在與癌癥抗?fàn)?8個(gè)月后，音樂(lè)傳奇巨星大衛(wèi)?鮑伊于周一早些時(shí)候去世。鮑伊的音樂(lè)生涯長(zhǎng)達(dá)五十年之久，他的音樂(lè)融合了不同流派和新的個(gè)人風(fēng)格。除了在音樂(lè)界的影響力和創(chuàng)新力，鮑伊也證明了他在音樂(lè)商業(yè)化領(lǐng)域的高瞻遠(yuǎn)矚。

“瘦白公爵”很早便認(rèn)識(shí)到，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)將顛覆音樂(lè)行業(yè)的傳統(tǒng)商業(yè)模式，他在上世紀(jì)90年代末，通過(guò)出售其在未來(lái)音樂(lè)授權(quán)收入中的權(quán)益，幫助藝術(shù)家們開(kāi)創(chuàng)了一種從自身作品中獲益的新方法。

《財(cái)富》雜志曾在2003年刊文回顧了鮑伊此舉的預(yù)見(jiàn)性。鮑伊在所謂音樂(lè)行業(yè)“黃金年代”接近尾聲的時(shí)候采取了這一舉措。在他大賺一筆背后，隱藏著怎樣的故事呢？

齊基，也就是搖滾巨星大衛(wèi)?鮑伊，他是吉他高手。而事實(shí)證明，他在玩弄華爾街方面也是個(gè)中好手。大家或許已經(jīng)聽(tīng)說(shuō)，華爾街自己的“太空怪談”證券——鮑伊債券，再次引起了媒體關(guān)注。但這次卻不是好消息：據(jù)穆迪（Moody’s）分析師杰伊?伊思布拉克表示，由于對(duì)“歌曲產(chǎn)生了多少收入”存在疑問(wèn)，穆迪下調(diào)了鮑伊債券的信用評(píng)級(jí)。這意味著，穆迪擔(dān)憂(yōu)，音樂(lè)曲目的收入將日益減少，甚至可能難以向債券持有人支付足夠的現(xiàn)金。但在音樂(lè)背后還有一些有趣的故事。

大衛(wèi)?鮑伊在1995年將他的音樂(lè)版權(quán)以5,500萬(wàn)美元的價(jià)格，出售給一些銀行家，由后者發(fā)行以鮑伊的重演版權(quán)費(fèi)為擔(dān)保的債券。保誠(chéng)保險(xiǎn)和其他保險(xiǎn)公司購(gòu)買(mǎi)了這筆債券，債券的評(píng)級(jí)為A3級(jí)，收益率約為8%。所有人都預(yù)測(cè)，此舉將在搖滾藝人和音樂(lè)創(chuàng)作者中引領(lǐng)一波交易浪潮。雖然有許多人借鑒了鮑伊的作法——例如詹姆斯?布朗（《Good God！》）和艾斯利兄弟（《Fight the Power!》），但這并沒(méi)有成為音樂(lè)界或華爾街的下一個(gè)大事件。

多年來(lái)，有許多公司曾涉足這個(gè)領(lǐng)域——總規(guī)模僅有2億美元——但這個(gè)小規(guī)模、高關(guān)注度的縫隙市場(chǎng)，卻一直為戴維?普爾曼主導(dǎo)。普爾曼是一位特立獨(dú)行的銀行家，擁有自己的精品投資公司。普爾曼早期曾在臭名昭著的經(jīng)紀(jì)公司Gruntal任職，他與前證券化合伙人價(jià)值數(shù)十億美元的訴訟吸引了媒體眼球，他還曾與其曼哈頓公寓大樓的合作公寓董事會(huì)對(duì)簿公堂。

當(dāng)時(shí)，鮑伊和他的交易被認(rèn)為走在了時(shí)代前沿（鮑伊不是一直如此嗎？），但現(xiàn)在回想起來(lái)，“鉆石狗”鮑伊具有非凡的洞察力！鮑伊拒絕談?wù)撨@篇文章，真是太可惜了，因?yàn)槲疫€有許多關(guān)于服裝和其他方面的好點(diǎn)子。鮑伊在1997年1月售出了他的音樂(lè)版權(quán)，當(dāng)時(shí)多數(shù)人從未聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)“文件共享”。（我將其稱(chēng)為文件抄襲。）這是多么聰明或者幸運(yùn)??？

當(dāng)時(shí)，筆者與銀行家戴維?普爾曼談?wù)摿诉@些情況，他堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，穆迪的評(píng)級(jí)并不重要。（我在等他的時(shí)候，耳朵里一直在播放《Rebel, Rebel》。很有意思。）他輕聲笑著說(shuō)：“我認(rèn)為這很好。它重新激起了人們對(duì)這些債券的興趣。你看，這些債券依舊會(huì)保持投資級(jí)。它們的收益率依舊在8%左右，你不必?fù)?dān)心像購(gòu)買(mǎi)百代唱片（EMI）或美國(guó)在線(xiàn)（AOL）的股票一樣，損失85%或更多的投資?！焙苡械览?。但歸根結(jié)底，如果鮑伊在2003年嘗試出售他的音樂(lè)版權(quán)，還能否得到5,500萬(wàn)美元？普爾曼回答說(shuō)：“這個(gè)很難說(shuō)。那筆交易有許多獨(dú)特的地方?！卑」?！

其他音樂(lè)證券化交易并未遭遇評(píng)級(jí)下調(diào)。這也證明了鮑伊債券的某些特質(zhì)。來(lái)自穆迪的伊思布拉克說(shuō)道：“其他類(lèi)型的交易，收入更多是來(lái)自音樂(lè)出版，而不是唱片所有人的版稅，而音樂(lè)出版的表現(xiàn)往往比唱片所有人的版稅更加堅(jiān)挺?！币魳?lè)出版權(quán)收入是指授權(quán)其他音樂(lè)家演奏歌曲或在廣播上播放歌曲的收入。而唱片所有人版稅則是銷(xiāo)售CD的收入。所以，鮑伊現(xiàn)在的銷(xiāo)售并沒(méi)有那么“好”。另外一點(diǎn)：鮑伊債券由焦頭爛額的唱片業(yè)巨頭百代唱片擔(dān)保——而這家公司的債務(wù)評(píng)級(jí)在2003年3月份已經(jīng)下降至垃圾級(jí)，并且飽受音樂(lè)盜版的困擾。

但普爾曼對(duì)這些問(wèn)題并不擔(dān)心。他說(shuō)道：“多數(shù)被盜版的音樂(lè)都來(lái)自年輕的音樂(lè)家?？偠灾募蚕硪欢〞?huì)帶來(lái)更大的好處。即便音樂(lè)出版的收入減少5%，依舊還有許多其他新的音樂(lè)播放平臺(tái)。例如，在你的電視上有500個(gè)頻道在播放音樂(lè)。”

很好。我轉(zhuǎn)換了話(huà)題，詢(xún)問(wèn)他合作公寓的情況（《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》的一篇文章進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)報(bào)道）。普爾曼與董事會(huì)和其他居民交惡多年，普爾曼曾對(duì)其他居民提出人身攻擊和納粹主義等指控，其他股東通過(guò)投票將他驅(qū)逐出了董事會(huì)。這件事有什么最新進(jìn)展？他說(shuō)：“我依舊住在那里。”關(guān)于普爾曼與其前證券化合伙人之間的訴訟，一名法官最近駁回了這一案件。但普爾曼提出了上訴。

我們將所有事實(shí)組合在一起：文件共享正在沖擊音樂(lè)行業(yè)，并且有可能使鮑伊債券陷入危機(jī)。戴維?普爾曼依舊在興風(fēng)作浪。而大衛(wèi)?鮑伊早在2003年的幾年前，就已經(jīng)抽離了自己的資金。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

Music legend David Bowie passed away early Monday after battling cancer for 18 months. Bowie’s career spanned more than five decades, filled with music that blended different genres and new personas. In addition to his musical prowess and innovation, though, Bowie also often proved himself a visionary when it came to the business aspects of his music.

The Thin White Duke recognized early on that the Internet would likely upend the music industry’s traditional business model and he also helped pioneer a method for artists to capitalize on their catalogs by selling interest in his future licensing revenue in the late 1990s.

In 2003, our former Fortune editor Andy Serwer looked back at the prescience of Bowie’s move, which came just as the industry’s so-called “Golden Years” were nearing an end.

Ziggy, a.k.a. rock icon David Bowie, played guitar. Turns out he wasn’t too bad at playing Wall Street either. As you have probably heard, Bowie bonds, Wall Street’s own space-oddity securities, have been in the news again. And the news hasn’t been good: Moody’s has placed the bonds under review because of questions about “how much revenues [the songs] have been generating,” says Moody’s analyst Jay Eisbruck. That means simply that there is concern that the music catalog is earning less than it used to and at some point may no longer provide enough cash to pay bondholders. Behind the music, though, are some other interesting moving parts.

First, a refresher. Ziggy, a.k.a. rock icon David Bowie, sold his music rights for $55 million ten years ago to a group of bankers who issued bonds backed by Bowie’s residuals. Prudential and other insurance companies bought the bonds, which are rated A3 and yield about 8%. Everybody predicted that would usher in a wave of deals by rock & rollers and songwriters. And though a few followed Bowie’s lead—such as James Brown (“Good God!”) and the Isley Brothers (“Fight the Power!”)—it never became the next big thing for the music biz or Wall Street.

Over the years a few firms have dabbled in the business—which totals only about $200 million—but this small, high-profile niche has mostly been the domain of David Pullman, a rather idiosyncratic banker with his own boutique firm. Pullman, who early on worked at the infamous broker Gruntal, has been a party to headline-grabbing lawsuits involving his former securitization partners—that one for billions—and the co-op board in his Manhattan apartment building.

Bowie and his deal were considered cutting-edge at the time (isn’t he always?), but in retrospect the Diamond Dog is looking positively clairvoyant! (Bowie declined to speak to Street Life for this article, which is too bad because I had some fantastic ideas for costumes and such….) Think about it. Bowie sells the rights to his catalog in January 1997, before most of humankind had ever heard the little phrase “file sharing.” (I call it file stealing.) How smart or lucky was that?

I spoke to Pullman about the situation, and he insisted that the review by Moody’s was a non-issue. (“Rebel, Rebel” played in my ear while I was on hold for him. Cute.) “I think it’s great,” he said with a chuckle. “It’s created a resurgence in interest in these securities. Look, the bonds would still be investment-grade anyway. They still pay out close to 8%, and you wouldn’t have lost 85% or more of your investment like you did if you bought [stock in] EMI or AOL.” Okay, fair enough. But, bottom line, would Bowie be able to get the same $55 million if he had tried to sell his rights in 2003? “That’s tough to say,” responds Pullman. “There were many unique aspects to that deal.” Uh-huh.

Other music-securitization deals are not under review. That speaks to some special qualities of the Bowie bonds. “Most of the other transactions have revenues that are generated in larger portion by music publishing rather than record-master royalties, and music publishing has tended to hold up better than record-master royalties,” says Moody’s Eisbruck. Music publishing rights are when the song is licensed to be played by another musician or is played on the radio. Record-master royalties are the dough that rolls in from sales of CDs. So Ziggy’s sales these days aren’t so “Hunky Dory.” Another point: Bowie bonds are guaranteed by wheezing record giant EMI—whose debt ratings were cut to junk in March—which has been getting skewered by music pirates.

Again, Pullman is unfazed by the facts. “Most songs being pirated are by younger artists. And anyway, file sharing creates greater interest,” he says. “Even if there was a 5% or less drop in revenues from publishing, there are so many other new venues for music. For instance, there are 500 channels on your TV with music being played.”

Okay. Shifting gears, I ask him about the situation in his co-op (detailed in a New York Times article), where fellow shareholders voted to throw him out after years of acrimony between him and the board and other residents involving accusations by Pullman of everything from assault to Nazism. What’s the latest with that? “I still live there,” he says. As for Pullman’s lawsuit against his former securitization partners, a judge recently dismissed the case. Pullman’s appealing.

So let’s put all this together: File sharing is beating up the music biz and is potentially nicking Bowie bonds. David Pullman continues to make waves. And then there’s David Bowie, who took his money off the table years ago.