【英语中国】英国为何不拒中国国家投资？

Markets go in cycles so we should not be surprised that Barclays bank has agreed to acquire two new shareholders: the Chinese and Singaporean governments. Two decades after the UK pioneered the privatisation of state-owned enterprises, it is allowing companies to fall into government hands. The governments just happen to be foreign.

Britain's sanguine view of the potential ?3bn (£8.7bn) deal that would involve banking and investment arms of China and Singapore taking stakes in Barclays extends elsewhere. The government has shown little concern about a potential bid for the supermarket group J. Sainsbury by a Qatar investment fund. Alistair Darling, chancellor, this week emphasised that it welcomed private investments by the growing array of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs).

It is not the only country to face the issue. The Chinese government, which is looking for other ways to invest its $1,200bn (£505bn) of foreign exchange reserves than in US and European government bonds, has also taken a step into the US. Its new foreign reserve investment fund paid $3bn for a 9.9 per cent stake in Blackstone, the private equity group, as part of its recent initial public offering.

Hardly anyone else is as relaxed about the phenomenon as the British. The US has shown its suspicion of foreign state-controlled companies taking control of "strategic" industries by blocking a proposed takeover of Unocal by the Chinese oil company CNOOC and forcing Dubai Ports World to shed the management of a group of US ports acquired in its takeover of P&O Ferries.

The German government, which has long been wary of investment vehicles such as hedge funds and private equity funds taking control of German companies, is leading a backlash against SWFs. Angela Merkel, the chancellor, wants the European Union to adopt a similar defence mechanism to the US: an agency to scrutinise foreign takeovers. Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, says the EU might allow governments to hold "golden shares" in some industries to block some acquisitions.

For those disposed to be concerned about the impact on their national economies of global flows of capital, SWFs are the new bogeymen. Not since the 1970s have so many countries accumulated so much wealth so quickly. Not only are oil and gas-producing countries from Norway and Russia to the Middle East flush with cash but Asian countries with trade surpluses - notably China - are building up huge reserves.

Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, estimates that SWFs such as Singapore's Temasek and the Brunei Investment Agency hold $2,500bn in funds and could accumulate $12,000bn by 2015. Stephen Jen, its currency strategist, worries that protectionist pressures will increase as SWFs invest in western banks and high-technology companies both for the financial returns and to acquire skills and technology that they would not be able to develop on their own.

A lot of the worry about SWFs is over-blown. Many have been around for a long time without prejudicing national security and hobbling capitalism. One reason for the UK's equanimity is that London has long prospered as a financial centre from being the place to which SWFs come to have funds managed. Barings' asset management arm, for example, was built in the 1970s on its link with the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency.

The fact that they are investing in equities rather than simply in government bonds is more a reflection of the fact that they have a lot of money than of a covert desire to control foreign companies for strategic ends. Clay Lowery, a US Treasury official, pointed out recently that if SWF managers had bought all of the reserve assets, including US and European government bonds, issued in 2006, they would still have had $720bn left in the kitty.

This even goes for China. The Chinese government has encouraged its big domestic companies to acquire foreign ones in order to gain expertise and brands. But moves such as China Development Bank's deal with Barclays are driven by both the need to find investments and managers' efforts to survive China's shake-out of state financial institutions.

SWF investments can also be good for the western companies involved. The assumption of many companies until recently was that, in order to gain access to the Chinese market, they had to form joint ventures or acquire stakes in Chinese companies. But Barclays and Blackstone may gain similar benefits without investing any of their own capital - in fact, while gaining fresh capital from the markets that they covet.

There are grounds for caution if some countries try to acquire entire companies in particular sectors. I see no reason to worry about Qatar buying Sainsbury as long as it does a better job of competing with Tesco. But, given Russia's appalling record of seizing energy assets from foreign companies and using Gazprom as a vehicle of influence, I would not want the UK's energy pipelines to be controlled by Vladimir Putin.

That justifies a blocking mechanism of last resort, whether in the form of a golden share, or a ban on foreign state entities holding voting rights in some companies. It would spoil the point of having privatised so many government-owned enterprises in the past two decades if they just returned to another state's ownership.

For the most part, however, like the hedge fund and private equity fund before it, we should stop worrying and learn to love the SWF

市场以周期性的方式运转，因此对于巴克莱银行(Barclays Bank)同意吸纳两家新股东——中国政府和新加坡政府，我们不应感到惊讶。在英国率先对国有企业进行私有化的20年后，该国目前正允许企业落入政府手中。而上述两个政府只不过恰好是外国政府。

此笔涉及中国和新加坡银行业及投资公司入股巴克莱的潜在交易规模高达130亿欧元，英国对此笔交易的乐观态度，将延伸至其它领域。对于一家卡塔尔投资基金对超市集团J. Sainsbury的潜在收购，英国政府没有表现出多大的关注。英国财政大臣阿里斯代尔•达林(Alistair Darling)最近强调称，英国欢迎越来越多的主权财富基金(SWF)在英国进行私人投资。

英国并非唯一面临这一问题的国家。目前正为其1.2万亿美元外汇储备寻求美国和欧洲政府债券以外其它投资渠道的中国政府，也开始采取行动进入美国。中国新成立的外汇储备投资基金斥资30亿美元，在私人股本集团黑石(Blackstone)首次公开发行(IPO)之际，购入其9.9%股份。

很少有其它哪个国家能像英国那样坦然面对这种现象。美国已对外国国有控股企业控制其“战略性”行业表现出疑虑，阻止了中国石油公司中海油(CNOOC)对尤尼科(Unocal)拟议中的收购，并迫使迪拜港口世界(Dubai Ports World)放弃因收购P&O Ferries而获得的对美国一些港口的管理权。

德国政府长期以来对对冲基金和私人股本基金等投资载体控股德国企业非常警觉，目前正牵头抵制主权财富基金。德国总理安吉拉•默克尔(Angela Merkel)希望欧盟(EU)采取与美国类似的防范机制：成立一家机构对外国收购进行审查。欧盟贸易专员彼得•曼德尔森(Peter Mandelson)表示，欧盟可能会允许成员国政府在一些企业持有“黄金股”，以阻止某些收购发生。

对于那些倾向于担忧全球资本流动对本国经济影响的国家来说，主权财富基金是一种新的可怕现象。自上世纪70年代以来，众多国家迅速累积起如此巨额的财富。不仅是从挪威和俄罗斯到中东等油气生产国家资金充沛，同时贸易顺差的亚洲国家（尤其是中国）也正积累着巨额的外汇储备。

投资银行摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)估计，新加坡淡马锡(Temasek)和文莱投资局(Brunei Investment Agency)等主权财富基金持有2.5万亿美元资金，到2015年其规模可能达到120万亿美元。摩根士丹利外汇策略师任永力(Stephen Jen)担心，随着主权财富基金投资于西方银行和高科技企业——这既是为了寻求财务回报，也是为了获得人才及其自身无法开发的技术——保护主义压力将有所加大。

对主权财富基金的许多担忧都有些过头。许多主权财富基金已存在很长时间，并未影响到国家安全和阻碍资本主义发展。英国之所以如此镇定，原因之一是伦敦长期以来作为金融中心繁荣发展，而不是主权财富基金前来收购的地点。例如，巴林银行(Barings)旗下的资产管理分支机构，就是由于其与沙特阿拉伯货币局(Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency)的关系，于上世纪70年代创建的。

主权财富基金在投资股票，而非仅投资于政府债券，这更大程度上反映出它们拥有大量资金这一事实，而不是说明它们出于战略目的，暗地里渴望控制外国企业。美国财政部官员克莱•罗威(Clay Lowery)最近指出，即使主权财富基金经理购买了所有的储备资产，包括美国和欧洲政府2006年发行的国债，他们手上可能还会剩余7200亿美元资金。

这甚至也适用于中国。中国政府鼓励国内大型企业收购外国公司，为的是获取专门技术和品牌。但像中国国家开发银行(China Development Bank)与巴克莱这种交易，同时受到两个因素的驱使：一是寻找投资的需求，二是管理人员努力在中国国家金融机构改革的动荡中生存下来。

主权财富基金投资也会使相关西方公司受益。直至最近，许多公司的设想都是：为了进入中国市场，必须成立合资公司，或收购中国公司的股权。但巴克莱和黑石可能会在不投入任何自有资金的情况下，获得同样的好处——实际上，同时还能从它们所觊觎的市场上获得新的资金。

如果某些国家试图收购特定领域的所有公司，那么有理由加以谨慎关注。我认为没有理由担心卡塔尔收购Sainsbury，只要它在与特易购(Tesco)的竞争中做得更好就行。但是，鉴于俄罗斯有过骇人听闻的记录：它从外国公司攫取能源资产，并利用俄罗斯天然气工业股份公司(Gazprom)作为施加影响的工具，因此我不会希望英国的能源管道为弗拉基米尔•普京(Vladimir Putin)所控制。

这说明有一种作为最后手段的阻止机制是应当的，无论是以黄金股的形式，或是禁止外国国有实体持有某些公司的投票权。在过去20年中，许多国有企业实现了私有化，如果而今它们只是落入了他国手中，这就影响了此种做法的意义。

然而，在很大程度上，像之前出现的对冲基金和私人股本基金一样，我们应停止担心并学着去喜爱主权财富基金。

译者/何黎