美国政治如何影响投资
经济学人：
Beware: taking a stand can be expensive
当心：表明立场可能会付出高昂的代价
The hedge fund’s branding is a clue. 1789 Capital was set up last year and named for the year Congress proposed America’s bill of rights. It offers investors the chance to put money into what it says are three key themes: a parallel conservative economy catering to consumers who want to avoid being bombarded with liberal ideas; the shift away from free trade; and firms that have been penalised by the environment, social and governance (ESG) investment trend. Its founder, Omeed Malik, a former banker, has hosted fundraisers for Robert Kennedy junior, an anti-vaccination, long-shot presidential candidate.
对冲基金的品牌是一个线索。 1789 Capital 成立于去年，以国会提出美国权利法案的年份命名。它为投资者提供了将资金投入其所说的三个关键主题的机会：平行的保守经济，迎合那些希望避免受到自由主义思想轰炸的消费者；远离自由贸易；以及因环境、社会和治理（ESG）投资趋势而受到惩罚的公司。其创始人、前银行家奥米德·马利克 (Omeed Malik) 为反对疫苗接种、有望成为总统候选人的小罗伯特·肯尼迪 (Robert Kennedy Junior) 举办了筹款活动。
1789 Capital is part of an increasingly important trend: American politics is infecting investing. A gap has opened up between how Democrats and Republicans view the world; many Americans want to express their political identities by any means possible; and others see their money as a way to sway business behaviour. All of this is influencing investment decisions. The amount of money invested in, say, novelty exchange-traded funds (ETFs), such as those tracking the portfolios of certain politicians, is small, but other developments are more significant. Some $13bn has been withdrawn from BlackRock’s accounts, for instance, as red states boycott asset managers that support ESG. A bitterly fought rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden will most likely supercharge the trend.
1789 资本是一个日益重要的趋势的一部分：美国政治正在影响投资。民主党人和共和党人对世界的看法出现了分歧。许多美国人希望通过任何可能的方式表达他们的政治身份；其他人则将金钱视为影响商业行为的一种方式。所有这些都在影响投资决策。例如，投资于新颖的交易所交易基金（ETF）（例如追踪某些政客投资组合的基金）的资金数额很小，但其他方面的进展更为重要。例如，由于红州抵制支持 ESG 的资产管理公司，贝莱德账户已被撤走约 130 亿美元。唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登之间的激烈对决很可能会加剧这一趋势。
Chart: The Economist 图表：《经济学人》
According to a forthcoming paper by Elena Pikulina of the University of British Columbia and co-authors, the portfolios of Democrat and Republican retail investors began to diverge half-way through Barack Obama’s presidency, before consistently widening. By combining data from investment advisers with county-level election results, the researchers show that investors in Republican-leaning counties shun stocks from firms where the chief executive has made donations to the Democrats, while those in Democrat-leaning counties are less likely to invest in a firm when there are concerns about its treatment of workers. Voters also indirectly influence decisions made by their political representatives, as can be seen with the ESG boycotts.
根据不列颠哥伦比亚大学的埃琳娜·皮库丽娜（Elena Pikulina）及其合著者即将发表的一篇论文，民主党和共和党散户投资者的投资组合在巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）总统任期中途开始出现分歧，然后持续扩大。通过将投资顾问的数据与县级选举结果相结合，研究人员发现，倾向共和党的县的投资者会避开首席执行官向民主党捐款的公司的股票，而倾向民主党的县的投资者则不太可能投资这些公司的股票。当人们担心公司对待工人的待遇时。选民还间接影响其政治代表的决策，从 ESG 抵制中可以看出。
What motivates this behaviour? One possibility is that Democrats and Republicans simply disagree about the direction of the economy and, as a result, about which investments will perform best. Under this reading, rather than being the result of investors trying to achieve political outcomes, the divide is a product of politically inflected views of the world. Indeed, a paper by Maarten Meeuwis of Washington University in St Louis and colleagues finds that the risk appetite of American investors shifts according to who is in the White House. After the presidential election in 2016 some Democrat-leaning investors sold stocks and bought bonds—a sign they were worried about the future. Republicans did the opposite. Although only a relatively small number of people made such moves, those who did typically shifted more than a quarter of their holdings.
这种行为的动机是什么？一种可能性是，民主党和共和党只是对经济发展方向以及哪些投资表现最佳存在分歧。根据这种解读，这种分歧不是投资者试图实现政治成果的结果，而是政治世界观的产物。事实上，圣路易斯华盛顿大学的 Maarten Meeuwis 及其同事发表的一篇论文发现，美国投资者的风险偏好会根据谁入主白宫而变化。 2016 年总统大选后，一些倾向民主党的投资者出售股票并购买债券，这表明他们对未来感到担忧。共和党人却反其道而行之。尽管只有相对少数的人进行了此类举动，但这样做的人通常会转移超过四分之一的持仓。
The authors argue this reflects differing interpretations of economic data. After all, it mirrors a divide between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to consumer confidence. Both are more confident about the economy when the president is from their own party, controlling for inflation and unemployment. A consumer-sentiment survey by the University of Michigan finds a significant divergence along political lines—bigger than that along lines of age or income. During Mr Biden’s time in office, Republicans have on average expected 2.4 percentage points more inflation in the year ahead than Democrats.
作者认为这反映了对经济数据的不同解释。毕竟，这反映了民主党和共和党在消费者信心方面的分歧。当总统来自自己的政党时，两人对经济更有信心，控制通货膨胀和失业。密歇根大学的一项消费者信心调查发现，政治方面存在显着差异——比年龄或收入方面的差异更大。拜登执政期间，共和党人平均预计未来一年的通胀率比民主党人高出 2.4 个百分点。
Yet different world views do not entirely explain the trend. It seems partisans are buying shares as an expression of support, too, much as they might put up a candidate’s poster. Truth Social, Mr Trump’s social-media holding firm, surged when it listed on the Nasdaq in March, as supporters rushed to buy the stock. After Mr Trump’s win in 2016, punters in Democrat-leaning counties invested more in clean-energy firms, even though the result was likely to be bad news for such businesses. To these investors, returns matter less than identification with the cause, says Stephen Siegel of the University of Washington, one of Ms Pikulina’s co-authors.
然而不同的世界观并不能完全解释这一趋势。党派人士似乎也在购买股票以表达支持，就像他们张贴候选人的海报一样。特朗普的社交媒体控股公司Truth Social 3月份在纳斯达克上市后，由于支持者争相购买该公司股票，股价飙升。 2016 年特朗普获胜后，倾向于民主党的县的赌客加大了对清洁能源公司的投资，尽管结果可能对此类企业来说是个坏消息。皮库利纳女士的合著者之一、华盛顿大学的史蒂芬·西格尔表示，对这些投资者来说，回报比对投资原因的认同更重要。
Partisan investors also hope to change business behaviour. Since red states began to pull money from BlackRock, the firm’s boss, Larry Fink, has begun to shy away from referring to esg. So have other prominent asset managers and bankers. Meanwhile, a study by Matthew Kahn of the University of Southern California and colleagues finds that when an American state’s pension fund becomes more Democrat-aligned—say, when a new governor comes in—the firms it is invested in reduce their carbon emissions more quickly.
党派投资者也希望改变商业行为。自从红州开始从贝莱德撤资以来，该公司的老板拉里·芬克(Larry Fink)就开始回避提及ESG。其他著名的资产管理者和银行家也是如此。与此同时，南加州大学的马修·卡恩（Matthew Kahn）及其同事进行的一项研究发现，当美国各州的养老基金变得更加向民主党靠拢时（例如，当新州长上任时），其投资的公司会更快地减少碳排放。
Partisan investing is both problem and opportunity for financiers. The rise of ESG investing at first allowed asset managers to distinguish themselves from rivals. Around $120bn flowed into such funds in 2021. But in the final quarter of 2023 they saw net outflows for the first time. The difficulty now is to sell to both sides without annoying either—a task that is becoming increasingly hard as new topics are dragged into the fray. In October Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, gave Morningstar Sustainalytics, a financial-data firm, 90 days to either “clarify its business practices or cease its boycott of Israel”. He argued that its ESG metrics classified companies as a risk for having invested in Israel. An independent report commissioned by Morningstar recommended dropping a specific tag for companies that operate in “occupied territories”—advice that the firm intends to follow. Florida has since removed Morningstar from the warning list.
对于金融家来说，党派投资既是问题也是机遇。 ESG投资的兴起首先让资产管理公司从竞争对手中脱颖而出。 2021 年，约有 1200 亿美元流入此类基金。但在 2023 年最后一个季度，它们首次出现净流出。现在的困难是既要向双方推销产品又不惹恼任何一方——随着新话题的加入，这项任务变得越来越困难。 10 月，佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯 (Ron DeSantis) 给金融数据公司晨星可持续发展公司 (Morningstar Sustainalytics) 90 天的时间，要求其“澄清其商业行为，或停止抵制以色列”。他认为，其 ESG 指标将公司归类为在以色列投资的风险。晨星公司委托撰写的一份独立报告建议，为在“占领区”运营的公司取消特定标签——该公司打算遵循这一建议。此后，佛罗里达州已将晨星公司从警告名单中删除。
It is not just conservatives making a fuss. Vanguard, an asset manager, has been targeted by activists for quitting the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, an industry body. In January the Sunrise Project, a campaign group, began running advertisements in Pennsylvania, the firm’s home state, accusing it of giving in to bullies.
不仅仅是保守派在大惊小怪。资产管理公司先锋集团因退出行业机构“净零资产管理公司倡议”而成为激进分子的目标。一月份，竞选组织“日出项目”开始在该公司的家乡宾夕法尼亚州投放广告，指责该公司向恶霸屈服。
At the same time, smaller firms can indulge partisans. There have long been funds that apply a liberal lens to investment decisions, such as Parnassus Investments, which was established in 1984. They are being joined by right-wing ones. As well as 1789 Capital, there is Strive Asset Management, set up in 2022 by Vivek Ramaswamy, an ertswhile Republican presidential candidate, which offers investors an American energy etf that focuses on fossil fuels and has the ticker DRLL.
与此同时，规模较小的公司可能会纵容党派。长期以来，一直有一些基金在投资决策中采用自由主义视角，例如 1984 年成立的 Parnassus Investments。右翼基金也加入了它们的行列。除了 1789 Capital 之外，还有由当时的共和党总统候选人维韦克·拉马斯瓦米 (Vivek Ramaswamy) 于 2022 年创立的 Strive Asset Management，该公司为投资者提供专注于化石燃料、股票代码为 DRLL 的美国能源 ETF。
Taking a stand can be expensive. Researchers at the Federal Reserve and the University of Pennsylvania have found that anti-ESG boycotts raised the cost of borrowing for Texan municipalities by $300m-500m as banks with ESG policies withdrew from underwriting bond sales. Democrats who shifted out of stocks when Mr Trump won in 2016 would have lost out on a post-election rally. In the year after the vote, the S&P 500 rose by 21%.
表明立场可能代价高昂。美联储和宾夕法尼亚大学的研究人员发现，随着实施 ESG 政策的银行退出承销债券销售，反 ESG 抵制使德克萨斯州各市的借贷成本增加了 3 亿至 5 亿美元。 2016 年特朗普获胜后，民主党人纷纷抛售股票，他们可能会在大选后的反弹中失利。投票后一年，标准普尔 500 指数上涨了 21%。
Markets thrive on differences of opinion: every seller needs a buyer and every buyer needs a seller. Funds that offer investors a chance to express those opinions are not necessarily a bad thing. But American capitalism has been built on the pursuit of profit at all costs. In recent decades, investors have flocked to index funds, which track the market, offering diversification and low fees. To the extent that partisan investors are trying to reshape the economy to align with their values, rather than betting on beliefs about the economy, they are going to pay for it. ■
市场因意见分歧而繁荣：每个卖家都需要买家，每个买家也需要卖家。为投资者提供表达这些观点的机会的基金不一定是坏事。但美国资本主义是建立在不惜一切代价追求利润的基础上的。近几十年来，投资者纷纷涌向追踪市场、提供多元化且费用低廉的指数基金。如果党派投资者试图重塑经济以符合他们的价值观，而不是押注于对经济的信念，他们就会为此付出代价。
Beware: taking a stand can be expensive
当心：表明立场可能会付出高昂的代价
The hedge fund’s branding is a clue. 1789 Capital was set up last year and named for the year Congress proposed America’s bill of rights. It offers investors the chance to put money into what it says are three key themes: a parallel conservative economy catering to consumers who want to avoid being bombarded with liberal ideas; the shift away from free trade; and firms that have been penalised by the environment, social and governance (ESG) investment trend. Its founder, Omeed Malik, a former banker, has hosted fundraisers for Robert Kennedy junior, an anti-vaccination, long-shot presidential candidate.
对冲基金的品牌是一个线索。 1789 Capital 成立于去年，以国会提出美国权利法案的年份命名。它为投资者提供了将资金投入其所说的三个关键主题的机会：平行的保守经济，迎合那些希望避免受到自由主义思想轰炸的消费者；远离自由贸易；以及因环境、社会和治理（ESG）投资趋势而受到惩罚的公司。其创始人、前银行家奥米德·马利克 (Omeed Malik) 为反对疫苗接种、有望成为总统候选人的小罗伯特·肯尼迪 (Robert Kennedy Junior) 举办了筹款活动。
1789 Capital is part of an increasingly important trend: American politics is infecting investing. A gap has opened up between how Democrats and Republicans view the world; many Americans want to express their political identities by any means possible; and others see their money as a way to sway business behaviour. All of this is influencing investment decisions. The amount of money invested in, say, novelty exchange-traded funds (ETFs), such as those tracking the portfolios of certain politicians, is small, but other developments are more significant. Some $13bn has been withdrawn from BlackRock’s accounts, for instance, as red states boycott asset managers that support ESG. A bitterly fought rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden will most likely supercharge the trend.
1789 资本是一个日益重要的趋势的一部分：美国政治正在影响投资。民主党人和共和党人对世界的看法出现了分歧。许多美国人希望通过任何可能的方式表达他们的政治身份；其他人则将金钱视为影响商业行为的一种方式。所有这些都在影响投资决策。例如，投资于新颖的交易所交易基金（ETF）（例如追踪某些政客投资组合的基金）的资金数额很小，但其他方面的进展更为重要。例如，由于红州抵制支持 ESG 的资产管理公司，贝莱德账户已被撤走约 130 亿美元。唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登之间的激烈对决很可能会加剧这一趋势。
Chart: The Economist 图表：《经济学人》According to a forthcoming paper by Elena Pikulina of the University of British Columbia and co-authors, the portfolios of Democrat and Republican retail investors began to diverge half-way through Barack Obama’s presidency, before consistently widening. By combining data from investment advisers with county-level election results, the researchers show that investors in Republican-leaning counties shun stocks from firms where the chief executive has made donations to the Democrats, while those in Democrat-leaning counties are less likely to invest in a firm when there are concerns about its treatment of workers. Voters also indirectly influence decisions made by their political representatives, as can be seen with the ESG boycotts.
根据不列颠哥伦比亚大学的埃琳娜·皮库丽娜（Elena Pikulina）及其合著者即将发表的一篇论文，民主党和共和党散户投资者的投资组合在巴拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）总统任期中途开始出现分歧，然后持续扩大。通过将投资顾问的数据与县级选举结果相结合，研究人员发现，倾向共和党的县的投资者会避开首席执行官向民主党捐款的公司的股票，而倾向民主党的县的投资者则不太可能投资这些公司的股票。当人们担心公司对待工人的待遇时。选民还间接影响其政治代表的决策，从 ESG 抵制中可以看出。
What motivates this behaviour? One possibility is that Democrats and Republicans simply disagree about the direction of the economy and, as a result, about which investments will perform best. Under this reading, rather than being the result of investors trying to achieve political outcomes, the divide is a product of politically inflected views of the world. Indeed, a paper by Maarten Meeuwis of Washington University in St Louis and colleagues finds that the risk appetite of American investors shifts according to who is in the White House. After the presidential election in 2016 some Democrat-leaning investors sold stocks and bought bonds—a sign they were worried about the future. Republicans did the opposite. Although only a relatively small number of people made such moves, those who did typically shifted more than a quarter of their holdings.
这种行为的动机是什么？一种可能性是，民主党和共和党只是对经济发展方向以及哪些投资表现最佳存在分歧。根据这种解读，这种分歧不是投资者试图实现政治成果的结果，而是政治世界观的产物。事实上，圣路易斯华盛顿大学的 Maarten Meeuwis 及其同事发表的一篇论文发现，美国投资者的风险偏好会根据谁入主白宫而变化。 2016 年总统大选后，一些倾向民主党的投资者出售股票并购买债券，这表明他们对未来感到担忧。共和党人却反其道而行之。尽管只有相对少数的人进行了此类举动，但这样做的人通常会转移超过四分之一的持仓。
The authors argue this reflects differing interpretations of economic data. After all, it mirrors a divide between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to consumer confidence. Both are more confident about the economy when the president is from their own party, controlling for inflation and unemployment. A consumer-sentiment survey by the University of Michigan finds a significant divergence along political lines—bigger than that along lines of age or income. During Mr Biden’s time in office, Republicans have on average expected 2.4 percentage points more inflation in the year ahead than Democrats.
作者认为这反映了对经济数据的不同解释。毕竟，这反映了民主党和共和党在消费者信心方面的分歧。当总统来自自己的政党时，两人对经济更有信心，控制通货膨胀和失业。密歇根大学的一项消费者信心调查发现，政治方面存在显着差异——比年龄或收入方面的差异更大。拜登执政期间，共和党人平均预计未来一年的通胀率比民主党人高出 2.4 个百分点。
Yet different world views do not entirely explain the trend. It seems partisans are buying shares as an expression of support, too, much as they might put up a candidate’s poster. Truth Social, Mr Trump’s social-media holding firm, surged when it listed on the Nasdaq in March, as supporters rushed to buy the stock. After Mr Trump’s win in 2016, punters in Democrat-leaning counties invested more in clean-energy firms, even though the result was likely to be bad news for such businesses. To these investors, returns matter less than identification with the cause, says Stephen Siegel of the University of Washington, one of Ms Pikulina’s co-authors.
然而不同的世界观并不能完全解释这一趋势。党派人士似乎也在购买股票以表达支持，就像他们张贴候选人的海报一样。特朗普的社交媒体控股公司Truth Social 3月份在纳斯达克上市后，由于支持者争相购买该公司股票，股价飙升。 2016 年特朗普获胜后，倾向于民主党的县的赌客加大了对清洁能源公司的投资，尽管结果可能对此类企业来说是个坏消息。皮库利纳女士的合著者之一、华盛顿大学的史蒂芬·西格尔表示，对这些投资者来说，回报比对投资原因的认同更重要。
Partisan investors also hope to change business behaviour. Since red states began to pull money from BlackRock, the firm’s boss, Larry Fink, has begun to shy away from referring to esg. So have other prominent asset managers and bankers. Meanwhile, a study by Matthew Kahn of the University of Southern California and colleagues finds that when an American state’s pension fund becomes more Democrat-aligned—say, when a new governor comes in—the firms it is invested in reduce their carbon emissions more quickly.
党派投资者也希望改变商业行为。自从红州开始从贝莱德撤资以来，该公司的老板拉里·芬克(Larry Fink)就开始回避提及ESG。其他著名的资产管理者和银行家也是如此。与此同时，南加州大学的马修·卡恩（Matthew Kahn）及其同事进行的一项研究发现，当美国各州的养老基金变得更加向民主党靠拢时（例如，当新州长上任时），其投资的公司会更快地减少碳排放。
Partisan investing is both problem and opportunity for financiers. The rise of ESG investing at first allowed asset managers to distinguish themselves from rivals. Around $120bn flowed into such funds in 2021. But in the final quarter of 2023 they saw net outflows for the first time. The difficulty now is to sell to both sides without annoying either—a task that is becoming increasingly hard as new topics are dragged into the fray. In October Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, gave Morningstar Sustainalytics, a financial-data firm, 90 days to either “clarify its business practices or cease its boycott of Israel”. He argued that its ESG metrics classified companies as a risk for having invested in Israel. An independent report commissioned by Morningstar recommended dropping a specific tag for companies that operate in “occupied territories”—advice that the firm intends to follow. Florida has since removed Morningstar from the warning list.
对于金融家来说，党派投资既是问题也是机遇。 ESG投资的兴起首先让资产管理公司从竞争对手中脱颖而出。 2021 年，约有 1200 亿美元流入此类基金。但在 2023 年最后一个季度，它们首次出现净流出。现在的困难是既要向双方推销产品又不惹恼任何一方——随着新话题的加入，这项任务变得越来越困难。 10 月，佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯 (Ron DeSantis) 给金融数据公司晨星可持续发展公司 (Morningstar Sustainalytics) 90 天的时间，要求其“澄清其商业行为，或停止抵制以色列”。他认为，其 ESG 指标将公司归类为在以色列投资的风险。晨星公司委托撰写的一份独立报告建议，为在“占领区”运营的公司取消特定标签——该公司打算遵循这一建议。此后，佛罗里达州已将晨星公司从警告名单中删除。
It is not just conservatives making a fuss. Vanguard, an asset manager, has been targeted by activists for quitting the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, an industry body. In January the Sunrise Project, a campaign group, began running advertisements in Pennsylvania, the firm’s home state, accusing it of giving in to bullies.
不仅仅是保守派在大惊小怪。资产管理公司先锋集团因退出行业机构“净零资产管理公司倡议”而成为激进分子的目标。一月份，竞选组织“日出项目”开始在该公司的家乡宾夕法尼亚州投放广告，指责该公司向恶霸屈服。
At the same time, smaller firms can indulge partisans. There have long been funds that apply a liberal lens to investment decisions, such as Parnassus Investments, which was established in 1984. They are being joined by right-wing ones. As well as 1789 Capital, there is Strive Asset Management, set up in 2022 by Vivek Ramaswamy, an ertswhile Republican presidential candidate, which offers investors an American energy etf that focuses on fossil fuels and has the ticker DRLL.
与此同时，规模较小的公司可能会纵容党派。长期以来，一直有一些基金在投资决策中采用自由主义视角，例如 1984 年成立的 Parnassus Investments。右翼基金也加入了它们的行列。除了 1789 Capital 之外，还有由当时的共和党总统候选人维韦克·拉马斯瓦米 (Vivek Ramaswamy) 于 2022 年创立的 Strive Asset Management，该公司为投资者提供专注于化石燃料、股票代码为 DRLL 的美国能源 ETF。
Taking a stand can be expensive. Researchers at the Federal Reserve and the University of Pennsylvania have found that anti-ESG boycotts raised the cost of borrowing for Texan municipalities by $300m-500m as banks with ESG policies withdrew from underwriting bond sales. Democrats who shifted out of stocks when Mr Trump won in 2016 would have lost out on a post-election rally. In the year after the vote, the S&P 500 rose by 21%.
表明立场可能代价高昂。美联储和宾夕法尼亚大学的研究人员发现，随着实施 ESG 政策的银行退出承销债券销售，反 ESG 抵制使德克萨斯州各市的借贷成本增加了 3 亿至 5 亿美元。 2016 年特朗普获胜后，民主党人纷纷抛售股票，他们可能会在大选后的反弹中失利。投票后一年，标准普尔 500 指数上涨了 21%。
Markets thrive on differences of opinion: every seller needs a buyer and every buyer needs a seller. Funds that offer investors a chance to express those opinions are not necessarily a bad thing. But American capitalism has been built on the pursuit of profit at all costs. In recent decades, investors have flocked to index funds, which track the market, offering diversification and low fees. To the extent that partisan investors are trying to reshape the economy to align with their values, rather than betting on beliefs about the economy, they are going to pay for it. ■
市场因意见分歧而繁荣：每个卖家都需要买家，每个买家也需要卖家。为投资者提供表达这些观点的机会的基金不一定是坏事。但美国资本主义是建立在不惜一切代价追求利润的基础上的。近几十年来，投资者纷纷涌向追踪市场、提供多元化且费用低廉的指数基金。如果党派投资者试图重塑经济以符合他们的价值观，而不是押注于对经济的信念，他们就会为此付出代价。
评论
发表评论