一個(gè)華爾街大佬的“黑色優(yōu)勢(shì)”

A lot of people do not trust Wall Street. They regard it as a moneymaking machine for those who work there, which has little interest in practice in its stated aim of channelling capital into businesses and helping them to grow for the broader benefit of society. For such sceptics, Steven Cohen is Exhibit A.

許多人不信任華爾街。他們認(rèn)為華爾街只是為在那里工作的人服務(wù)的一個(gè)賺錢(qián)機(jī)器，在實(shí)踐中無(wú)意像其宣稱(chēng)的那樣，為企業(yè)輸送資本，并幫助企業(yè)成長(zhǎng)壯大，從而造福于整體社會(huì)。對(duì)于這些懷疑者來(lái)說(shuō)，史蒂文•科恩(Steven Cohen)是一號(hào)證據(jù)。

Cohen’s former hedge fund, SAC Capital, came to dominate share trading on Wall Street before it pleaded guilty to insider trading charges in 2013 and paid $1.8bn in penalties. Cohen escaped criminal indictment himself despite being the living, breathing heart of SAC Capital (its name came from his initials) and now runs a private fund with $11bn in assets.

科恩曾經(jīng)執(zhí)掌的對(duì)沖基金SAC資本(SAC Capital)當(dāng)年主導(dǎo)著華爾街的股票交易，后來(lái)在2013年承認(rèn)從事內(nèi)幕交易，并支付了18億美元的罰款。科恩本人逃過(guò)了刑事起訴，盡管他是SAC資本的靈魂人物(該基金名稱(chēng)來(lái)自于他的姓名的首字母縮寫(xiě))?，F(xiàn)在科恩運(yùn)營(yíng)著一家擁有110億美元資產(chǎn)的私人基金。

He may be down but he has not disappeared. The signs are that he will re-enter the hedge fund business next year, after settling a civil action. “I feel I’m a very blessed person, a very happy guy, and when I look at my career in totality, I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world,” the billionaire responded flatly in a recent interview when asked about SAC’s downfall.

他可能處于低谷，但并未消失。有跡象顯示，在了結(jié)一宗民事訴訟后，他將于明年再次進(jìn)入對(duì)沖基金業(yè)務(wù)。這位億萬(wàn)富翁最近接受了采訪，在被問(wèn)及SAC資本垮臺(tái)的時(shí)候坦承道：“我覺(jué)得自己非常有福、非?？鞓?lè)。當(dāng)我從總體上回顧職業(yè)生涯的時(shí)候，我不想拿它跟世界上任何東西交換。”

Sheelah Kolhatkar, a New Yorker writer who has doggedly followed the SAC Capital story — the biggest Wall Street insider trading scandal since Ivan Boesky was jailed in the late 1980s — sheds plenty of light on how the hedge fund became “very blessed”. It’s a murky tale that reflects extremely badly both on Cohen and on investment banks such as Goldman Sachs that enabled him.

不懈追蹤SAC資本故事的《紐約客》(New Yorker)作家施拉哈•科哈特卡爾(Sheelah Kolhatkar)詳細(xì)揭示了這家對(duì)沖基金如何變得“非常有福”——該案是繼上世紀(jì)80年代末伊萬(wàn)•博斯基(Ivan Boesky)被判刑以來(lái)華爾街最大的內(nèi)幕交易丑聞。這是一個(gè)陰暗的故事，對(duì)科恩以及為其提供便利的高盛(Goldman Sachs)等投行來(lái)說(shuō)都極不光彩。

Prosecutors and regulators could not nail Cohen, although they tried extremely hard. The closest they got was to jail for nine years Mathew Martoma, a close lieutenant who gained inside information about an Alzheimer’s drug from a doctor who was running its trial. There was insufficient evidence of any criminality by Cohen, although SAC profited hugely by trading in the companies involved.

檢方和監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)無(wú)法找到科恩的罪證，盡管它們做出了極大的努力。他們?nèi)〉玫淖畲蟪晒菍ⅠR修•馬拓瑪(Mathew Martoma)判刑9年，后者是科恩的親信，從一位從事阿爾茨海默病藥物試驗(yàn)的醫(yī)生那里獲得了內(nèi)幕信息。沒(méi)有足夠證據(jù)表明科恩的行為構(gòu)成犯罪，盡管SAC通過(guò)交易相關(guān)公司的股票斬獲暴利。

No reader of this book would conclude that Cohen is exactly innocent. He built a vast machine that relied on a web of data, some of it illicit. Even the way in which he gained legal insight leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. He paid big commissions to banks to let him know first of any new information, so he could beat other hedge funds and investors to the trade. It gave SAC what Cohen craved: an “edge” over competitors. There were, one SAC trader decided, various kinds of edge. “White edge” was expertise and insight that created legitimate trading opportunities; “grey edge” might be when a company executive dropped hints about its results — a nod and wink that did not quite amount to illegality. Then there was Martoma’s “black edge”.

任何看過(guò)科哈特卡爾撰寫(xiě)的《黑色優(yōu)勢(shì)》(Black Edge)的讀者都不會(huì)得出科恩清白的結(jié)論。他打造了一臺(tái)依賴(lài)大量數(shù)據(jù)的龐大機(jī)器，其中一些數(shù)據(jù)是非法的。就連他獲得合法洞見(jiàn)的方式也讓人皺眉。他向銀行支付巨額傭金以便最先掌握新信息，讓他搶在其他對(duì)沖基金和投資者前面進(jìn)行交易。這使SAC得到了科恩渴求的東西：領(lǐng)先于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的“優(yōu)勢(shì)”。一位SAC的交易員當(dāng)年總結(jié)道，該基金有多種優(yōu)勢(shì)：“白色優(yōu)勢(shì)”是創(chuàng)造合法交易機(jī)會(huì)的專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)和洞見(jiàn);“灰色優(yōu)勢(shì)”可能是一位公司高管在透露業(yè)績(jī)線索時(shí)點(diǎn)頭或眨眼，這很難算得上非法行為;還有就是馬拓瑪?shù)?ldquo;黑色優(yōu)勢(shì)”。

Cohen put huge pressure on traders to produce edge, but avoided knowing what shade it was. He demanded trading strategies accompanied by a “conviction rating” of one to 10, rather than an explanation of where they came from (Martoma gave his Alzheimer’s trade nine). This shielded SAC’s founder from legal jeopardy like “a moat around the company’s most valuable asset”.

科恩向交易員們施加巨大壓力，要求他們?nèi)〉脙?yōu)勢(shì)，自己卻回避了解這些優(yōu)勢(shì)的性質(zhì)。他要求交易策略附上1-10的“定罪評(píng)級(jí)”，而不要求解釋這些策略從何而來(lái)(馬拓瑪給他的阿爾茨海默病交易評(píng)了9級(jí))。這使得SAC的創(chuàng)始人避免了法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，就像“保護(hù)公司最具價(jià)值財(cái)產(chǎn)的護(hù)城河”一樣。

The quality that protected him most was the fact that he was, and always had been, a brilliant trader. He rose up the scrappy side of Wall Street, at a trading shop called Gruntal, rather than a glossy firm such as Goldman or Morgan Stanley. He was “exceptionally better than anyone else”, one former colleague recalled — original, instinctive, brazen and eager for risk.

最能保護(hù)他的特質(zhì)是，他曾是、并且一直是出色的交易員。他是在華爾街好斗的一側(cè)起家的，在一家名為Gruntal的交易公司、而非高盛或摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)等光鮮的大公司。一名前同事回憶稱(chēng)，科恩“比其他人出色得多”——具有獨(dú)創(chuàng)思維、直覺(jué)靈敏、毫無(wú)忌憚并且渴望冒險(xiǎn)。

Kolhatkar tells lucidly how Cohen started off as an outlier — a profane and disruptive figure who had no interest in economics, strategy, or even the companies whose shares he traded — and inexorably pulled Wall Street in his direction. He was in the vanguard of the shift in power from banks to hedge funds, the lightly regulated, freewheeling exploiters of capital.

科哈特卡爾清晰講述了科恩如何從局外人——一個(gè)粗鄙和不按牌理出牌的人物，對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、策略、甚至他買(mǎi)賣(mài)股票的公司毫無(wú)興趣——起步，最終無(wú)情地把華爾街帶向了他的方向。他是推動(dòng)力量平衡從銀行轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)_基金(監(jiān)管寬松、不受約束的資本剝削者)的先驅(qū)。

Along the way, he changed the notion of what “investment” meant. He bought shares not to hold them, like traditional mutual and pension funds, but to trade in and out of them rapidly. It was highly profitable but it stripped away Wall Street’s cover story of being an engine of growth for the economy. Whether or not it was legal, it was unambiguously dubious.

一路上，他改變了“投資”的定義。他買(mǎi)股票是為了快速地買(mǎi)進(jìn)賣(mài)出，而不是像傳統(tǒng)的共同基金和養(yǎng)老金基金那樣長(zhǎng)期持有。這樣做非常賺錢(qián)，但剝?nèi)チ巳A爾街作為經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)引擎的美麗包裝。無(wú)論這么做是否合法，它無(wú)疑都是有問(wèn)題的。

Cohen’s enforced absence from the industry has coincided with a tougher period for hedge funds. The question is whether humans can match computers: the growing force in finance are exchange traded funds, which mimic indexes and investment strategies at a fraction of the cost. He will be competing with a robot if he returns, and the robot has my support.

科恩被迫離開(kāi)這個(gè)行業(yè)之時(shí)，適逢對(duì)沖基金較為艱難的時(shí)期。問(wèn)題是，人類(lèi)能否匹敵計(jì)算機(jī)：交易所交易基金(ETF)是金融領(lǐng)域日益壯大的力量，它以極低的成本來(lái)模擬指數(shù)和投資策略。如果科恩重返金融業(yè)，他將與機(jī)器人展開(kāi)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，而我支持機(jī)器人。

Black Edge: Inside Information, Dirty Money, and the Quest to Bring Down the Most Wanted Man on Wall Street, by Sheelah Kolhatkar, Random House, RRP$28, 368 pages

《黑色優(yōu)勢(shì)：內(nèi)幕消息、臟錢(qián)和追蹤華爾街頭號(hào)黑手》(Black Edge: Inside Information, Dirty Money, and the Quest to Bring Down the Most Wanted Man on Wall Street)，施拉哈•科哈特卡爾著，蘭登書(shū)屋(Random House)出版，建議零售價(jià)28美元，368頁(yè)

John Gapper is the FT’s chief business commentator

本文作者為英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》首席商業(yè)評(píng)論員

Photograph: Bloomberg 圖片來(lái)源：彭博