竞争：繁荣的硬道理

竞争：繁荣的硬道理
 
 
作者：尼古拉斯•古迪森爵士(Nicholas Goodison)
2006年10月30日 星期一

 

 
 
20年前伦敦“金融大改革”(Big Bang)的经验教训是什么？金融大改革解除了对伦敦证交所(London Stock Exchange)的管制，起因在于竞争。如今，竞争仍将是主题。贸易保护主义得不偿失。哪里消除了竞争壁垒，哪里的贸易和国民经济就会繁荣。如果规定绑住了你的手脚，而你在美国、欧洲或亚洲的竞争者却没有受到同样的束缚，那你就不可能竞争。既然财富创造取决于国际竞争力，那么试图阻止外国人收购本国企业，就毫无益处。更好的做法是，欢迎他们对英国经济进行资本投资。

伦敦从金融大改革中获益匪浅，因为竞争壁垒消除了，世界各地颇具竞争力的人才和资本向伦敦大量汇集。当然，伦敦还有其它吸引人的地方。用一位评论人士最近的话讲，那里的人“有国际视野”（think globally）。基于完善的监管，伦敦素有正直的美誉。在这个中心，你可以相信自己的业务得到迅速、诚实、可靠地完成。伦敦是国际交通的重要枢纽。个人所得税率已从20世纪70年代的荒谬水平降了下来。伦敦是一个激动人心的地方，有丰富的文化生活。它是一个生活的好地方。

伦敦能保持自己的领先地位吗？为了达到这个目的，我们必须牢记金融大改革及其成果带给我们的经验教训。竞争挑战将日益严峻。伦敦有明显的优势，如它所处的时区和已成为国际金融语言的英国语言，但懒散地依赖于这些优势是不够的。其它金融中心嫉妒伦敦的成功，它们可能会仿效并试图超越伦敦。

哪个着眼于促进本地繁荣的政府，哪个有金融业务的城市的市长，会不想这么做呢？欧洲各证交所对金融大改革的竞争回应表明，我们不能放松。

因此，我们必须保持警觉。只要有权力做到，政府及其下属机构就必须减少竞争壁垒，提高伦敦的吸引力。企业和个人所得税必须有竞争力。知识、技能和想象力都可以向国外转移。企业总部也可以。业务亦是如此：美国上世纪60年代的利息平衡税，导致欧洲债券市场转移到伦敦，就说明了这一点。已有迹象显示，部分企业正考虑迁移到税收负担低一些的国家。虽然我说的是收入税，但印花税和复杂得令人难以置信的资本利得税相关规定，也都不利于伦敦市场的深度和流动性。股票印花税应该废除，资本利得税应简化为针对短期利得，按单一税率征收。

监管不能过严，要有利于增进信任。过分积极和厌恶风险的监管者，容易受“非预期后果法则”(laws of unintended consequences)的影响。为确保监管制度不会吓跑企业、减少竞争和阻碍创新，对监管价值进行持续评估至关重要。监管者必须准备好应对可能损害伦敦声誉的重大风险。与企业集中在更少人手里、没有发明规避风险的先进工具的时代相比，如今的系统性风险更加难以预测。竞争的相关法律和实践必须跟上迅速变化的环境。在英国市场拥有的大份额与全球市场相比往往就会显得较小。

安全仍是需要优先考虑的问题。应当不遗余力地改善教育和终生学习的质量，鼓励人们学习其它语言。优秀文化必须得到提倡——对博物馆、表演艺术和皇家公园投资吝啬，会降低伦敦的吸引力。企业和富有的企业高管应当帮助提供投资，满足一部分上述需要。如果伦敦的成功得以延续，那么他们作为其中的一分子，也会得到回报。

金融企业将面临四大挑战。首先，它们需要不断增加人员培训和发展投资，不仅是高管，还包括董事会成员。其次，它们需要削减成功高管（以及一些不成功高管）现在享受的天价薪酬及他们以离职相威胁时的影响力。第三，它们需要紧跟技术的进步。如今技术进步之快已使得系统几乎是刚刚安装好就已过时。第四，它们需要全面掌控自身的风险。是否所有金融企业都恰当分析了自身的风险状况及其潜在影响，并将分析报告呈交董事会？是否所有董事都真正理解这些分析报告？一些企业会发现难以与同行竞争。它们需要牢记“逐步升级理论”(escalation theory)的危险——对于处于竞争劣势的企业，有时停止投资会更好。

如果从政府官员开始，所有人都对上述问题保持警觉，并采取相应行动，那么伦敦在20年后仍将在国际金融界保持领先。我希望（这方面信心多少有些不足），到那时我能再为这一主题撰文。

尼古拉斯•古迪森爵士(Nicholas Goodison)曾于1976年至1988年间担任伦敦证交所主席。

译者/何黎 

 

HOW LONDON CAN REMAIN IN THE TOP LEAGUE
 
 
By Sir Nicholas Goodison
Monday, October 30, 2006
 
 
What
are the lessons of Big Bang, the deregulation of the London Stock Exchange that happened 20 years ago? Competition was the cause of it. Competition will remain the theme. Protectionism does not pay. Trade and the national economy thrive where barriers to competition are dismantled. You cannot compete if there are rules that tie your hands when your competitors in the US or Europe or Asia are not shackled in the same way. It is no good, now that wealth creation depends on being internationally competitive, trying to stop foreigners from buying into national enterprises. It is better to welcome their capital investment in the UK economy.

London has done well from Big Bang because barriers to competition were dismantled and London attracted a large concentration of competitive talent and capital from all over the world. Of course there are other things about London that have attracted people. People there, in the words of a recent commentator, “think globally”. London has a reputation for probity based on sound regulation. It is a centre where you can trust that your business will be done quickly, honestly and reliably. It is an important hub for international transport. Personal tax rates have come down from the absurd levels of the 1970s. London is a stimulating place, with a rich cultural life. It is a great place to live.

Can London keep its place at the top? To do so, we must remember the lessons that Big Bang and its aftermath have taught us. The competitive challenge will grow stronger. It is not enough to rely lazily on London’s obvious advantages, such as its time zone and the English language, now the international language of finance. Other financial centres envy London’s success and would like to emulate it.

Which government with an eye to increasing local prosperity, which mayor of a city with a financial business, would not want to? The competitive response of stock exchanges in Europe to the Big Bang reforms shows that we cannot relax.

So we have to remain on our toes. Government and its agencies must, wherever they have the power, keep the barriers to competition low and the attractions of London high. Tax rates for both companies and individuals must be competitive. Knowledge, skill and imagination can emigrate. So can headquarters. So too can business, as was shown by the US’s interest equalisation tax, which exported the eurobond market to London in the 1960s. There are already signs that some businesses are thinking of relocating to less highly taxed countries. While I am on the subject of tax, stamp duty and the unbelievably complex rules on capital gains tax both do their bit to reduce the depth and liquidity of the London market. Stamp duty on shares should be abolished and capital gains tax should be simplified to a flat rate on short-term gains.

Regulation must be as light as is compatible with nurturing trust. Over-zealous and risk-averse regulators are prone to the laws of unintended consequences. Continuous assessment of the value of regulations is essential to make sure that they are not driving business away or reducing competition or damping innovation. Regulators must be prepared for coping with serious risks that might damage London’s reputation. Systemic risk is more unpredictable today than it was when business was concentrated in fewer hands and sophisticated instruments for laying off risk had not been invented. Competition law and practice must keep up with the fast-changing scene. A large share in the UK market often looks small in relation to the global market.

Security must remain a high priority. Every effort should be made to improve the quality of education and lifelong learning. The learning of other languages should be encouraged. Cultural excellence must be encouraged – penny pinching on museums, the performing arts and the Royal Parks will damage London’s attractions. Businesses and wealthy executives should help with investment to meet some of these needs. It will pay them to be part of a continuing success story.

Financial businesses will face four big challenges. First, they will need to invest increasingly in the training and development of their people, not just their executives but their boards as well. Second, they will need to grapple with the sky-high pay packets that successful executives (and some unsuccessful ones) now enjoy and the power that they have when they threaten to leave. Third, they will need to be on top of the rapid advances in technology, which are making systems obsolete almost as soon as they are installed. Fourth, they need to be wholly on top of their risks. Do all the boards of financial companies receive a proper analysis of their companies’ risk positions and their potential effect? Do all the directors truly understand the analysis? Some businesses will find it difficult to compete. They will need to remember the dangers of escalation theory – it is sometimes better to stop investing in a business that suffers competitive disadvantage.

If people, from those in the government downwards, remain alert to all these things and take action accordingly, London will still be in the top league in the world of international finance in 20 years’ time. I hope, with somewhat less confidence, that I might be around to write about it.

Sir Nicholas Goodison was chairman of the London Stock Exchange, 1976-88