In London the technology-focused side of a smallish private equity fund is run by a guy we shall call Mike. Mike’s been around a long time. His real name, and the fund he works for, are recognisable but not world-famous. And yet, he has a big advantage. [td]伦敦一只规模较小的私人股本基金旗下主攻科技行业的部门，其负责人我们权且称之为“迈克”吧。迈克做这一行已经很久了。他的真名以及他所供职的基金，有一定名气但说不上是蜚声全球。不过，迈克有一个很大的优势。

Back in 2001, when the very first iPods hit the shelves, Mike did a smart and generous thing. These devices were only available in the US and even there they were not easy to come by. Mike used his connections to buy a box load and promptly distributed these new toys among all the senior tech bankers and deal brokers in London. People remember things like that. A senior tech banker in Asia complains about the treatment he gets from all the big, global names in private equity – they sometimes cancel meetings at the last minute, yawn or just walk out in the middle of presentations. So when it comes to making initial calls to investors about opportunities, there is one name always near the top of the list. [td]那是在2001年，当第一批iPod刚刚摆上货架时，迈克做了一件既聪明又慷慨的事。当时这些产品仅在美国有售，而且即使在美国，要想买到也不容易。迈克动用了他的人脉关系，买到了一大盒子iPod，并迅速将这些新奇玩意儿分发给了伦敦所有专攻科技行业的资深银行家以及交易经纪人。像这样的事情会给人们留下深刻印象。一位驻亚洲专攻科技行业的资深银行家，对国际知名大型私人股本基金对待他的态度颇有怨言——这些基金有时会在会议前的最后一刻取消会议，在报告演示的过程中打哈欠、甚至中途离开。因此，每当他准备给投资者打电话介绍新的投资机会时，迈克的名字总是在排在去电名单的前列。

“It’s just human nature that you’re going to call [Mike] first,” the banker says. [td]这位银行家说：“你会先给迈克打电话，这不过是人性使然。”

The iPod retailed for about $399 in 2001 – not insignificant for many people, but tiny in terms of the financial rewards bankers and investors get from doing deals. The iPod had a scarcity and novelty value that made it worth more than its sticker price. Still, it was a relatively small thing in the cycles of doing business. Crucially, it also preceded the 2010 UK Bribery Act. [td]在2001年，一部iPod的零售价格约为399美元——对不少人来说并不是一个小数目，但相对于银行家和投资者从交易中获得的经济回报则是微不足道。iPod当时拥有的稀缺性和新奇性使得它的实际价值要高于零售价格。尽管如此，在做生意的整个过程中，送iPod相对而言仍是一件小事。关键是，当时2010年的英国《反贿赂法》(Bribery Act)还没有出台。

So how far a jump is it from here to offering a job to the offspring of someone with whom you wish to do business? This is a question vexing bankers in Asia at the moment where JPMorgan is under investigation by US authorities because it may have handed jobs to the children of important government-related officers to win particular pieces of business. [td]那么，从送iPod到为你想与之做生意的对象的子女提供工作机会，这之间的距离究竟有多大？这是一个目前让亚洲银行家颇为苦恼的问题。美国监管当局正在对摩根大通(JPMorgan)在亚洲的经营活动展开调查，原因是该行或曾向与政府有关的重要官员的子女提供工作，以赢得某些特定业务。

Under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is illegal to offer any inducement to officials of a foreign government to gain competitive advantage. The US law does not apply to paying inducements to people at private companies, which from a practical point of view seems odd because the process of hiring the chairman’s daughter is the same. [td]依照美国《反海外腐败法》(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)，向外国政府官员提供好处以赢得竞争优势的做法是违法的。但这项法律不适用于向私营企业人员提供好处。从实际操作角度来看，这种立场显得有些奇怪，因为聘用董事长女儿的流程与贿赂官员是一样的。

JPMorgan has walked away from a role in the upcoming $1bn equity listing of Tianhe Chemicals because the chairman’s daughter previously worked at the bank. But Tianhe is private, so strictly speaking the FCPA could not have been broken. [td]摩根大通退出了天合化工(Tianhe Chemicals)即将举行的10亿美元股票上市发行，因为天合化工董事长的女儿曾在摩根大通工作过。但天合化工是一家私营企业，因此严格来说这里面并不存在违反美国《反海外腐败法》的情况。

UBS, where the daughter now works, more recently won a role on the deal. It is not walking away. It has, however, just suspended two local bankers involved in the daughter’s hiring, but this is only because the bank is investigating whether there was a breach in the specific protocol of the hiring process, according to people familiar with the bank. Under Swiss law, bribery of private persons comes under unfair competition law – and it is not a bribe if of minor value in conformity with social custom. [td]这位女士目前的雇主瑞银(UBS)不久前在天合化工的上市交易中赢得了一席之地。瑞银并不准备退出这项交易。但据一位熟悉瑞银情况的人士透露，该行刚刚对参与招录天合化工董事长之女的两名当地员工做出了停职处理，但这仅仅是因为瑞银正在调查这里面是否存在违反招聘流程特定规范的情况。依照瑞士法律，贿赂非公职人员的行为属反不正当竞争法管辖——而且如果所给的好处价值不高、与社会惯例相符，就不算是贿赂。

So what is the value and the custom? The cost of gifting a two- or three-year contract as a junior banker could be anywhere between a few hundred thousand dollars and well over $1m, depending on the success of the person. That’s quite a lot of money. But then again, how much would a bank spend on dinners, tickets to sporting events, flying the chief executive to, say, Shanghai for personal face time, or even reportedly on debentures to coveted private schools, all in the purpose of trying to seduce a client? [td]那么，具体的价值和惯例又是怎样的呢？提供一份两三年期的初级银行家工作合同，成本可能是数十万美元至远超过100万美元之间的任何金额，具体数字取决于此人取得的成绩大小。这是很大一笔钱。不过话说回来，一家银行又会花多少钱用来举办晚宴、购买体育赛事门票、让首席执行官去（比如说）上海单独与人面谈、购买人人向往的私立学校的债券呢，这一切的目的都是为了努力吸引客户。

And what is gained? In Hong Kong stock market listings pay lower fees than many in the US and those fees are spread among more banks – the record is more than 20 on a single deal. Many banks only get a spot if they can exploit another relationship and turn up with a committed investor. [td]银行从中收获了什么？在香港股市，上市交易支付的佣金低于美国的很多上市交易，而且参与瓜分这些佣金的银行也更多——单个交易的参与银行数量最多超过了20家。很多银行只有在能发展出另一条关系链、并找到一位承诺持股的投资者时，才能从交易中分一杯羹。

The culture of gift giving and favours is still much stronger in China than the west – hard cash changes hands regularly at weddings, in the office, and in people’s homes, usually in bright red envelopes. The culture of guanxi, or social links, is extremely important, too. [td]在中国，送礼和人情文化仍比西方浓厚得多——在婚礼上、办公室里以及人们家中，都常有直接送现金的情况，这些现金通常封在红包里。“关系”文化同样极其重要。

Gifts are always meant to create social bonds and obligations – check out The Gift by French sociologist Marcel Mauss. [td]礼物的目的始终是为了打造社会纽带和责任——可以参考法国社会学家马塞尔•莫斯(Marcel Mauss)所著的《礼物》(The Gift)一书。

An immediate and final exchange should not create a lasting social tie – that is a perfect market transaction. However, it is almost impossible to separate gifts, favours and relationships from any exchange, especially in Asia – and Mike’s story shows even small gifts have a long impact. [td]一个即刻和最终的交换应该不会带来持久的社会联系——那是一种完美的市场交易。但将礼物、人情以及关系与任何交换分割开来几乎是不可能的，特别是在亚洲——迈克的故事表明，即使是小礼物也能产生长期的影响。

So, is hiring the bright young offspring of chairmen or women when there is any kind of continuing relationship ever OK? Good compliance on one side might not stop the other believing a favour was granted. Proving that any single gift or favour secured a particular deal is very hard. Almost as hard as freeing economics itself from the foibles of human nature. [td]那么，当存在某种类型的持续关系时，聘用董事长年轻聪慧的子女是否就没问题？其中一方严守法规可能无法阻止另一方认为肯定会受到照顾。要证明某个礼物或人情争取到了某项特定的交易是非常困难的。其难度几乎不亚于使经济惯例自身免受人性弱点的影响。