In 1997, in his first letter to shareholders, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, wrote that it was still “Day 1” for his firm. Day 2, he later explained, would mean stasis, followed by irrelevance. His rousing call to avoid complacency seems apt today. Silicon Valley’s five big tech giants, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft, have long been the bedrock of America’s stockmarket and economy, miraculously combining reliable growth and profitability. But after a torrid third quarter their market capitalisations have now collectively dropped by 37% so far this year. About $3.7trn of value has evaporated.

1997年，亞馬遜的創(chuàng)始人杰夫·貝佐斯在給股東的第一封信中寫道，這仍是他的公司的“第一天”。他后來解釋說，第二天意味著停滯不前，接下來就是無關(guān)緊要。他呼吁人們不要自滿，這一振奮人心的呼吁在今天似乎很恰當(dāng)。硅谷五大科技巨頭Alphabet、亞馬遜、蘋果、Meta和微軟長期以來一直是美國股市和經(jīng)濟(jì)的基石，奇跡般地將可靠的增長和盈利結(jié)合在一起。但是，在經(jīng)歷了第三季度的艱難之后，到目前為止，他們的總市值已經(jīng)下降了37%。大約3.7萬億美元的市值蒸發(fā)了。

The law of large numbers made it inevitable that the tech giants would mature. Sales growth in the last quarter slowed to 9%—barely above inflation. As they have grown bigger, they have become tied to the economic cycle; a fact which the digital surge during the pandemic only temporarily masked. Penetration rates for smartphones, digital advertising and streaming are plateauing. With slowing core businesses, the giants are venturing onto each other’s turf, increasing competition.

大數(shù)定律使得科技巨頭不可避免地走向成熟。上個季度的銷售增長放緩至9%，勉強(qiáng)高于通貨膨脹率。隨著它們規(guī)模的擴(kuò)大，它們與經(jīng)濟(jì)周期聯(lián)系在一起; 疫情期間的數(shù)字激增只是暫時掩蓋了這一事實。智能手機(jī)、數(shù)字廣告和流媒體的滲透率趨于穩(wěn)定。在核心業(yè)務(wù)放緩的情況下，巨頭們紛紛冒險進(jìn)入對方的地盤，加劇了競爭。

Meanwhile, they are threatened by “conglomeritis”. The symptoms of this disease are bloating and egomania. Consider the recent orgy of spending on hiring, experimental ventures, vanity projects and building data centres. In March the five firms’ combined annual expenses reached $1trn for the first time, and the value of the physical plant of these supposedly asset-light businesses has reached $600bn, over triple the level of five years ago. Swollen costs and balance-sheets mean returns on capital have fallen from over 60% five years ago to 26%. Three of the five do not deign to pay dividends.

與此同時，它們受到“集團(tuán)企業(yè)”的威脅。這一征兆的癥狀是膨脹和自大。想想最近在招聘、實驗投資、面子工程和建設(shè)數(shù)據(jù)中心方面的肆意支出吧。今年3月，這五家公司的年度支出總額首次達(dá)到1萬億美元，而這些所謂的輕資產(chǎn)業(yè)務(wù)的實體工廠價值已達(dá)6000億美元，是五年前的三倍多。膨脹的成本和資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表意味著資本回報率從五年前的60%下降到26%。五家公司中有三家不屑于支付股息。

It is hardly unprecedented for successful companies to lose their focus, or to fail to control costs. In the 1980s rjr Nabisco’s executives splurged on jets and golf before being ousted by private equity’s barbarians. General Electric sprawled and had to be partially bailed out during the financial crisis of 2008-09. The best safeguards against such indiscipline are active boards and investors. When successful managers start to believe that they always know best, it is the board’s job to rein them in.

成功的公司失去重心或無法控制成本并非沒有先例。上世紀(jì)80年代， 煙草巨頭納貝斯克的高管們在飛機(jī)和高爾夫上揮霍無度，后來被私人股本的“野蠻人”趕下臺。通用電氣在2008年至2009年的金融危機(jī)期間擴(kuò)張，不得不接受部分紓困。防范這種不守紀(jì)律的最佳保障是活躍的董事會和投資者。當(dāng)成功的管理者開始相信他們總是最懂的時候，董事會就有責(zé)任約束他們。

But here, the tech firms’ governance rules add a twist. Often they entrust disproportionate power to bosses and founders, some of whom enjoy special voting rights that give them near-absolute control. Such bosses often cultivate an image as visionaries, whose daring bets horrify myopic outsiders but end up lucratively transforming the world.

但在這一點上，科技公司的治理規(guī)則增加了一個轉(zhuǎn)折。他們經(jīng)常把不成比例的權(quán)力交給老板和創(chuàng)始人，其中一些人享有特殊的投票權(quán)，這使他們擁有近乎絕對的控制權(quán)。這樣的老板通常會給人一種遠(yuǎn)見卓識的印象，他們大膽的賭注讓目光短淺的局外人感到恐懼，但最終卻改變了這個世界，獲得了豐厚的利潤。

At the worst end of the spectrum is Meta, the owner of Facebook, run increasingly erratically by Mark Zuckerberg. Its value has dropped by 74% this year. Its core business is wobbly, attracting too much toxicity, too few young people and too little advertising. It has become clear that Mr Zuckerberg is betting the firm on the metaverse, an attempt to diversify away from social media, on which he plans to lavish 20 times what Apple spent to build the first iPhone. Because dual share classes give him 54% of voting rights, Mr Zuckerberg has been able to ignore the pleas of outside investors. Alphabet, the owner of Google, has performed better but is flabby. Its founders retain 51% of its voting rights, allowing them to overrule the wishes of other owners.

最糟糕的是Facebook的所有者M(jìn)eta，在馬克·扎克伯格的管理下，運營越來越不穩(wěn)定。今年它的市值已經(jīng)下跌了74%。它的核心業(yè)務(wù)不穩(wěn)定，吸引的“有毒元素”太多，年輕人太少，廣告太少。很明顯，扎克伯格將公司的賭注押在了元世界上，這是一種從社交媒體轉(zhuǎn)向多元化的嘗試，他計劃在元宇宙上投入20倍于蘋果制造第一代iPhone的資金。由于雙重股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)賦予他54%的投票權(quán)，扎克伯格可以無視外部投資者的請求。谷歌的所有者Alphabet的表現(xiàn)要好一些，但也有些無力。該公司創(chuàng)始人保留51%的投票權(quán)，允許他們否決其他所有者的意愿。

In the middle is Amazon, which has over-invested in e-commerce and expanded too far, crushing its cashflow and returns. Mr Bezos, who remains executive chairman, owns less than 15% of the firm’s voting rights, so he has to be at least somewhat responsive to investors. Apple and Microsoft are at the benign end of the spectrum. Both firms are older, no longer have founders with controlling stakes and operate on the principle of one share, one vote. Both listen to outsiders. In 2013 Tim Cook, Apple’s boss, sat down for dinner with Carl Icahn, a fiery investor, and took on board his request to return money to shareholders through buybacks. In 2014 Microsoft invited an activist investor, Mason Morfit, onto its board. The two firms have performed the best of the big five this year.

處于中間位置的是亞馬遜，它在電子商務(wù)領(lǐng)域過度投資，擴(kuò)張過度，現(xiàn)金流和回報都受到擠壓。貝佐斯仍然是公司的執(zhí)行主席，但他擁有公司不到15%的投票權(quán)，因此他至少不得不對投資者有所回應(yīng)。蘋果和微軟屬于良性的一端。這兩家公司的歷史都比較悠久，創(chuàng)始人不再持有控股權(quán)，并遵循一股一票的原則運作。兩者都聽從局外人的意見。2013年，蘋果公司老板蒂姆?庫克與狂熱的投資者卡爾?伊坎共進(jìn)晚餐，并接受了伊坎通過股票回購向股東返還資金的要求。2014年，微軟邀請激進(jìn)投資者梅森·莫菲特加入董事會。這兩家公司是今年五大公司中表現(xiàn)最好的。

When you have disrupted industries and created hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth it is hard to accept financial constraints and outside scrutiny. Nonetheless, many in big tech’s elite need to show more humility and better performance. Otherwise Day 3 might bring an escalating confrontation between them and investors over who controls the most successful firms of the past two decades.

當(dāng)你顛覆了一些行業(yè)，創(chuàng)造了數(shù)千億美元的財富時，你很難接受財務(wù)約束和外部監(jiān)督。盡管如此，大型科技公司的許多精英需要表現(xiàn)得更謙遜，表現(xiàn)得更好。否則，第三天可能會引發(fā)他們與投資者之間不斷升級的對抗，爭奪過去20年中最成功公司的控股權(quán)。