2016年初的那几天，事实证明中国没有逃过2015年的危机。1月4日的数据表明，中国的制造业连续第十个月收缩，随后股市的大量抛售迫使政府暂停股市。全球市场都在下跌，而1月7日的新一轮波动迫使中国政府再次暂停股市交易。但近来谈论中国的话题都忽略了一个事实，即中国公司仍给西方跨国企业带来了极大的威胁。
跨国企业最担心的是，在长期的过度投资之后，中国制造商开始降价。资本投资仍在中国 GDP 中占有44%的份额，高于日本在20世纪70年代的36%和韩国90年代的38%。中国在多个行业的投资都出现了产能过剩的情况，举例来说，94.5%的钢铁产量都低于实际成本。这意味着西方钢铁制造商必须承担中国公司带来的价格下行风险。
中国国家发展改革委员会预测，约有6.8万亿美元的项目是稳赔不赚的，相当于中国 GDP 的70%。净收益率长期低于发达国家水平，美国当前的净收益率为9.6%，英国为6.4%，德国为5.8%，日本为5.1%，而中国仅有2.5%。
虽然企业的收益率低，但价格便宜、资金回收快，能够维持投资水平，所以他们还会继续这样做。中国政府不会强迫国有企业降低产量或是允许公司破产来缓解产能过剩的情况。与之相反，他们会在企业出现问题时施以援手，因为他们不愿意引发动乱或是给经济增长拖后腿。企业想把过剩的产品出口到国外，因此降低价格来吸引买家。去年12月，中国生产者价格指数同比下降5.9%。
竞争不仅体现在价格方面，中国公司也在紧锣密鼓地提高产品质量。举例来说，中国的汽车制造商正在逐渐缩小同西方制造商的差距。中国公司努力从外国合作伙伴身上吸取经验。有的时候，中国官员会要求跨国企业在中国研发技术或是允许中国持有独家知识产品。尽管官方承诺严打知识产品盗窃，但中国的知识产权保护机制仍有缺陷。
事实证明，中国制造的质量将会继续提高。近十年来，中国在研发方面的投入增加了不止一倍，由 GDP 的0.6%增加至 2%。中国创新人士在一年中申请的专利数量比美国多45%，但申请成功率远低于美国。自20世纪90年代起，中国大学毕业生的数量增加了14倍，其中有不少大学生的技能可以应用于技术、工业板块，这两个板块对中国来说具有重要的战略意义。2015年，中国有750万大学毕业生（美国仅有330万），其中130万持有科学或工程学学位，而美国仅有50万人。
此外，官员们认为他们会直接加入战略板块的企业中。在最新的五年计划中，政府优先打造“国家冠军企业”，这些企业涉及十个领域，其中包括信息技术、机器人技术、航空设备等，这些企业将会走在世界的顶端。举例来讲，中国的机器人公司将会在下一个十年中，从外国企业的手中抢占市场份额。政府的支持会加速他们的价值链并继续抢占市场份额。
政府政策给中国企业特殊的待遇，包括在某些领域设置极高的准入门槛。谷歌、推特、脸书都被中国拒之门外，百度、新浪微博、优酷能企业便无需面对外国企业的威胁。很多人认为中国商务部的反垄断裁决不是为了防止垄断的出现，而是为了造福中国企业。
许多知名公司都在迅速地追赶西方的品质，而政府也不打算让制造商倒闭或是大幅减产来解决产能过剩的问题。与之相反，政府致力于将中国企业推向世界领先的位置。脆弱的西方企业的投资者不要小瞧了他们。
Don’t Count China Out Yet
The first days of 2016 showed that China hasn’t escaped its 2015 woes. On January 4, new data showed that manufacturing activity slowed for the tenth consecutive month in December, and the ensuing sell-off in the stock market forced Chinese officials to halt trading mid-day. Global markets sank, and another bout of volatility on January 7 forced Chinese officials had to halt trading once again. But all the recent talk of China’s troubles has obscured the fact that the country’s companies still pose a formidable competitive threat to many Western multinationals.
The first concern for multinationals is that after a long period of overinvestment, Chinese manufacturers have been slashing prices. Capital investment still makes up a disproportionately large share of Chinese GDP – 44 percent, higher than in Japan (36 percent) or South Korea (38 percent) when those countries were building industrial capacity in the 1970s and early 1990s, respectively. All that investment has created enormous excess capacity in multiple sectors – 94.5 percent of Chinese steel production is produced below cost, for example. That means Western steelmakers will have to weather downward pressure on prices from Chinese firms that are willing to incur losses to move product.
China’s National Development and Reform Commission estimates that $6.8 trillion worth of projects – equivalent to 70 percent of China’s GDP – are making “highly ineffective” returns. Net profit margins, long lower than in the developed world, currently stand at just 2.5 percent, compared to 9.6 percent in the U.S., 6.4 percent in the U.K., 5.8 percent in Germany, and 5.1 percent in Japan.
Cheap, readily available capital has helped sustain investment levels and should continue doing so, despite corporations’ thin profit margins. Chinese banks offer favorable financing to state-owned and formerly state-owned enterprises, bankroll unprofitable projects, and roll over non-performing loans rather than force firms into default. Banks fund these subsidies to borrowers by paying depositors very little interest – 1.75 percent in a country growing some 7 percent a year. They also lend a relatively small percentage of their deposits. The loan-to-deposit ratio in China is just 67 percent. Credit Suisse analysts believe Chinese banks will continue rolling over non-performing loans until the loan-to-deposit rate reaches 100 percent, at which point the central bank could simply print money to prop up loans.
Chinese officials rarely intervene aggressively to reduce excess capacity by forcing state-owned enterprises to slow production or allowing more companies to go bankrupt. Instead, they step in to help them when they run into trouble, because they’re loath to stir up unrest or jeopardize economic growth. “We think that China…is operating a policy of employment maximization at the expense of profit maximization,” Credit Suisse’s equities analysts wrote in their 2016 outlook. Instead, companies have been trying to export their excess production, slashing prices to lure buyers. In December, China’s producer price index fell 5.9 percent from the previous year.
The competitive threat goes beyond prices, as Chinese companies are increasingly producing high-quality goods. Chinese automakers, for one, are quickly closing the quality gap with the West. (See chart) Domestic companies have learned quickly from foreign partners, many of which were forced to form joint ventures to do business in China. Sometimes, officials require multinationals to develop some technology in China or allow Chinese firms to own or have exclusive license to intellectual property. Not all partnerships are official – or consensual – either. China has very weak enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property rights, despite official pledges to crack down on IP theft
Evidence suggests that the quality of Chinese production will keep improving. China has more than doubled spending on research and development from 0.6 percent of GDP 10 years ago to 2 percent. Chinese innovators apply for 45 percent more patents a year than those in the U.S., though fewer applications are successful. China produces 15 times more college graduates a year than it did in the 1990s, and many have the kinds of skills that can be put to good use in the technical, industrial sectors that China has flagged as strategically important. Out of 7.5 million Chinese graduates in 2015 (compared to 3.3 million in the U.S.), 1.3 million received degrees in science and engineering, compared to 500,000 in the U.S.
In addition, officials have indicated that they will directly subsidize companies in strategic industries. In its most recent five-year plan, the government prioritized creating “national champions” – companies that can become global leaders – in 10 industries, including information technology, robotics, and aerospace equipment. Domestic robotics companies, for example, are expected to take significant market share from foreign firms over the next decade. Such government support will allow companies to rise faster up the value chain and continue taking market share.
Official policies already give domestic companies preferential treatment in China, including high barriers to entry in certain industries. Google, Twitter, and YouTube are blocked, for example, allowing Baidu, Sina Weibo, and Youku to thrive without foreign rivals. The Ministry of Commerce has also been criticized for antitrust rulings that appear designed to benefit Chinese companies rather than prevent monopolies. Many of its most important firms are quickly catching up to those in the West in terms of quality, and the government has no intention of letting major manufacturers fail or forcing them to make dramatic cuts in production to deal with an excess supply problem. Quite the contrary, officials are doing a great deal to push Chinese firms to global prominence. Investors in vulnerable Western companies shouldn’t discount the idea that they will succeed.
本文翻译由兄弟财经提供
文章来源：https://www.thefinancialist.com/14864/#sthash.shpNivcz.dpuf