中國的公司治理標準不斷惡化(上)
China’s attempts to open up its equity markets to foreign investors could be undermined by the country’s deteriorating standards of corporate governance.
中國的公司治理標準不斷惡化，可能削弱其向境外投資者開放本國股票市場的努力。
In recent years Beijing has pushed for its $7.5tn mainland A-shares market to be incorporated into the widely followed MSCI Emerging Market index, which could open the door to hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign portfolio investment.
近年來，北京一直在推動7.5萬億美元市值的內地A股市場被納入廣受關注的明晟新興市場指數(MSCI Emerging Markets Index)，這可能會使A股市場迎來規模龐大的境外證券投資資金。
Many commentators expect MSCI to grant approval next year after turning China down in June.
許多評論人士預計，在今年6月拒絕中國之後，MSCI將在明年6月把中國A股納入該指數。
China has also started to open up its market through such measures as Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect, a similar link for the Shenzhen market, due by the end of the year, and the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor scheme,
中國也通過諸如滬港通、計劃年底啓動的深港通、以及合格境外機構投資者(QDII)機制等措施，逐步開放A股市場。
all of which allow foreign investors to buy into mainland Chinese stocks.
這些都是允許外國投資者買入中國內地股票的渠道。
However, biennial research by the Hong Kong-based Asian Corporate Governance Association, a non-profit organisation, suggests standards of behaviour in China’s equity market are plunging, even as they are improving in regional rivals such as Japan, Taiwan, India and South Korea,
但是，香港非營利組織——亞洲公司治理協會(ACGA)的雙年度研究報告表明，中國股票市場上的行爲標準出現大幅下滑，而日本、臺灣、印度和韓國等多個地區競爭對手的標準卻在提高。
threatening to deter foreign investors increasingly focused on governance issues.
這可能讓越來越關注治理問題的外國投資者對中國市場望而卻步。
The overall effect of China going into the MSCI would be disastrous, says JP Smith, partner at Ecstrat, an investment consultancy.
中國股市被納入MSCI指數總體上將是災難性的，投資諮詢公司Ecstrat的合夥人JP.史密斯(JP Smith)說，
Ill-informed investors buying the index for asset allocation reasons would be exposed to companies with terrible governance.
出於資產配置原因而買入指數的消息不靈通的投資者，將承受治理水平極差的公司所帶來的相關風險。
There is no way MSCI should consider adding China to the index.
MSCI絕對不應考慮把中國股市納入其新興市場指數。
Minority shareholders are just there as a potential source of cash.
小股東只是作爲潛在資金來源而存在，
There is really not a reason for them to be acknowledged at all, he adds.
完全沒有理由讓他們得到認可，他接着說，
Governance has definitely been getting worse.
治理當然越來越糟。
In its 2016 Corporate Governance Watch report, the ACGA awarded China an overall mark of just 43 per cent,
在《2016年公司治理觀察》報告中，ACGA給予中國的總體評分只有43%。
continuing the country’s decline from a high of 49 per cent in 2010.
中國在2010年取得49%的最高分，此後一直在下降。
In contrast, India, ranked level with China in 2010, has risen to a record high reading of 55 per cent, while a swath of other countries in East and Southeast Asia stretched their lead over China further still, as the table shows.
相比之下，2010年與中國排名齊平的印度，其評分已上升到55%的歷史最高點，而東亞和東南亞的許多其他國家，進一步擴大了對中國的領先優勢，如表所示。
There was a time, around 2010, when corporate governance reform in China was progressing at such a steady rate that we half-jokingly suggested it might catch up with Hong Kong in 2022.
曾有一段時間，在2010年左右，中國公司治理改革以平穩的步伐不斷取得進步，乃至我們半開玩笑地說，或許到2022年中國內地就能趕上香港了。
Those days are long gone, says Li Rui, an analyst at the ACGA
那段日子早已經過去了，ACGA的分析師Li Rui表示。
China’s score has instead been on a downward trend in recent years and it is hard to see what will change in the near future.
近年來中國的得分一直呈下降趨勢，在不久的將來很難看到有什麼變化。
The ACGA argues that China’s political and regulatory environment has deteriorated particularly sharply since 2010, as the second chart indicates.
ACGA認爲，自2010年以來，中國的政治和監管環境惡化得尤其厲害。
Ms Li cites setbacks such as the circuit breaker temporarily imposed on the stock markets in January to attempt to slow a market sell-off, which was a well-documented disaster, causing panic in China and around the world,
Li Rui列舉了一些退步現象，例如在1月份爲了遏制股市拋售而短暫實施的熔斷機制——這是一場證據充分的災難，在中國和世界各地引起了恐慌。
and Beijing’s tendency to implement periodic moratoriums on flotations, which have done more harm than good, undermining both market stability and the value of the two stock exchanges as capital raising venues.
還有，北京方面傾向於每過一段時間就暫停IPO，此舉弊大於利，損害了市場穩定性和兩個證交所作爲資本募集場所的價值。
She is also critical of the weakness of measures to reform state-owned enterprises,
她也批評了國企改革措施的缺陷。
which have not led to an infusion of private shareholders, lessened government intervention or created more diversified boards or better governed companies, as some hoped.
這些措施沒有像有些人希望的那樣，吸收私人股東加入、讓政府減少干預，或者打造出更多元化的董事會或治理水平更高的公司。
Talk of SOE reform led to a surge in the market, but most people would acknowledge that reform was a complete chimera, says Mr Smith.
國業改革的話題導致了市場的大幅上漲，但大多數人會承認，國企改革是一場徹頭徹尾的幻想，史密斯說。
Moreover, China’s rating for the strength of its corporate governance rules and practices has fallen to the lowest level since the ACGA initiated its survey in 2003.
此外，中國在公司治理規則和實踐方面的評分，已下降至自ACGA於2003年開始此項調查以來的最低水平。
Ms Li criticises Beijing for its stalled attempts to update its Corporate Governance Code, which dates to 2002, despite the fact that most Asian markets have revised their codes once, if not twice, since then.
Li Rui對北京方面拖延修訂2002年的《上市公司治理準則》提出了批評，而自2002年以來，大多數亞洲市場已修訂了一至兩次治理準則。
She also points to problems with board composition and independence, arguing that the general consensus is that most independent directors are still just ‘vases’ in boards, there to add colour, not to object to decisions or provide useful suggestions.
她還指出了董事會人員構成和獨立性的問題，認爲普遍共識是，大多數獨立董事仍然只是擺在董事會裏的‘花瓶’，他們僅僅增添色彩，不會反對董事會的決定或提出有用的建議。
This is largely because they are typically appointed or nominated by executive directors or the chairman, rather than general shareholders, so are not genuinely independent or committed to representing minority shareholders’ interests.
這主要是因爲，他們通常是由執行董事或董事長而不是全體股東任命或提名的，所以不可能真正獨立，或致力於代表小股東的利益。
