Foud a good Q&A in linkedin. 5 Questions With… Alex Edmans
It’s great to read:
Alex Edmans, Professor of Finance at London Business School, is one of those rare academics who manages to write works of deep and lasting importance that are also both comprehensible and enjoyable. He spoke to us at our MAIS, our CIO conference in Oxford, several years ago about his book Grow the Pie, essential reading for anyone who wants to think seriously about investing responsibly and with purpose. His latest book, May Contain Lies, is a fascinating look at human biases, the ontological slipperiness of the very idea of truth, and how we in the markets can learn to read between the li(n)es.
亚历克斯·埃德曼斯 ， 伦敦商学院的金融学教授，是那些罕见的学者之一，他能够写出既深刻持久又易于理解且令人愉悦的作品。几年前，他在我们于牛津举行的首席投资官会议（MAIS）上谈到了他的书 《蛋糕经济学》, ，这本书是任何想要认真思考负责任和有目的投资的人的必读之作。他的最新著作 《可能包含谎言》，则是对人类偏见、真理概念的本体论滑移性以及我们如何在市场中学会在字里行间阅读的精彩探讨。Alex is a long-term collaborator of Man Group and it’s always a great pleasure to catch up with him and his profound and iconoclastic approach to markets.
亚历克斯是 Man Group 的长期合作伙伴，每次与他交流并了解他对市场的深刻和反传统的方法都是一种极大的乐趣。
- In Grow the Pie, you argue that businesses should focus on creating value rather than just maximizing profits. Given the current economic climate: higher interest rates and inflation, geopolitical uncertainty and shareholder pressure, how can leaders stay committed to long-term value creation without sacrificing short-term financial discipline?
在 Grow the Pie 中，你主张企业应专注于创造价值，而不仅仅是最大化利润。在当前的经济环境下：高利率和通货膨胀、地缘政治不确定性以及股东压力，领导者如何在不牺牲短期财务纪律的情况下，坚持长期价值创造？The premise of Grow the Pie is that many actions that create value for wider society also deliver higher long-term profits. Offering products that transform customers’ lives for the better providing employees with a healthy and enriching workplace, and preserving the environment for future generations typically grows the pie for both shareholders and stakeholders alike. But it also highlights that not everything is a win-win. Companies need to know where to draw the line: which investments to take but also which to turn down.
Grow the Pie 的前提是，许多为社会创造价值的行动也能带来更高的长期利润。提供能够改善客户生活的产品、为员工提供健康且充实的工作环境，以及为子孙后代保护环境，通常都能为股东和利益相关者共同扩大“蛋糕”。但它也强调，并非所有事情都是双赢的。公司需要知道在哪里划清界限：哪些投资应该接受，哪些应该拒绝。One guideline is the “principle of comparative advantage”: to focus on the societal challenges that they are uniquely well-placed to address, rather than trying to solve all of the world’s problems, tick all seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, or respond to whatever issue happens to be in the media. For example, Vodafone launched the mobile money service M-Pesa, which lifted 200,000 Kenyan households out of poverty in the first seven years. Since M-Pesa used its comparative advantage (mobile technology), it cost relatively little, and is now an important revenue stream as well as delivering significant social value. In contrast, some companies donate to whatever charitable cause seems to be the order of the day. But if you’re a telecoms company, your expertise is mobile technology, not evaluating which charity is most worthy.
一个指导原则是“比较优势原则”：专注于那些他们特别适合解决的社会挑战，而不是试图解决世界上所有的问题，勾选所有十七个可持续发展目标，或回应媒体上出现的任何问题。例如，Vodafone 推出了移动货币服务 M-Pesa，在最初的七年里帮助 20 万肯尼亚家庭摆脱了贫困。由于 M-Pesa 利用了其比较优势（移动技术），成本相对较低，现在不仅是一个重要的收入来源，还提供了显著的社会价值。相比之下，一些公司会向任何似乎成为当务之急的慈善事业捐款。但如果你是一家电信公司，你的专长是移动技术，而不是评估哪个慈善机构最值得支持。A second guideline is the “principle of materiality”: which stakeholders are most important to a company’s business model. While companies like to claim that they serve everybody, there are trade-offs: shutting down a polluting plant is good for the environment but bad for workers. Materiality asks who is the first among equals: which stakeholders to prioritise when trade-offs arise.
第二个指导原则是“重要性原则”：哪些利益相关者对公司的商业模式最为重要。虽然公司喜欢声称他们为所有人服务，但存在权衡：关闭一家污染工厂对环境有利，但对工人不利。重要性原则要求确定谁是平等中的第一：在出现权衡时优先考虑哪些利益相关者。In short, companies should be disciplined and focus on those societal issues that it has comparative advantage in addressing and concern its most material stakeholders. In a recent paper, Rational Sustainability, I further highlight the importance of boundaries, trade-offs, and diminishing returns.
简而言之，公司应该保持纪律，专注于那些它在解决方面具有比较优势且涉及最重要利益相关者的社会问题。在最近的一篇论文理性可持续性中，我进一步强调了边界、权衡和收益递减的重要性。
2. Your new book, May Contain Lies, explores how biases distort the way we interpret information. What are the most dangerous biases investors and business leaders should watch for, and how can they correct for them when making high-stakes decisions?
2. 你的新书可能包含谎言探讨了偏见如何扭曲我们解读信息的方式。投资者和商业领袖应该警惕哪些最危险的偏见，以及他们在做出高风险决策时如何纠正这些偏见？One key bias is confirmation bias: the temptation to reject anything that contradicts our view of the world, and uncritically accept anything that supports it. For example, Silicon Valley Bank executives refused to believe the models which warned that the bank could go under if interest rates rose, so they changed the models’ assumptions; Deepwater Horizon Engineers refused to believe the tests that showed that it was not safe to remove the oil rig, so they invented a different test that it passed. A second is groupthink: the unwillingness to challenge the status quo. We often think that groupthink stems from hostile environments where people disrespect their colleagues’ views and shout down any dissenting viewpoint, but its causes can be more subtle. It can arise when you deeply respect your colleagues: so much so that, if you think of a concern, you reason “it can’t be that important otherwise one of my super-smart colleagues would have raised it”, and so no-one talks about the elephant in the room; no-one exists even though everyone individually smells smoke.
一个关键偏见是确认偏误：倾向于拒绝任何与我们世界观相矛盾的事物，并毫无批判地接受支持我们观点的事物。例如，硅谷银行的高管拒绝相信那些警告如果利率上升银行可能倒闭的模型，因此他们改变了模型的假设；深水地平线的工程师拒绝相信那些显示移除石油钻井平台不安全的测试，因此他们发明了一个不同的测试并通过了它。第二个偏见是群体思维：不愿意挑战现状。我们通常认为群体思维源于敌对的环境，在那里人们不尊重同事的观点并压制任何异议，但其原因可能更为微妙。它可能在你非常尊重同事时产生：以至于当你想到一个担忧时，你会认为“如果它真的很重要，我那些超级聪明的同事早就提出来了”，因此没有人谈论房间里的大象；尽管每个人都闻到了烟味，但没有人站出来。The solution to both biases is to challenge. We can address confirmation bias by challenging ourselves: actively seek out viewpoints that disagree with us, and taking them seriously rather than dismissing them as being politically motivated, “woke”, or “anti-woke”. We can address groupthink by challenging each other: asking questions, no matter how basic, and offering different perspectives. As leaders, we should take intentional steps to welcome challenge: letting others to speak first, allowing colleagues to amplify a concern rather than immediately rebutting it, and openly thanking those who share dissenting views.
解决这两种偏见的方法是挑战。我们可以通过挑战自己来应对确认偏见：积极寻找与我们观点不同的意见，并认真对待它们，而不是将其视为政治动机、“觉醒”或“反觉醒”。我们可以通过相互挑战来应对群体思维：提出问题，无论多么基本，并提供不同的观点。作为领导者，我们应该采取有意的步骤来欢迎挑战：让其他人先发言，允许同事放大担忧而不是立即反驳，并公开感谢那些分享不同意见的人。3. Financial markets are full of narratives, whether about inflation, AI, or ESG investing. What are the telltale signs of misleading stories, statistics, or studies that investors should be wary of? How do we identify truth from well-crafted fiction?
3. 金融市场充满了各种叙事，无论是关于通货膨胀、人工智能还是 ESG 投资。投资者应该警惕哪些误导性故事、统计数据或研究的迹象？我们如何从精心编造的虚构中识别真相？We should be very careful not to overextrapolate from a simple story. People love to believe that Apple was successful because (according to Simon Sinek) it started with why, but there could be a myriad of other reasons for Apple’s success. When given a compelling story, or several stories, ask yourself if there’s large-scale data to support the hypothesis: did the author study hundreds of companies and investigate whether starting with why leads to success. Importantly, that dataset needs to contain those with the supposed secret sauce (starting with why) that failed, and those without the secret sauce that succeeded. If it doesn’t – if the author only tells you about the companies that started with why and succeeded – then you have a cherry-picked sample.
我们应该非常小心，不要从一个简单的故事中过度推断。人们喜欢相信苹果之所以成功，是因为（根据 Simon Sinek 的说法）它从“为什么”开始，但苹果的成功可能还有无数其他原因。当面对一个引人入胜的故事或几个故事时，问问自己是否有大规模的数据支持这一假设：作者是否研究了数百家公司，并调查了从“为什么”开始是否会导致成功。重要的是，这个数据集需要包含那些拥有所谓“秘方”（从“为什么”开始）但失败的公司，以及那些没有“秘方”却成功的公司。如果没有——如果作者只告诉你那些从“为什么”开始并成功的公司——那么你得到的就是一个经过精心挑选的样本。But large-scale data is only the first step. Data is not evidence because it may not be conclusive: it could be consistent with alternative explanations. Even if you explored thousands of companies and found that those with a purpose tend to be more successful, it could be that purpose drives success, or that success allows a company the breathing space to develop a purpose, or that a great CEO both instils purpose and delivers success. Thus, when given statistics or studies, ask yourself if there are other explanations for the same data.
但大规模数据只是第一步。数据并不等同于证据，因为它可能并不具有决定性：它可能与其他的解释一致。即使你研究了数千家公司，发现那些有使命的公司往往更成功，这也可能是使命驱动了成功，或者是成功让公司有空间去发展使命，或者是一位伟大的 CEO 既灌输使命又带来成功。因此，当面对统计数据或研究时，问问自己是否还有其他解释可以解释同样的数据。4. You emphasize the importance of questioning information without becoming overly cynical. How can investors and executives strike the right balance, being open to new ideas while maintaining a rigorous, evidence-based approach to decision-making?
4. 你强调了质疑信息的重要性，但不要变得过于愤世嫉俗。投资者和高管如何在保持开放心态接受新想法的同时，又能保持严谨、基于证据的决策方式，从而找到正确的平衡点？This is indeed a delicate balance: I try to encourage discernment, but not cynicism or being a conspiracy theorist. One way to try to strike the balance is to follow the reverse golden rule: to do to yourself the same that you do to others – to subject your own work to the same challenges that you raise to others. If you find these challenges too stringent – perfect should not be the enemy of the good – be less demanding of others. A number of readers suggest that I use artificial intelligence to develop a routine that assesses studies with the framework presented in my book. I’m working with a research assistant at the moment to develop one and fed it some papers that I know to be flimsy. I was pleased that I saw it catch about 90% of the errors but thought that, if we made it more stringent, maybe it could get to 95%. But then I fed it some of my own papers – published in top peer-reviewed journals – and it came up with all sorts of complaints, many of which were so demanding that even a top journal would not raise them. So, I am now trying to make it more forgiving.
这确实是一个微妙的平衡：我试图鼓励辨别力，而不是愤世嫉俗或成为阴谋论者。一种尝试达到平衡的方法是遵循反向黄金法则：对自己做同样的事情，就像你对别人做的那样——让你自己的工作接受你向别人提出的同样挑战。如果你发现这些挑战过于严格——完美不应成为好的敌人——那么对别人的要求也要降低。一些读者建议我使用人工智能来开发一个程序，用我书中提出的框架评估研究。我目前正在与一位研究助理合作开发一个程序，并输入了一些我知道质量不高的论文。我很高兴看到它捕捉到了大约90%的错误，但认为如果我们让它更严格，也许可以达到95%。但后来我输入了一些我自己发表的论文——发表在顶级同行评审期刊上——它提出了各种各样的抱怨，其中许多要求甚至顶级期刊也不会提出。所以，我现在正试图让它更宽容一些。5. From executive pay to shareholder activism, corporate governance debates are intensifying. What do you see as the most important governance issue of the next decade, and how should investors engage with companies to drive sustainable, long-term performance?
5. 从高管薪酬到股东行动主义，公司治理的辩论日益激烈。您认为未来十年最重要的治理问题是什么？投资者应如何与公司互动以推动可持续的长期绩效？I believe that the most important issue is balance. One aspect is balance between the short-term and the long-term. Nearly everyone claims that companies need to focus more on the long-term, and lament the apparent short termism of capitalism. But the long term is a series of short terms, and short-termism isn’t necessarily bad: a goal to run a half-marathon this summer is a short-term goal, but helpful rather than harmful to your long-term health. Excessive focus on the long term can lead to an unwillingness to take tough decisions, such as reversing course on an unsuccessful strategy, scrapping an unprofitable project, or continuing with an underperforming executive. Sometimes commercial realities outweigh idealistic aspirations; if you fail to deal with the short term, you might not be around for the long term.
我认为最重要的问题是平衡。其中一个方面是短期与长期之间的平衡。几乎每个人都声称公司需要更加关注长期发展，并对资本主义中明显的短期主义表示遗憾。但长期是由一系列短期组成的，短期主义并不一定是坏事：今年夏天跑半程马拉松的目标是一个短期目标，但对你的长期健康有益而非有害。过度关注长期可能导致不愿意做出艰难的决定，比如对不成功的战略进行逆转、放弃无利可图的项目，或继续留用表现不佳的高管。有时商业现实会压倒理想主义的愿望；如果你无法应对短期，你可能无法坚持到长期。Another aspect is balance between shareholders and stakeholders. Again, it’s common to decry shareholder capitalism and argue that companies should focus more on stakeholders. But, while my work shows that investing in stakeholders often benefits shareholders in the long-term, it doesn’t always, and where trade-offs exist, companies should typically prioritise shareholders: they are for-profit corporations, not charities. Investors should apply the principles of comparative advantage and materiality to ensure that a company’s investments are truly in its shareholders’ interest rather than undertaken to boost its executives’ reputation or to pursue public policy initiatives that are best addressed by the government.
另一个方面是股东与利益相关者之间的平衡。同样，人们常常谴责股东资本主义，并认为公司应该更多地关注利益相关者。然而，尽管我的研究表明，从长远来看，投资于利益相关者通常对股东有利，但这并不总是如此，在存在权衡的情况下，公司通常应该优先考虑股东：它们是营利性公司，而不是慈善机构。投资者应运用比较优势和重要性的原则，确保公司的投资真正符合股东的利益，而不是为了提高高管声誉或追求应由政府处理的公共政策倡议。
发表回复