美国校园枪击案背后的资金链

    诚然，购买某家上市公司的股票和投资某家承诺实现组合多元化的私募股权基金两者是有区别的。也就是直接和间接的区别。但另一方面，我们也可以看到有些机构投资者(a)只投资一些承诺不会进行某些类型投资（如武器、烟草等）的基金, 或者(b)坚持其资金不参与此类不良投资，这样就不会成为间接股东了。

    不幸的是，加州教师退休基金没有选择这两条道路。

    “显然，你可以说这家公司的产品属于21条风险因素，特别是与人类健康相关的那条，” 加州教师退休基金的发言人理查多·杜然说。“但有很多产品取决于使用者是否负责任，在这个案例中它是不负责任地使用了……现在发生了这样的悲剧事件，我相信我们未来会讨论这个问题。”

    当我接着问今年7月在科罗拉多州奥罗拉市影院枪击事件中也使用了大毒舌步枪，那以后加州教师退休基金有没有进行过这样的讨论，杜然表示他不知情。另外，值得一提的是塞伯路斯没有回复要求置评的请求。

    过去几天，关于如何阻止这类杀戮惨剧重演有着很多讨论，人们的建议涉及加强枪支管控立法，改善心理健康基础设施等等。准确地说，这两项建议我都支持。

    但我也在想，美国大型的非营利机构也应该将资金用得其所。盈利是投资的首要目标，但不能牺牲更广泛的原则。如果一只教师基金、大学捐赠基金或一家非营利性基金会真想要阻止下一次大规模枪击杀戮事件的发生，他们就应该停止向生产这些工具的公司提供资金支持。

    对于很多枪支爱好者，像.223口径大毒蛇这样的半自动步枪颇为拉风，因为它彰显了个人自由。对于自由集团，它们就是利润。假如一家公司不调整内部政策（比如，调整为只向警方和军方提供此类武器），就再也找不到私人投资者，那么自由集团很可能就会做出改变。资本当然是资本主义之源。

    塞伯路斯没有对多次置评请求做出回应。另外没有置评的还有私募股权公司Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co.。这家公司将Remington防务公司卖给了塞伯路斯，如今仍持有武器周边公司Magpul Industries。

    译者：杨智

    To be sure, there is a difference between buying a listed company's stock and investing in a private equity fund that promises to build out a diversified portfolio. Direct versus indirect. But it also is true that certain institutional investors either, (a) Only invest in private equity funds that pledge not to make certain types of investments (e.g., firearms, tobacco, etc.), or (b) Insist that its money be carved out of any such offending investment, so that the institution does not become an indirect shareholder.

    Unfortunately, CalSTRS has not taken either tack.

    "Clearly you can make a case that this company's products fall within the 21 risk factors, particularly the one regarding human health," says CalSTRS spokesman Ricardo Duran. "But there are a lot of products that can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, and in this case it was used irresponsibly... Now that a tragic event like this has occurred, I'm sure that it is something that we will be discussing going forward."

    When I followed up by asking if CalSTRS had such a discussion after a Bushmaster rifle was used in the Aurora movie theater shooting, Duran said he did not know. Also worth noting that Cerberus itself is not returning requests for comment.

    There has been a lot of talk in the past several days about how to prevent the next massacre, with suggestions ranging from strengthened gun control legislation to improved mental health infrastructure. And, for the record, I support both.

    But I also think that it's time for our large nonprofit institutions to put some of their money where their mission is. Profit should be the primary goal of their investment offices, but not at the expense of their broader purposes. If a schoolteachers union or university endowment or nonprofit foundation truly cares about stopping the next mass killing, then they should not provide capital that produces the instruments of such destruction.

    For many gun enthusiasts, semi-automatic rifles like the .223 Bushmaster is about sport and individual liberty. For Freedom Group, they are about profit. If the company were unable to find private investors unless it changed internal policy -- perhaps by only supplying such weaponry to police departments and military -- then Freedom most likely would do so. Capital is, of course, the root of capitalism.

    Cerberus did not return repeated requests for comment. Also not commenting was private equity firm Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co., which sold Remington to Cerberus and still owns firearms peripherals company Magpul Industries.