Man of the year Eliot Spitzer
When Eliot Spitzer told a press conference in October that the management of Marsh & McLennan was “not a leadership I will negotiate with”, one thing was clear. Jeffrey Greenberg should start looking for another job.
Within days, Mr Greenberg, the company's chief executive and one of the most powerful men in the global insurance industry, was forced to resign. He was not the only casualty. A month later, the company, whose stock price had almost halved, said it would have to fire 3,000 staff.
That press conference confirmed Mr Spitzer's status as one of the most feared figures in the business world.
The New York attorney-general made his name attacking conflicts of interest in Wall Street and the US mutual fund industry. But this year he showed that no company was safe as he turned his fire on a swath of international businesses from insurance and drugs to power generation and music.
Such is his reputation that even a mention in the media, which he uses with great skill, that he is eyeing a particular industry causes panic. Stock prices plunge, chief executives cower and crisis management consultants cancel their vacations.
Even Mr Spitzer's sternest critics admit he has exposed serious abuses in many of these industries. But as the leading crusader for tougher regulation in the wake of the scandals of the stock market boom, Mr Spitzer has played a key role in what many now see as a regulatory overreaction that threatens US competitiveness.
This year came the backlash. Mounting criticism by business leaders of measures such as the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance legislation are being heeded at the highest levels. Earlier this month, John Snow, US Treasury secretary, called for “balance” in the enforcement of Sarbanes-Oxley, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the chief US financial regulator, is considering special rules for smaller companies to reduce compliance costs.
Mr Spitzer says it is inevitable that the regulatory “pendulum” sometimes swings too far and predicts that the US has passed the “high water mark” of activism by state officials such as himself. So maybe it is no coincidence that he is now looking for another job. On the wall of Mr Spitzer's Manhattan office is a small but prominent photograph of his political hero, Theodore Roosevelt. “You can't read a biography of him and not say ‘wow'”, he enthuses. Roosevelt made his name by taking on some of the most powerful businesses in the land on behalf of the little guy. Mr Spitzer, the self-styled “people's lawyer”, also stands up for the little guy, as well as the private investor. Shortly after the Marsh press conference he announced a settlement with employers to provide back pay to dozens of Central Park pretzel vendors.
Now Mr Spitzer, 45, has declared his ambition to follow in Roosevelt's footsteps by running for governor of New York State. Democrats, still demoralised by defeat in last month's presidential election, are fighting to jump on his bandwagon. “In addition to admiring him on his merits, they are smelling a winner,” says Ed Koch, former New York mayor. Mr Spitzer's first fundraising event after his declaration was packed with such supporters as actress Glenn Close, attorney David Boies and film mogul Harvey Weinstein. “There's a fervour for Eliot. He's one of the rising new stars of the Democratic party,” says Mr Weinstein.
The contest for governor is still two years away. But some of Mr Spitzer's fans are already wondering whether he might go further still in emulating his hero, who in 1901 became the youngest ever president of the US.
Many in the business world would be delighted to see him move on. They accuse him of using regulation by terror to dictate the detail of how companies are structured, what prices they can charge and even whom they can employ as chief executive. They accuse him of imposing remedies that are worse than the problems they are supposed to solve. And they accuse him of using his job for political purposes, an odd charge to make against an elected official who proudly proclaims himself a “partisan Democrat”.
What is not in dispute is that Mr Spitzer's impact has been felt well beyond America's shores, let alone the boundaries of New York State. He has ushered in sweeping reforms of the financial services industry and has transformed the landscape of US regulation across a range of other industries. And he has made everyone think twice before sending an e-mail. It was with e-mails that he burst on to the world stage in 2002, exposing the conflicts of interests in Wall Street stock research. When his staff found the message in which Henry Blodget, a Merrill Lynch analyst, described as a “piece of shit” a client's stock the firm was publicly recommending, they knew the bank would have to settle. Merrill Lynch quickly buckled, paying a $100m fine, and eight months later the other top Wall Street banks settled similar charges for a total of $1.4bn. They also agreed to wide-ranging reforms of their practices, which most have adopted internationally.
Damning e-mails also featured in Mr Spitzer's attacks on the mutual funds and insurance industries. Of all Mr Spitzer's cases, the insurance probe has been perhaps the most controversial. The bid-rigging suit filed against Marsh wiped billions off the market value of other insurers around the world. Many leading companies immediately announced they would scrap so-called contingent commissions, which Mr Spitzer claimed were the equivalent of kickbacks that encouraged brokers to steer their clients towards higher-cost insurance contracts.
Mr Spitzer says he understands the surprise at his attack on Mr Greenberg, “which even surprised me a little bit”, but notes it resulted from months of discussions in which Marsh's management had “denied, dissembled and deceived”. He also denies that he forced the companies to drop contingent commissions. “They eliminated them in an effort to reaffirm their loyalty to their clients.” Critics say this is disingenuous and that companies are now so terrified of Mr Spitzer they will do almost anything to get him to go away. Like Roosevelt, Mr Spitzer carries “a big stick”, in his case the Martin Act, New York's sweeping securities fraud law.
But Mr Spitzer insists he has been very restrained in the use of his powers. “We have been very careful not to destroy companies. Some have criticised me for showing too much restraint.”
He also disputes the charge that he moves too fast to settlements without considering the full impact of the remedies. But he does concede that the reforms agreed over Wall Street research were “a little awkward”. Mr Spitzer says it is too soon to assess the legacy of his individual cases. But perhaps his most enduring impact will be on relations between state and federal regulators. In many instances, according to Mr Spitzer, he and other state officials have been forced to move into what should be Washington turf because federal agencies have left the field. The SEC was well aware of the conflicts of interest in Wall Street research, for example. Indeed Mr Spitzer notes that Harvey Pitt, who resigned as SEC chairman two years ago, convened a meeting of Wall Street chiefs to discuss the issue but then left it to them to sort it out. Other federal regulators, including the Food and Drug Administration, were also at fault. But they are now reclaiming the ground from state officials, something Mr Spitzer applauds. He agrees with business leaders who deplore the “Balkanisation” of US regulation. “Having 50 regulators is inherently a bad thing.” Moreover, the federal agencies have more power and resources. “We are a pop gun compared with their bazooka,” he says of the FDA. He and most other state officials are happy to leave the field, he adds.
Mr Spitzer insists that his candidacy will not change how he does his current job, although some of his supporters believe it should. “He needs to spend the next two years focusing less on business regulation and more on politics, in particular the problems of Albany [the state capital],” says one Wall Street backer, who fears heis seen less as pro-investor thananti-business.
It is hard not to believe that Mr Spitzer has planned his career as meticulously as he prepares his cases. But he insists he never expected to go into elected politics. After Princeton and Harvard Law School, he worked as clerk to a US district judge and briefly in private practice before joining the Manhattan district attorney's office. After six years pursuing the Gambino criminal family and other racketeers he moved to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, one of New York's most prestigious law firms. “I thought I would become a partner at Skadden, do that for a few years and then go into the family business,” says Mr Spitzer.
But Lloyd Constantine, a former New York assistant attorney-general who hired Mr Spitzer as an intern, says there was never a chance he would join his father's property business. “As soon as I saw him I knew he was headed for government. It would have been a waste of his skills to be anything other than a litigator.”
Mr Spitzer's competitive nature is also seen on the tennis court and the ski slope, where the fitness fanatic is a “formidable adversary”. But Mr Constantine says he also has more of the other skills needed in politics than is generally acknowledged. “Eliot knows how to negotiate and compromise. He is capable of listening and changing his position.”
Like Roosevelt, Mr Spitzer was born into money. His father, the son of Jewish immigrants, set up his own property business, which now operates a number of Manhattan apartment blocks including the Fifth Avenue building where Mr Spitzer lives with his wife and three daughters. Mr Spitzer used several million dollars of family money in his first unsuccessful run for attorney-general in 1994, which he lost resoundingly. He won a closely fought battle in 1998, despite claims by opponents that he had misrepresented the money as his own.
His campaign for governor will cost nearer $40m but Mr Spitzer has proved himself an effective fundraiser, despite or perhaps because of his reputation among business leaders. For all his sporting prowess, there is a slightly bookish, not to say geeky, air about Mr Spitzer, magnified by his receding hairline and angular features. But even his critics praise his quick wit and self-deprecating charm, which helped him make New York magazine's list of the “50 sexiest New Yorkers”.
While there is no doubting his command of the law and subjects he knows well, some friends admit he is not yet a fully-rounded politician. “On broader political issues he is less impressive. When he talks about foreign affairs it sometimes sounds like he just read a book,” says one supporter. But Mr Spitzer thinks a north-eastern Democrat could still win the White House by combining a muscular foreign policy with more progressive domestic policies in the style of a Roosevelt or a Tony Blair. Mr Spitzer is the clear Democratic favourite in the race for the New York governorship. Polls this month also showed him running ahead of any plausible Republican candidate other than Colin Powell, the popular former secretary of state who has since ruled himself out. But Mr Spitzer admits there is a long way to go. “You don't walk into the position of governor of the state of New York without a fight.” He has, however, already proved he is a fighter who likes to win.
FT年度人物：斯皮策(下)
有人指责称他解决问题行动太快，而不考虑补救措施的全面影响。对于这种指责，他也予以反驳。但他确实承认，针对华尔街研究工作达成的改革措施“有点不灵活”。斯皮策先生表示，对他处理的个案进行影响评估还为时过早。但在州和联邦监管者之间的关系上，他可能带来了最持久的影响。斯皮策先生表示，有很多次他和其它州政府官员被迫进入应由联邦政府负责的领域，因为联邦机构已撤出了那些领域。例如，美国证券交易委员会(SEC)很清楚华尔街研究领域存在利益冲突。斯皮策先生指出，两年前辞去证交会主席职位的哈维?皮特(Harvey Pitt)确实曾召集华尔街老总们开会讨论该问题，但之后却把这个问题留给他们自己去摆平。美国食品与药物管理局(FDA)等其它联邦监管部门也有缺陷。但眼下他们正从各州官员那里收回监管责任，斯皮策先生对此表示赞赏。他和那些悲叹美国监管领域“巴尔干化”的商界领袖们观点一致。“有50家监管部门本来就不是什么好事。”此外，联邦机构拥有更多权利和资源。“我们是一把气枪，而他们是火箭筒，”他描述美国食品与药物管理局说。他补充说，他和多数其它州政府官员都乐于离开该领域，
从政策略
斯皮策先生坚持认为，他日后参加州长竞选一事不会改变他目前的工作方式，但他的一些支持者认为会有影响。“他需要在未来两年内对企业监管关注得少些，而把重点更多地放在政治上，尤其是奥尔巴尼(纽约州首府)的种种问题，”一位华尔街支持者表示，他担心斯皮策更多地被看作反企业者，而不是亲投资者人士。
若说斯皮策先生不会像准备案件那样精心策划自己的职业生涯，这很难让人相信。但他坚持说，他过去从来没想过要从政。从普林斯顿大学和哈佛法学院毕业后，他担任一名美国地区法官的办事员，在私人业务方面工作了很短一段时间，随后就加入曼哈顿地区检察官办公室。在追踪甘比诺(Gambino)犯罪家族和其他诈骗者长达6年之后，他跳槽至纽约最负盛名的一家律师事务所Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom。“我本以为我将成为Skadden的合伙人，做上好几年，然后加入家族企业，”斯皮策先生表示。
但曾雇佣斯皮策先生为实习生的前纽约州副总检察长劳伊德?康斯坦丁(Lloyd Constantine)表示，他绝无可能加入他父亲的地产公司。“我一见他就知道，他的前途肯定是为政府工作。干诉讼以外的其它事都会浪费他的才能。”
斯皮策先生争强好胜的天性也见诸于网球场和滑雪场上，这位健身迷是个“令人生畏的对手”。但康斯坦丁先生说，斯皮策先生还具有其他从政所需的技巧，那是一般人所不知道的。“艾略特知道如何谈判和妥协。他能够倾听并改变自己的立场。”
出生豪门
和罗斯福(Roosevelt)一样，斯皮策先生出生豪门。他父亲是犹太移民之子，创立了自己的地产公司，该公司经营着许多曼哈顿公寓街区，包括斯皮策先生和妻子以及三个女儿居住的第五大道的那栋楼。1994年，斯皮策先生首次竞选总检察长，花费了几百万美元家产，但最终一败涂地。1998年，他在势均力敌的竞选战中胜出，尽管对手们指控他谎称钱是他自己的。
虽然他竞选州长将花费近4000万美元，但斯皮策先生已证明自己是个有效的筹资人，尽管(或者说因为)他在商界领袖中声名赫赫。尽管斯皮策先生有种种运动才华，但他的气质虽说不上怪，却略显学究气。头发日益稀疏的前额，以及棱角分明的相貌，都令这种气质更为明显。但即使是批评他的人，也称赞他反应灵敏和善于自嘲的魅力，这帮助他登上了《纽约杂志》“50名最性感纽约人”排行榜。
顺应民意
然而，尽管他对法律和自己熟悉的领域非常精通，但他的一些朋友承认，他还不是个面面俱到的政客。“在更广泛的政治问题上，他的见解并不太动人。有时候当他谈起外交事务时，就像在谈他刚读的一本书，”一位支持者说。但斯皮策先生认为，若把强有力的外交政策和比较进步的国内政策结合起来，形成一种罗斯福或托尼?布莱尔(Tony Blair)那样的风格，那么一位东北的民主党人还是可以赢得白宫的。在纽约州州长的角逐中，斯皮策先生显然是民主党最青睐的候选人。本月的民意调查也表明，他领先于除柯林?鲍威尔(Colin Powell)以外任何潜在的共和党候选人。可受人欢迎的前国务卿鲍威尔已称自己不会参选。但斯皮策先生承认他还有很长的路要走。“你不会未经战斗就坐上纽约州州长的位置。”不过，他已证明自己是个志在必得的斗士。
