????外界紛紛意識(shí)到，中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)內(nèi)部出現(xiàn)了一些嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題,。穆迪（Moody's）在近期公布的一份報(bào)告中稱,，中國(guó)銀行系統(tǒng)全部78，300億美元貸款中,，壞賬率將從1.1%上升到12%,。日益嚴(yán)重的壞賬問(wèn)題掩蓋了一個(gè)與此相關(guān)且同樣需要引起重視的現(xiàn)象：在過(guò)去三年中，中國(guó)激增的巨額貸款幾乎全部流入了國(guó)有企業(yè),。全球經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)爆發(fā)之后,，中國(guó)國(guó)有銀行瘋狂地向國(guó)有企業(yè)發(fā)放貸款，希望能夠緩和經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的影響（尤其是對(duì)就業(yè)的影響）,。據(jù)中國(guó)銀行（Bank of China）一位前高管回憶,，去年，他遇到中國(guó)中部的一位分行行長(zhǎng),，向他詢問(wèn)分行為當(dāng)?shù)貒?guó)有企業(yè)提供了多少貸款,。那位行長(zhǎng)的回答是：“要多少給多少?！?/p>
????但相比之下,，私營(yíng)部門(mén)卻一直深受資金匱乏的困擾,。（值得注意的是，目前沒(méi)有可靠數(shù)據(jù)分析國(guó)營(yíng)部門(mén)與私營(yíng)部門(mén)的貸款情況,，但肯定是不對(duì)稱的,，這一點(diǎn)可以確定。）即便私營(yíng)企業(yè)能夠得到貸款,，他們也得付出更高的成本,。經(jīng)紀(jì)公司里昂證券亞太區(qū)市場(chǎng)（CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets）對(duì)中國(guó)A股市場(chǎng)的一份研究顯示，與國(guó)有企業(yè)相比,，大型私企的總體資本成本（負(fù)債與股權(quán)融資）平均高出100個(gè)基準(zhǔn)點(diǎn),。大量事實(shí)證明，小型私營(yíng)企業(yè)與國(guó)有企業(yè)之間的差距更大,。
????所以,，中國(guó)私企高管滿腹牢騷也在情理之中。但由于擔(dān)心激怒政府,，因此,，極少有人愿意公開(kāi)表示不滿。不過(guò),，根據(jù)《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）對(duì)中國(guó)私營(yíng)企業(yè)CEO的采訪可以看出,，他們對(duì)此憤懣不已?！拔覀冎荒芗南Ｍ谛乱粚谜▽⒂诿髂晟先危?，希望他們能夠了解這種失衡的狀況，做出必要的改變,?！鳖A(yù)計(jì)新一任政府將由習(xí)近平擔(dān)任國(guó)家主席，李克強(qiáng)擔(dān)任國(guó)務(wù)院總理,。但他們能否對(duì)私營(yíng)企業(yè)的不滿做出回應(yīng),，目前尚不明確。
????既然中國(guó)在經(jīng)濟(jì)上獲得了成功,，為什么必須對(duì)信貸分配政策進(jìn)行徹底改革呢,？對(duì)此，紐約榮鼎咨詢公司（Rhodium Group）的負(fù)責(zé)人榮大聶解釋道：“中國(guó)還有更大的發(fā)展?jié)摿?，但?dòng)力應(yīng)該是來(lái)自創(chuàng)新,，而不是增加像鋼鐵廠那樣的傳統(tǒng)重工業(yè)。問(wèn)題在于,，哪一種所有權(quán)模式（國(guó)營(yíng) vs. 私營(yíng)）才能夠帶來(lái)這種增長(zhǎng),？”大多數(shù)人都認(rèn)為肯定是私營(yíng)部門(mén)，未來(lái),，私企將比龐大的國(guó)企更高效,、更具創(chuàng)新力,。比如汽車(chē)行業(yè)的吉利（Geely）和電子商務(wù)領(lǐng)域的阿里巴巴（Alibaba）和淘寶（Taobao）。但由于中國(guó)信貸制度不平衡的頑疾根深蒂固,，所以榮大聶不禁要問(wèn)：“私企拿什么來(lái)創(chuàng)新,？”
????這個(gè)問(wèn)題至關(guān)重要。如果創(chuàng)新受阻,，中國(guó)多年的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展“奇跡”或?qū)⒔K結(jié),。
????（翻譯 劉進(jìn)龍） |
|
|
????The outside world is finally coming to grips with the realization that China has some serious economic problems of its own. Moody's recently issued a report saying that bad debts in the Chinese banking system could rise from 1.1% to as much as 12% of the nation's $7.83 trillion in total loans. The mounting bad-debt problem obscures an equally important, and related, phenomenon: For the past three years, at least, the huge credit explosion in China has overwhelmingly ended up in the hands of China's state-owned companies. In the wake of the global economic crisis, Beijing's state-owned banks have frantically shoveled money to their state-owned brethren in the hope of mitigating its impact (particularly on employment). A former executive at Bank of China remembers meeting with a branch manager in central China last year and asking him how much they were lending to local state-owned firms. The answer: "Whatever they want."
????By contrast, the private sector has been starved of capital. (Remarkably, no reliable data exist that parse state and private sector credit, but no one doubts it's a very lopsided picture.) To the extent that private firms have been able to get credit, they have to pay more for it. A study on China's A-share market by the brokerage firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets shows that the overall cost of capital (debt and equity financing) for big private firms is on average 100 basis points higher than for state-owned ones. For smaller companies, anecdotal evidence suggests the gap is much greater.
????Private sector executives in China, understandably, are not happy with this. Few are willing to stick their heads above the parapet and complain publicly for fear of angering the government. But to judge by conversations Fortune has had with CEOs of private companies, they're furious. "Our only hope is that the new government [which assumes power next year] understands this and makes the necessary changes." Whether that new government -- expected to be led by Xi Jinping as President and Li Keqiang as Premier -- will be responsive to those complaints is decidedly unclear.
????Given China's economic success, why does credit allocation need to be overhauled? As Daniel Rosen, principal at the New York consultancy Rhodium Group, puts it: "China has the potential for a lot more growth, but it needs to come now from innovation -- not more steel mills. The question is, Which ownership group [state vs. private] is capable of delivering that growth?" Most people feel it's the private sector, which over time tends to be more efficient and more innovative than big, state-owned companies. Think Geely in autos or Alibaba Taobao in e-commerce. But with the institutional bias in lending so entrenched, Rosen asks: "How do they make that happen?"
????That's the right question. And if it doesn't happen, China's "miracle" years of growth may be over. |
