爲什麼激進投資者更激進了

The influence of activist hedge funds, from Icahn Enterprises to Pershing Square to Third Point, appears to be growing. And not among smaller companies where buying a significant stake means fewer resources are tied up, but among large, Fortune 500 companies.

從Icahn Enterprises公司到潘興廣場資本管理公司，再到對衝基金Third Point，維權對衝基金(activist hedge funds)的影響力似乎在不斷增強。而且，受到影響的不是那些通過投入較少資源就能大量持股的小公司，而是《財富》（Fortune）500強榜上有名的大企業。

What’s behind this new muscle-flexing?

這股新力量的背後是什麼？

Activist hedge funds have been very, well… active lately, and their actions have had a major effect on the value of companies. The current run of successes has not been due to any one thing but to a nexus of circumstances and events. First, success breeds success, confidence is infectious. Second, there is the apparent lack of readiness among very large companies to deal with hedge funds. Finally, there is a general lack of confidence among the boards and management teams that hedge funds have challenged. All these are leading to activist triumphs.

維權派對衝基金最近非常活躍。他們的行爲對相關公司的市值產生了重大影響。這些基金接二連三地獲勝不是由於某一個因素，而是多重情境下的共同作用使然。首先，一步爲贏，步步爲贏，信心具有感染力。其次，許多大型公司顯然沒有做好對付對衝基金的準備。最後，受到對衝基金挑戰的董事會和管理層普遍缺乏自信。所有這些使得維權派成爲贏家。

Not only was Icahn Enterprises’ campaign to force eBay to sell PayPal successful, causing the stock price to climb to a six-month high, Icahn’s criticisms of eBay director Marc Andreessen’s lack of independence resulted in him stepping down from the board.

億萬富豪兼激進投資者卡爾o伊坎的Icahn Enterprises公司呼籲購物網站eBay出售支付業務PayPal的行動不僅成功推動eBay股價創下六個月新高，其對eBay董事、著名風險資本投資者馬克o安德森缺乏獨立性的指責也導致後者辭職。

Daniel Loeb’s Third Point has been running a campaign to shake up auction house Sotheby’s. This led to the announcement of CEO Bill Ruprecht’s resignation and a significant uptick in the company’s stock price. In addition, Loeb has now installed four independent directors on Dow Chemical’s board, cementing the idea that hedge fund influence in U.S. boardrooms is on the rise. To be sure, the immediate increase in Dow’s stock price was short-lived.

丹尼爾o勒布的Third Point對衝基金也在不停挑戰蘇富比拍賣行（Sotheby’s）。受此影響，蘇富比首席執行官比爾o魯普雷希特宣佈辭職，該拍賣行的股價隨後急劇上升。另外，勒布爲陶氏化學公司（Dow Chemical）安排了四名獨立董事，這讓人們愈發相信對衝基金對美國公司董事會的影響越來越大。當然，雖然陶氏化學的股價立即上揚，但漲勢並不持久。

Pershing Square has also been busy. Bill Ackman’schallenges to Herbalife (he accused it of being a pyramid scheme, which led to a government investigation) has led to a significant income slowdown at the company, much of it due to changes the company has made to its sales strategy to mitigate the pyramid-scheme allegations. Ackman also successfully sued to gain permission to vote his 10% stake in Botox-maker Allergan in support of a takeover of the company by rival drug company Valeant. Allergan had a poison pill in place, an instrument designed to prevent hostile takeovers, but the judge still ruled in Ackman’s favor. In fact, the only way Allergan was able to avoid Ackman’s power was by being taken over by yet another rival pharmaceutical firm, Actavis.

潘興廣場也一直忙個不停。該公司創始人比爾o阿克曼對康寶萊公司（Herbalife）發起的挑戰（他指責康寶萊從事傳銷，從而引發政府調查）造成後者的收入增速顯著放緩，這在很大程度上是因爲康寶萊爲了平息傳銷指責而調整了銷售策略。阿克曼還打贏了官司，被獲准使用其在肉毒素注射劑保妥適（Botox）生產商艾爾建公司（Allergan）的10%投票權，來支持後者的商業對手Valeant對其進行收購。雖然制定了用於防止惡意收購的“毒丸計劃”，但法官仍判阿克曼勝訴。實際上，能讓艾爾建擺脫阿克曼控制的唯一途徑就是被另一家對手公司阿特維斯（Actavis）吞併。

Outdoing Pershing Square, hedge fund Starboard Value not only ousted the CEO of Darden Restaurants (the owner of Olive Garden, among other chains), but, last month it replaced the entire 12-person board with its own nominees.

對衝基金Starboard Value比潘興廣場更勝一籌。它不僅把達登連鎖餐飲公司（Darden Restaurants，擁有Olive Garden等連鎖餐館）的首席執行官趕下了臺，還在上個月用自己提名的人選把達登的12名董事換了個遍。

This is beginning to look like a trend.

這開始看起來像是成爲了某種趨勢。

A recent survey of directors by consultancy PwC concludes that big companies need to watch out because the activists are about. Directors at over a third of these large companies (over $10 billion in revenues) indicated they had had interactions with activists. By contrast, less than a fifth of smaller companies reported dealings with hedge funds.

普華永道（PwC）最近對公司董事進行的一份調查得出結論稱，大公司需要小心維權對衝基金的動向。逾三分之一大公司（收入超過100億美元）的董事們表示，他們和激進投資者打過交道。而只有少於五分之一的小公司對付過此類對衝基金。

At the largest companies, boards often do not expect the attention of hedge fund activists and are therefore not prepared and don’t know how to react. This lack of confidence has allowed hedge funds to have their way with these companies.

沒錯，以前有些對衝基金在推動大公司發生變化方面發揮着作用。關係投資者公司（Relational Investors）就成功改變了西方石油公司（Occidental Petroleum）和家得寶（Home Depot）的管理和薪酬政策。然而，這種不斷增加的針對頂尖企業的行動以前並不常見，這是一種新動向。以往對衝基金的關注重點是小公司，因爲比較容易獲得大量股份，從而擁有足以改變這些公司的投票權。現在，這些基金開始利用在小公司獲得的成功——很多給它們帶來了巨大收益，把資源用於在大公司持有較多股權。

But that’s not all. Boards are crumbling in front of the likes of Loeb and Icahn because the value released by changes they are forcing through is making it more likely that other shareholders will support them. Replace directors? New CEO? Divestments? If it came to a vote, management and existing boards would likely lose the fight, so they capitulate before combat actually begins.

在這些碩大無朋的企業，董事會往往想不到激進的對衝基金會對他們的公司感興趣，因而陷入毫無準備、不知所措的境地。董事們缺乏信心讓對衝基金鑽了空子。但問題還不止於此。這些董事會在勒布和伊坎等人面前一敗塗地的原因是後者強行帶來的改變所產生的價值很有可能獲得其他股東的支持。換董事？選新CEO？還是剝離資產？只要一投票，管理層和現任董事們就可能落敗，他們因此不戰而降。

In most cases, these campaigns benefit all shareholders, so don’t expect the hedge funds to go quiet any time soon.

大多數情況下，維權對衝基金的行動能讓全體股東受益，所以別指望他們會很快偃旗息鼓。（財富中文網）