如何考量投資阿里巴巴的風險與回報

China’s internet sector is a curious paradox – it enjoys the most foreign equity investment of any part of the Chinese economy, while at the same time, foreigners do not own a single share.

中國互聯網行業有一個奇怪的悖論——雖然它是中國經濟中接受境外股權投資最多的領域，但外資企業對該領域並不持有一絲一毫的股份。

A curious regulatory loophole known as a VIE, or variable interest entity, has allowed foreigners to get around Beijing’s prohibitions against foreign ownership of internet assets. They have amassed huge holdings in companies such as Tencent, Baidu and Alibaba, the ecommerce group that on Tuesday filed for a US IPO that could value it at up to $200bn.

通過可變利益實體(VIE)這個奇怪的監管漏洞，外資企業得以繞開中國政府禁止外資擁有境內互聯網資產的規定。它們已在騰訊(Tencent)、百度(Baidu)和阿里巴巴(Alibaba)等公司持有大量利益。電商集團阿里巴巴本週二向美國提交了首次公開發行(IPO)申請，其估值最高可能達2000億美元。

Prospective investors in Alibaba’s listing – likely to raise about $20bn and to be the biggest stock flotation in the world since Facebook – will know that in any dispute with Alibaba’s Chinese investors, their shares could be invalidated and rendered worthless in a Chinese court.

阿里巴巴股票的未來投資者應該明白，一旦與該公司的中國投資者發生爭議，他們的股票可能被中國法院判定無效，變得一文不值。阿里巴巴IPO可能融資約200億美元，成爲自Facebook上市以來全球規模最大的IPO。

Alibaba’s blockbuster IPO caps a revival for US listings of Chinese companies after a two-year drought brought on by a series of financial scandals at Chinese groups. Ironically, one of the biggest involved none other than Alibaba, which was accused of abusing its VIE to strip assets out of the company in 2011.

阿里巴巴聲勢浩大的IPO將成爲中國企業赴美上市活動復甦的高潮。此前兩年裏，由於多家中國企業相繼曝出財務醜聞，中概股在美國遇冷。諷刺的是，最轟動的醜聞之一恰恰涉及到阿里巴巴，該公司被指控於2011年濫用VIE架構將資產從公司剝離出去。

But memories are short, and this year “Alibaba is the tide which is lifting all boats after two years of scepticism towards most US listed Chinese companies”, according to Nicholas Manganaro of Ogilvy Financial in Beijing.

北京奧美金融(Ogilvy Financial)的尼古拉斯•曼加納羅(Nicholas Manganaro)表示，人的記憶是短暫的，“在大多數在美上市中國企業普遍遭到懷疑兩年後，（今年）阿里巴巴IPO就相當於漲潮，能把所有船隻都擡高”。

Investors will have to have strong nerves. “Every so often someone will read a [IPO] prospectus and say ‘hold on a minute, what do I really own here?’” says Mr Manganaro, adding that the ownership issue has been “hiding in plain sight” for years.

投資者仍需有極大的勇氣。“人們時常會讀到一份（IPO）招股說明書，然後發問，‘等一下，我投資進去到底能擁有什麼？’”他補充道，所有權問題“隱藏在人們眼皮底下”有好幾年了。

“Chinese regulators have always turned a blind eye, but the fear is what if they don’t? What if it is challenged in court?”

“中國監管機構一直故意視而不見，但令人擔心的是，如果他們一反常態怎麼辦？如果這個問題被告到法院怎麼辦？”

A convenient loophole

一個便於利用的漏洞

Since the first Chinese internet IPO in 2000, Chinese start-ups wanting to list abroad have skirted ownership restrictions by setting up offshore companies known as VIEs. They are domiciled mainly in the Cayman Islands and have a series of contracts that “simulate” ownership in the Chinese company. In the event of a lawsuit, analysts doubt the contractual powers would be enforceable.

自從2000年中國互聯網企業第一次IPO以來，中國希望到境外上市的初創企業，一直通過設立VIE架構的離岸公司，繞開外資所有權限制。這些公司主要把註冊地設在開曼羣島(Cayman Islands)，並利用一系列協議“模擬”取得中國企業的所有權。倘若被訴至法院，分析師懷疑這些協議是否真的具有法律執行力。

“It appears that the VIE structure works – until you need it to work, and then it won’t work. That is a concern that has many investors scared to jump back into Chinese stock,” said Paul Gillis, a professor of accounting at Peking University.

“VIE架構現在看來管用，但到你需要它真管用時，它就不管用了。許多投資者不敢再碰中國企業股票，就是存在這種擔憂，”北京大學會計學教授保羅•吉利斯(Paul Gillis)說。

Of the more than 200 Chinese companies to list in the US since 1999, roughly half have used VIEs, according to Fredrik Oqvist, a Beijing-based accountant. These are mainly internet and education companies which are restricted from having foreign shareholders.

駐北京會計師弗雷德裏克•奧基維斯特(Fredrik Oqvist)表示，自1999年以來共有200多家中國企業在美上市，其中大約一半採用了VIE架構。由於互聯網和教育行業的企業在外資持股方面受限制，採用VIE架構的主要是這兩類企業。

Gene Buttrill, of the Jones Day law firm, says the main risks of a VIE are that the individuals holding the shares of the operating company will abscond with the assets and good name of the company. The other is that the Chinese government will deem the structures illegal and “collapse them”.

衆達律師事務所(Jones Day)的卜嘉男(Gene Buttrill)表示，VIE的主要風險是，持有運營公司股份的個人可能捲走公司資產，並損害公司的良好聲譽。另一點擔憂是，中國政府可能認爲VIE架構非法，並“摧毀該結構”。

The Alipay scandal

支付寶(Alipay)醜聞

Everything could go horribly wrong, and has on a number of occasions. In Alibaba’s case, chairman Jack Ma in 2011 transferred ownership of Alipay, the company’s payments arm, out from a VIE and into a structure that he controlled personally. At the time Alibaba Group, the VIE, was 40 per cent owned by Yahoo, and 34 per cent owned by Japan’s SoftBank.

一切事情都可能變得非常糟糕，而且在很多情況下這確實發生了。以阿里巴巴爲例，該公司董事長馬雲(Jack Ma) 2011年將支付業務子公司支付寶轉移出VIE，轉入他本人控股的一家公司。在當時的VIE阿里巴巴集團(Alibaba Group)中，雅虎(Yahoo)持股40%，日本軟銀(SoftBank)持股34%。

Executives at Yahoo complained that they were not informed of the transfer, though Mr Ma says he consulted Alibaba’s board, on which Yahoo and SoftBank have a seat. Yahoo and SoftBank deny this. The three companies came to a settlement in which if Alipay ever went public, it would pay Alibaba between $2bn and $6bn.

雅虎的高管抱怨稱，他們對支付寶被轉移毫不知情，不過馬雲則表示他已諮詢過阿里巴巴董事會——雅虎和軟銀在其中皆有席位。雅虎和軟銀對此予以否認。這三家公司後來達成了和解，約定倘若支付寶上市，將向阿里巴巴支付20億至60億美元。

Mr Gillis says Mr Ma’s history of taking advantage of a VIE structure should set off alarm bells. But Alibaba’s prospectus outlined bold plans to mitigate investor fears by holding most of its assets, aside from licences, in the foreign-owned part of its business, and to ensure that most revenue is generated directly by the foreign-owned business.

吉利斯說，馬雲善於利用VIE結構的過往應給人們敲響警鐘。但阿里巴巴招股說明書簡要列出了旨在化解投資者擔憂的大膽計劃，包括讓外資控股的那一部分業務持有大部分阿里巴巴資產（牌照除外），並確保絕大部分收入直接由外資控股公司產生。

“Mr Ma seems to have gotten some religion from his past VIE experience,” says Mr Gillis. “The present VIEs are structured better than most, putting most operations in wholly owned subsidiaries and leaving only the licences and permits in the VIEs.”

“馬雲看來十分崇尚過去操持VIE架構的那一套，”吉利斯說，“目前的VIE架構設計得比過去更巧妙，將大部分業務置於全資子公司內，VIE僅持有牌照和許可。”

The VIE structure has always been a grey area in the Chinese legal system, and the Chinese government prefers to look the other way. In 2012, according to a number of lawyers, China’s ministry of commerce drafted a memo suggesting the VIE structure be abolished. But the suggestion “never made it out of committee”, said one.

VIE架構在中國法律體系中一直屬於灰色地帶，而中國政府更樂於從另一個角度看問題。據多名律師稱，2012年中國商務部草擬了一份提議取締VIE架構的備忘錄。但一名律師表示，該提議“最終胎死腹中”。

Mr Buttrill said that the VIE structure has actually been strengthened by the scrutiny. US and Chinese regulators “have each re-examined the structure over the past couple of years, with the result that it is here to stay”, he said.

卜嘉男表示，審查實際上反而強化了VIE架構。他說，美中兩國監管機構“過去兩年裏分別重新審查了該架構，結果是該架構保留到了現在”。

Auditors under scrutiny

被審查的審計機構

VIEs are just one of the risks that prospective Alibaba investors will have to consider. Another relates to the auditing of Alibaba’s financial statements.

VIE架構不過是阿里巴巴潛在投資者必須考慮的風險之一。另一個風險牽涉到對阿里巴巴財務報表的審計。

After several US-listed Chinese companies, such as Longtop Financial and Sino Forest, were accused of financial fraud last year, there has been a diplomatic stand-off between the US Securities and Exchange Commission and China’s financial regulators over access to the audit papers of Chinese companies.

去年，東南融通(Longtop Financial)和嘉漢林業(Sino Forest)等多家在美上市中國企業被控實施了財務欺詐。隨後，美國證交會(SEC)與中國金融監管機構，在獲取上市中國企業審計工作底稿的問題上陷入了一場外交對峙。

This means, as Alibaba writes in its prospectus, that the audit of its accounts by PwC is not fully inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the US’s top audit watchdog, and could, as with all other US-listed Chinese companies, be barred from being listed on a US stock exchange.

正如阿里巴巴在其招股說明書中所寫，這意味着，普華永道(PwC)對阿里巴巴賬目的審計結果，沒有經過美國最高審計監管機構——上市公司會計監管委員會(Public Company Accounting Oversight Board，PCAOB)的完全審查，因此，可能像所有其他在美上市中國企業一樣，被禁止在美國的股票交易所掛牌上市。

“The path we’re on now is that all US-listed Chinese companies could eventually get kicked off US exchanges,” said Mr Gillis.

吉利斯說：“我們現在面臨的是，所有在美上市中國企業可能最終被踢出美國的交易所。”

“What we’re hoping for is a diplomatic agreement, because at the end of the day this is not between the SEC and Chinese regulators. It is between the US and China trying to figure out their respective places in the world.”

“我們希望美中達成一項外交協議，因爲歸根結底，這不僅僅是美國證交會與中國監管機構之間的事。此事牽涉到美中兩國努力釐清各自在世界上的位置。”

Treasures abound

回報豐厚

Yet if the risks can be daunting, investors have in many cases been compensated richly as well. Shares in , a Chinese version of Craigslist that listed in November, has nearly doubled since its debut.

不過，如果說風險可能大得嚇人的話，投資者在許多情況下也得到了豐厚的補償。中國版Craigslist——58同城()去年11月在美上市，如今其股價自上市以來幾乎上漲了一倍。

South Africa’s Naspers, the publishing company, bought a 46 per cent stake in then-lossmaking Tencent in May 2001 for $32m. Thirteen years later, Hong Kong-listed Tencent is one of Asia’s biggest technology companies, with a market capitalisation of $114bn.

2001年5月，南非傳媒公司Naspers斥資3200萬美元，買入當時處於虧損狀態的騰訊46%的股份。13年之後，在香港上市的騰訊已成爲亞洲最大科技企業之一，市值達到1140億美元。

According to its internal estimates disclosed in the prospectus, Alibaba in April valued itself at up to $121bn, though the final valuations at its IPO could be swayed by internal performance, the market and investor reaction to a roadshow spanning three continents.

據招股說明書披露的內部估算，今年4月阿里巴巴對自身估值高達1210億美元，不過，IPO的最終估值可能受到內部業績、以及市場與投資者對一場跨三大洲路演的反應的影響。

Nevertheless, the message is clear – the risk-reward calculation is heavily skewed in favour of the reward.

然而，這向外界傳達了明確的信息——關於風險與回報的權衡考量在很大程度上偏向了回報。

“The scenario is so binary,” says one lawyer. “You can’t afford not to invest in these things. But if something goes wrong, you are left with nothing.”

一名律師說：“這個情況太極端了，非此即彼。你沒法不投資這樣的公司。但如果哪個環節出了問題，你就血本無歸。”