【11.07.07 经济学家】谁拥有什么 － 中国混乱的所有权制度
【中文标题】谁拥有什么 － 中国混乱的所有权制度
【原文标题】Who owns what? China's murky ownership rules
【登载媒体】经济学家
【原文链接】http://www.economist.com/node/18928526
在法律模糊的国家投资有风险。
所有权在中国从来就不是一个明确的概念。毛泽东去世之后，土地被用来商业开发，每块土地都只有政府50年的租期。没人知道到期后会怎样，但是土地建设项目依旧飞速发展。
外国投资者面临着类似的谜团。中国一些产业，比如采矿、钢铁、教育、电信和互联网，都急需资本投入，但是颇具政治敏感性，法律禁止外国人拥有这些产业的股份。
饥渴的投资者和精明的当地人想到了一个避开法律的途径。或许最重要的是建立一个复杂的投资工具，名字叫做“可变收益主体”（VIE）。它的运作方式是这样的：中国的有价财产依然放置在一家中国公司中，这个实体——VIE，必须由中国公民运作。接下来可以利用一系列的合同把利润从VIE先转移到在中国注册的一家外资公司中，然后再转移到海外公司，比如开曼群岛的一家公司。
这种从中国一家中国人的公司，到中国一个外国人的公司，再到海外母公司的模式，被称为“新浪”模式，这个第一家在海外上市的中国互联网公司是其首创者。在美国上市的中国公司中，有大约一半都使用这种模式，它可以让西方公司在不破坏当地所有权法律限制的基础上投资中国。
然而，有迹象显示中国政府开始对VIE面露不悦之色。2006年，负责规范互联网的信息产业部说，它将开始关注VIE。2009年，其它三个部委宣布，互联网游戏产业禁止使用VIE模式。
一家全球律师事务所Pillsbury的律师Thomas Shoesmith说，三月份，美国一家公司欲以3800万股权收购佛钢公司，后来被迫撤销竞购申请，因为河北省当局禁止了它与一家当地钢厂的VIE合作模式。官方消息称，VIE的存在本身就违反了中国的公共管理政策。那么问题就出现了：这是个别地区发生的随机事件，还是来自北京的某种警告呢？
中国一家网络集团阿里巴巴和雅虎（这家美国公司持有阿里巴巴43％的股权）最近所陷入的纷争似乎证明，北京的确发出了某种警告。阿里巴巴VIE最近把一项高值资产（支付宝，一家在线支付公司）转移到阿里巴巴董事会主席马云掌控的一家中国公司名下。雅虎非常愤怒，但阿里巴巴说它没有选择，中国中央银行曾经警告，如果支付宝有任何外资成分，它就不能继续运作。
理论上说，阿里巴巴其它业务也会遭遇同样的问题。但是阿里巴巴说其它业务所受影响微乎其微，因为这些业务的监控者是不甚挑剔的信息产业部。
或许的确是这样，但是长期关注VIE风险的Gillis最近突然得到了众人的关注。阿里巴巴并非个例，其它VIE模式的公司也都提供在线支付功能，而且也有外国合作伙伴。这个问题现在已经得到了媒体的关注，中国在承受压力来阐述到底哪些事情可以做，哪些不可以做。大型外国公司突然发现，他们在中国的投资是非法的，或者一钱不值的，这完全是杞人忧天吗？
原文：
The perils of investing where the law is unclear
OWNERSHIP is rarely straightforward in China. After Mao Zedong died and land was opened up for commercial development, each plot came with only a 50-year government lease. No one knows what will happen when those leases expire. Yet building projects continue apace.
Foreign investors face a similar conundrum. Several Chinese industries, such as mining, steel, education, telecommunications and the internet, are both capital-hungry and politically sensitive. They need foreign investment, but the law bans foreigners from owning stakes in them.
Eager investors and canny locals have found ways around the rules. Perhaps the most important is the creation of a complex investment vehicle called a “variable interest entity” (VIE). It works like this: valuable Chinese assets are placed in a Chinese company. This entity, the VIE, must be run by a Chinese citizen. A series of contracts are then arranged, shifting the returns from the VIE first to a foreign-owned company registered in China and then to an offshore company, perhaps in the Cayman Islands.
This structure—a Chinese-owned company in China, a foreign-owned company in China and an offshore parent—is known as the “Sina” model, after the first Chinese internet company to be listed overseas. It is used by about half of the Chinese companies listed in America, says Paul Gillis, a professor at Peking University. Numerous other unlisted companies use it as well. It allows Western companies to invest in China without breaking local ownership restrictions.
There are signs, however, that the Chinese government has begun to frown on VIEs. In 2006 the Ministry of Information, which regulates internet firms, said it was taking a look at them. In 2009 three other ministries announced that VIEs were banned for companies involved in internet games.
Berating Buddha
In March, says Thomas Shoesmith, an attorney with Pillsbury, a global law firm, a $38m bond offering in America for a company called Buddha Steel was withdrawn after authorities in Hebei province blocked its VIE with a local steel plant. Officials said that the very existence of a VIE contravened Chinese management and public policies. An anxious debate followed: was this the random act of a single region, or a wake-up call from Beijing?
A dispute between Alibaba, a Chinese internet group, and Yahoo!, an American firm that owns 43% of Alibaba through a VIE, suggests the latter. The Alibaba VIE recently transferred a valuable asset (Alipay, an online-payments firm) to a local Chinese company controlled by Jack Ma, Alibaba’s chairman. Yahoo! was outraged. Alibaba claims it had no choice. It says it was warned by China’s central bank that Alipay would not be allowed to operate if it was, in effect, partly foreign-owned.
In theory, the same problem could afflict the rest of the Alibaba Group. But Alibaba says its other operations will be unaffected because they fall under a less fussy regulator, the Ministry of Information.
Perhaps so, but Mr Gillis, who has long blogged about the potential pitfalls of VIEs, is suddenly getting lots of attention. Alibaba is not unique. Other firms with VIE structures are also involved in electronic payments. At least one has a foreign partner. Now that the issue is in the news, China is under pressure to spell out what is permissible, and what is not. The risk that big foreign firms will suddenly find that their investments in China are illegal or worthless is surely remote. Or is it?
好事！ 这些漏洞早就该管管了 哎呀。中石油还是中石化要收购美国某石油公司不是被禁止了吗？ 感觉到可笑之处是
外资非法投资
到中国严格管理时
确好似委屈的说
感觉到可笑之处是
外资非法投资
到中国严格管理时
确好似委屈的说
突然发现自己的投资是非法的
好搞笑
责任完全在外资一方 鬼信他们原来不知道
现在想说是中国政府和法律的问题?
在中国 法无明文的 外资是该进入还是远离呢?
当然是远离!
中国给予外资的基本上都约等于许可
没有政府许可和专门法律规定
自然是不能得到保证的
唯利是图总该有点觉悟吧 这些所谓的离岸公司，本身就是乱来， 貌似西方就没有公有制似的 貌似西方就没有公有制似的 马云最近麻烦频频，看来事态并没有那么容易就解决。43%的控股对他相当不利。 在撕扯中，利益得到分配，我们的利益在哪里？ 好像西方会允许中国参与他们的银行系统似的！
页:
[1]