脸书与企业集团诅咒 | 经济学人社论

1

Leaders | Business in America

社论 | 浅谈美国企业

Facebook and the conglomerate curse

脸书与企业集团诅咒

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

自我膨胀与利己主义之后，科技巨头可以从积极建言的董事会和投资者身上获益匪浅

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，亚马逊创始人杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）在其首封致股东信中表示，亚马逊虽然已经上市，但现在仍是第一天（Day 1）。他后来解释道，如果公司进入第二天（Day 2）则意味着发展停滞，随后会变得无关紧要。这番旨在告诫亚马逊人不要自满的话语，在今天仍然振聋发聩。长期以来，硅谷五大科技巨头，字母表（谷歌母公司）、亚马逊、苹果、元宇宙（脸书）以及微软，是美国股市和经济的基石，在公司稳步发展的同时还实现了盈利，堪称奇迹。但是，在经过困难重重的第三季度后，今年迄今为止五大巨头的总市值已经下降了37%，约3.7万亿美元市值烟消云散。

注释：

“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.

根据大数定律（law of large numbers），这些科技巨头不可避免地迈入发展成熟时期。上季度，营收增速放缓至9%，仅略高于通胀率。随着这些企业规模不断扩张，他们已经与经济周期紧密“绑定”。数字经济在疫情期间的飞速发展也只能暂时掩盖这一现实。智能手机、数字广告和流媒体业务的普及率已经趋于稳定。随着核心业务扩张放缓，这些科技巨头开始冒险涉足彼此的领域，进一步加剧了竞争。

注释：在数学与统计学中，大数定律又称大数法则、大数律，是描述相当多次数重复实验的结果的定律。根据这个定律知道，样本数量越多，则其平均就越趋近期望值。

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.

与此同时，“企业集团病”也已危及五大科技巨头，症状就是骄傲自满、自私自利。想想近期它们豪撒了多少资金用于雇佣员工、风投项目、形象工程与数据中心建设吧。今年3月，五巨头的年总支出额首次达到1万亿美元，而这些本应注重轻资产运营的企业的实体工厂价值已高达6000亿美元，比5年前涨了两倍还多。成本攀升与资产负债表膨胀意味着资本报酬率从5年前的60%跌至了26%。五大科技巨头中有三家都不愿低下高昂的头颅来支付股息。

注释：

资本报酬率：某结算期损益表所提供的净利数字，除以投资总额所得的商数，即净利与投资总额的比值。

资本回报率（returns on invested capital/ROIC）：指投出或使用资金与相关回报（回报通常表现为获取的利息和\或分得利润）之比例，用于衡量投出资金的使用效果。

Asset light: 轻资产（Asset-light）又称轻资产运营模式，是指企业紧紧抓住自己的核心业务，而将非核心业务外包出去。轻资产运营是以价值为驱动的资本战略。

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会忘记发展重心，或是无法控制公司成本，这并非没有先例。上世纪80年代，雷诺兹-纳贝斯克的高管们在购买喷气式飞机和高尔夫球场上挥金如土，最后落了一个被私人股权公司的“野蛮人”轰下台的下场。通用电气公司原先一直在无序扩张，结果在2008至2009金融危机期间不得不接受部分资金援助。为避免公司高管做出类似的随性所欲的行为，最好的办法就是董事会与投资者积极作为。如果小有成绩的管理者开始觉得自己无所不知、高人一等，那此时董事会就应该出马约束他们。

注释：

1. 1988年，美国雷诺兹-纳贝斯克公司发生了一场惊天的世纪大收购。在这场收购中，KKR因采用了高额的垃圾债券，被竞争对手称为“门口的野蛮人”。https://www.sohu.com/a/255420530_117959

2. 伊梅尔特的部分举措直接增加了金融危机的重创程度。而危机爆发时，通用电气 的利润蒸发殆尽，直接导致其股价下跌 42％。通用电气不得不依靠美国政府和巴菲特的救助才摆脱了困境，但经此一役的通用电气元气大伤。

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1642532781212883814&wfr=spider&for=pc

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.

但科技公司的治理规则使情况更加复杂。老板和创始人往往掌控着过大的权力，其中部分人还享有特殊投票权，因而几乎可以百分之百控制公司。而这些老板往往给自己打造一种高瞻远瞩的人设——他们的冒险决策让目光短浅的局外人感到心惊胆战，最终却能改变世界，而公司也能从中渔利。

注释：

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.

其中境况最糟的是脸书母公司“元宇宙”（Meta），其创始人马克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）的管理方式日益“任性”。今年，Meta市值暴跌74%。核心业务风雨飘摇，吸引了太多“网络毒药”，却吸引不来年轻用户和广告收入。显然，扎克伯格将公司的成败押在了元宇宙上，试图从单纯聚焦社交媒体走向多元化发展，为此他不惜血本，计划投入20倍于苹果生产第一款iPhone所耗的资金。由于Meta实行双重股权结构，扎克伯格拥有54%的投票权，因此他能够无视外部投资者的请求。谷歌母公司字母表业绩尚可，但韧性不足。其联合创始人持有51%的投票权，因此对公司决议有绝对控制权。

注释：

dual share classes：双重股权结构，指上市公司可以同股不同权，通常是一般股东一票一股，但公司少数高管可以一股数票。由于Meta实行双重股权结构，扎克伯格等部分高管以及董事享有超级投票权，其所持的B类股一股就相当于10票的投票权。扎克伯格目前持股相当于拥有54.5%的投票权。

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1748258051221539053&wfr=spider&for=pc

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.

居于中间地带的是亚马逊，它在电商领域过度投资，扩张过猛，导致现金流受冲击、收益缩水。贝佐斯仍然是执行董事长，持有公司不到15%的投票权，因此他起码要在一定程度上照顾到投资者的诉求。苹果和微软则处于良性发展端。这两个公司更加老牌，创始人都不再拥有绝对控股权，并按照一股一票制运营，听取外人之言。2013年，苹果首席执行官蒂姆·库克（Tim Cook）与犀利激进的投资者卡尔·伊坎（Carl Icahn）共进晚餐，并采纳了他的请求，通过回购向股东返还资金。2014年，微软邀请激进投资者梅森 ·莫菲特（Mason Morfit）加入董事会。这两家公司是今年五家龙头企业中表现最好的。

注释：

亚马逊创始人杰夫·贝索斯于2021年7月5日正式卸任首席执行官一职，转而担任公司执行董事长。不过，贝佐斯作为亚马逊最大的个人股东，在未来几年里仍将对亚马逊产生巨大的影响。

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1704483757889109567&wfr=spider&for=pc

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.

在已经颠覆行业，并创造数千亿美元资产的情况下，公司很难再去接受财务约束和外界监督。尽管如此，许多大型科技公司的精英仍需戒骄戒躁，交出更漂亮的答卷。否则，“第三天”（Day 3）可能会让他们陷入与投资者间愈发激烈的对抗，争夺对过去20年来最成功企业的控制权。

3