一家名為TransferWise的金融技術(shù)公司投資了5800萬美元。的確，據(jù)英國科技城(Tech City UK)行政總裁杰拉德•格雷奇(Gerard Grech)介紹，現(xiàn)在流入倫敦的外國直接投資(FDI)的增長速度超過了柏林和紐約。

But the sums remain modest compared with the US. Since 2012, American venture capitalcompanies have invested around $70bn in Silicon Valley and $160bn overall, according to theNational Venture Capital Association. Last year, several billion of this went to New York.

但與美國相比，這些金額仍相形見絀。美國國家風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資協(xié)會(huì)(National Venture Capital Association)數(shù)據(jù)顯示，2012年以來，美國風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本公司已在硅谷投資了約700億美元，在全美為1600億美元。去年，紐約吸引了其中的數(shù)十億美元。

The real issue for London tech companies is not so much finding seed capital but the finance toenable successful businesses to scale up. London-based companies can only dream of havingeven a fraction of the type of financial power of a company such as Uber.

倫敦高科技公司面臨的真正問題，與其說是尋找種子資金，不如說是安排融資使成功的企業(yè)能夠擴(kuò)大規(guī)模。倫敦的企業(yè)只能夢(mèng)想擁有哪怕一小部分優(yōu)步(Uber)之類企業(yè)的財(cái)力。

Of course, if you are an optimist — as the bouncy Mr Johnson undoubtedly is — you can arguethat this change will come. The Silicon Valley tech scene is now so crowded and overvalued thatthere is growing appetite among US investors to look overseas.

當(dāng)然，如果你是一個(gè)樂觀主義者——充滿活力的約翰遜無疑就是這樣的——你可以主張這種變化會(huì)到來。硅谷的高科技企業(yè)如今已異常擁擠，而且被嚴(yán)重高估，因此美國投資者轉(zhuǎn)向海外的欲望日漸增加。

And European investors are desperate for productive places to put their cash; this is aregion, after all, where $2 trillion-worth of bonds [BILLION/ MILLION/ TRILLION]have negativeyields. The continent’s banks are also keen to jump on the bandwagon.

歐洲投資者也非?？释顿Y于能產(chǎn)生高效益的地方;畢竟，歐洲2萬億美元的債券的收益率還是負(fù)值。歐洲大陸的銀行也熱切希望分得一杯羹。

But the fact that half the start-up money raised in 2014 was from America, not Europe, showsthe challenge. London financiers are better at devising complex derivatives trades thanorganising a sensible way to fund entrepreneurs on the scale that is needed. If Mr Johnson’smission to New York helps to change this, he will deserve a rousing cheer. But it will be a slog.

但是，2014年初創(chuàng)企業(yè)所籌資金的一半都來自美國(而非歐洲)的現(xiàn)實(shí)凸顯了挑戰(zhàn)。比起按照創(chuàng)業(yè)家所需的規(guī)模提供一種明智的融資方式，倫敦的金融家更善于設(shè)計(jì)復(fù)雜的衍生品交易。如果約翰遜的紐約之行有助于改變這一狀況，他應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)玫綗崃覛g呼。但這絕非易事。