Leaders?| Business in America

社論?|?淺談美國企業(yè)

英文部分選自經(jīng)濟學(xué)人20221105期社論版塊

Leaders?| Business in America

社論?|?淺談美國企業(yè)

Facebook and the conglomerate curse

臉書與企業(yè)集團詛咒

Beset by bloating and egomania, big tech would benefit from active boards and investors

自我膨脹與利己主義之后，科技巨頭可以從積極建言的董事會和投資者身上獲益匪淺

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，亞馬遜創(chuàng)始人杰夫·貝索斯（Jeff Bezos）在其首封致股東信中表示，亞馬遜雖然已經(jīng)上市，但現(xiàn)在仍是第一天（Day 1）。他后來解釋道，如果公司進入第二天（Day 2）則意味著發(fā)展停滯，隨后會變得無關(guān)緊要。這番旨在告誡亞馬遜人不要自滿的話語，在今天仍然振聾發(fā)聵。長期以來，硅谷五大科技巨頭，字母表（谷歌母公司）、亞馬遜、蘋果、元宇宙（臉書）以及微軟，是美國股市和經(jīng)濟的基石，在公司穩(wěn)步發(fā)展的同時還實現(xiàn)了盈利，堪稱奇跡。但是，在經(jīng)過困難重重的第三季度后，今年迄今為止五大巨頭的總市值已經(jīng)下降了37%，約3.7萬億美元市值煙消云散。

注釋：

“Day 2 is stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by excruciating, painful decline. Followed by death. Andthat?is why it is?always?Day 1.”——Jeff Bezos's 2016 Letter to Shareholders

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.

根據(jù)大數(shù)定律（law of large numbers），這些科技巨頭不可避免地邁入發(fā)展成熟時期。上季度，營收增速放緩至9%，僅略高于通脹率。隨著這些企業(yè)規(guī)模不斷擴張，他們已經(jīng)與經(jīng)濟周期緊密“綁定”。數(shù)字經(jīng)濟在疫情期間的飛速發(fā)展也只能暫時掩蓋這一現(xiàn)實。智能手機、數(shù)字廣告和流媒體業(yè)務(wù)的普及率已經(jīng)趨于穩(wěn)定。隨著核心業(yè)務(wù)擴張放緩，這些科技巨頭開始冒險涉足彼此的領(lǐng)域，進一步加劇了競爭。

注釋：在數(shù)學(xué)與統(tǒng)計學(xué)中，大數(shù)定律又稱大數(shù)法則、大數(shù)律，是描述相當(dāng)多次數(shù)重復(fù)實驗的結(jié)果的定律。根據(jù)這個定律知道，樣本數(shù)量越多，則其平均就越趨近期望值。

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，“企業(yè)集團病”也已危及五大科技巨頭，癥狀就是驕傲自滿、自私自利。想想近期它們豪撒了多少資金用于雇傭員工、風(fēng)投項目、形象工程與數(shù)據(jù)中心建設(shè)吧。今年3月，五巨頭的年總支出額首次達到1萬億美元，而這些本應(yīng)注重輕資產(chǎn)運營的企業(yè)的實體工廠價值已高達6000億美元，比5年前漲了兩倍還多。成本攀升與資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表膨脹意味著資本報酬率從5年前的60%跌至了26%。五大科技巨頭中有三家都不愿低下高昂的頭顱來支付股息。

注釋：

資本報酬率：某結(jié)算期損益表所提供的凈利數(shù)字，除以投資總額所得的商數(shù)，即凈利與投資總額的比值。

資本回報率（returns on invested capital/ROIC）：指投出或使用資金與相關(guān)回報（回報通常表現(xiàn)為獲取的利息和\或分得利潤）之比例，用于衡量投出資金的使用效果。

Asset light:?輕資產(chǎn)（Asset-light）又稱輕資產(chǎn)運營模式，是指企業(yè)緊緊抓住自己的核心業(yè)務(wù)，而將非核心業(yè)務(wù)外包出去。輕資產(chǎn)運營是以價值為驅(qū)動的資本戰(zhàn)略。

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.

早已取得成功的公司也會忘記發(fā)展重心，或是無法控制公司成本，這并非沒有先例。上世紀(jì)80年代，雷諾茲-納貝斯克的高管們在購買噴氣式飛機和高爾夫球場上揮金如土，最后落了一個被私人股權(quán)公司的“野蠻人”轟下臺的下場。通用電氣公司原先一直在無序擴張，結(jié)果在2008至2009金融危機期間不得不接受部分資金援助。為避免公司高管做出類似的隨性所欲的行為，最好的辦法就是董事會與投資者積極作為。如果小有成績的管理者開始覺得自己無所不知、高人一等，那此時董事會就應(yīng)該出馬約束他們。

注釋：

1. 1988年，美國雷諾茲-納貝斯克公司發(fā)生了一場驚天的世紀(jì)大收購。在這場收購中，KKR因采用了高額的垃圾債券，被競爭對手稱為“門口的野蠻人”。

2.伊梅爾特的部分舉措直接增加了金融危機的重創(chuàng)程度。而危機爆發(fā)時，通用電氣的利潤蒸發(fā)殆盡，直接導(dǎo)致其股價下跌42％。通用電氣不得不依靠美國政府和巴菲特的救助才擺脫了困境，但經(jīng)此一役的通用電氣元氣大傷。

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.

但科技公司的治理規(guī)則使情況更加復(fù)雜。老板和創(chuàng)始人往往掌控著過大的權(quán)力，其中部分人還享有特殊投票權(quán)，因而幾乎可以百分之百控制公司。而這些老板往往給自己打造一種高瞻遠(yuǎn)矚的人設(shè)——他們的冒險決策讓目光短淺的局外人感到心驚膽戰(zhàn)，最終卻能改變世界，而公司也能從中漁利。

注釋：

twist: an unexpected change or development in a story or situation

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.

其中境況最糟的是臉書母公司“元宇宙”（Meta），其創(chuàng)始人馬克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）的管理方式日益“任性”。今年，Meta市值暴跌74%。核心業(yè)務(wù)風(fēng)雨飄搖，吸引了太多“網(wǎng)絡(luò)毒藥”，卻吸引不來年輕用戶和廣告收入。顯然，扎克伯格將公司的成敗押在了元宇宙上，試圖從單純聚焦社交媒體走向多元化發(fā)展，為此他不惜血本，計劃投入20倍于蘋果生產(chǎn)第一款iPhone所耗的資金。由于Meta實行雙重股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)，扎克伯格擁有54%的投票權(quán)，因此他能夠無視外部投資者的請求。谷歌母公司字母表業(yè)績尚可，但韌性不足。其聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人持有51%的投票權(quán)，因此對公司決議有絕對控制權(quán)。

注釋：

dual share classes：雙重股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)，指上市公司可以同股不同權(quán)，通常是一般股東一票一股，但公司少數(shù)高管可以一股數(shù)票。由于Meta實行雙重股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)，扎克伯格等部分高管以及董事享有超級投票權(quán)，其所持的B類股一股就相當(dāng)于10票的投票權(quán)。扎克伯格目前持股相當(dāng)于擁有54.5%的投票權(quán)。

flabby: lacking resilience or firmness; weak and ineffective

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.

居于中間地帶的是亞馬遜，它在電商領(lǐng)域過度投資，擴張過猛，導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)金流受沖擊、收益縮水。貝佐斯仍然是執(zhí)行董事長，持有公司不到15%的投票權(quán)，因此他起碼要在一定程度上照顧到投資者的訴求。蘋果和微軟則處于良性發(fā)展端。這兩個公司更加老牌，創(chuàng)始人都不再擁有絕對控股權(quán)，并按照一股一票制運營，聽取外人之言。2013年，蘋果首席執(zhí)行官蒂姆·庫克（Tim Cook）與犀利激進的投資者卡爾·伊坎（Carl Icahn）共進晚餐，并采納了他的請求，通過回購向股東返還資金。2014年，微軟邀請激進投資者梅森?·莫菲特（Mason Morfit）加入董事會。這兩家公司是今年五家龍頭企業(yè)中表現(xiàn)最好的。

注釋：

亞馬遜創(chuàng)始人杰夫·貝索斯于2021年7月5日正式卸任首席執(zhí)行官一職，轉(zhuǎn)而擔(dān)任公司執(zhí)行董事長。不過，貝佐斯作為亞馬遜最大的個人股東，在未來幾年里仍將對亞馬遜產(chǎn)生巨大的影響。

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.

在已經(jīng)顛覆行業(yè)，并創(chuàng)造數(shù)千億美元資產(chǎn)的情況下，公司很難再去接受財務(wù)約束和外界監(jiān)督。盡管如此，許多大型科技公司的精英仍需戒驕戒躁，交出更漂亮的答卷。否則，“第三天”（Day 3）可能會讓他們陷入與投資者間愈發(fā)激烈的對抗，爭奪對過去20年來最成功企業(yè)的控制權(quán)。