分析：小米值1000億美元嗎？

Xiaomi has a scant 7 per cent share of the smartphone market and is still clawing its way back from a particularly torrid low point. Now bankers advising the Chinese handset maker on a potential initial public offering reckon it could be worth up to $100bn — roughly the same as investment bank Goldman Sachs or miner Rio Tinto.

小米勉強占據(jù)了智能手機市場7%的份額，目前它仍然奮力從格外艱難的低點往回爬。如今為這家中國手機制造商可能的首次公開發(fā)行(IPO)提供顧問服務的銀行人士認為，小米估值可能高達1000億美元——差不多與投行高盛(Goldman Sachs)或礦商力拓(Rio Tinto)的市值相當。

It may be unfair to call out the bankers. In Xiaomi’s case their view is doubtless aided by founder Lei Jun. After the company was valued at $45bn in a 2014 funding round, he has swiftly segued from last year’s hubristic to exuberant.

質(zhì)疑銀行人士可能不公平。對于小米，他們的觀點無疑受到了其創(chuàng)始人雷軍的影響。在2014年的融資對該公司估值450億美元后，他已迅速從去年的傲慢自大切換為春風得意。

More generally, markets are whipping up animal spirits, with indices in the US and Hong Kong setting fresh highs in recent days. That has already wooed US tech groups like Dropbox, the file-sharing platform, which this month appointed bankers to lead its initial public offering.

更廣泛而言，市場正在掀起動物精神，最近幾天美國和香港股指頻頻沖上新高。這使得美國科技集團蠢蠢欲動，比如本月指派銀行人士負責其IPO的文件共享平臺Dropbox。

It is no surprise that the tide is washing up in even bigger waves in China, home to four of the 10 biggest unicorns, private companies worth more than $1bn, and six “deca-corns”, those worth $10bn. All are now considered fair game to go public, regardless of bottom line losses and an almost universal proclivity to burn cash.

此次浪潮在中國掀起更大的波浪，這不足為奇，畢竟全球10家最大的“獨角獸”公司(估值超過10億美元的非上市公司)中有4家在中國，且中國還擁有6家“十角獸”公司(估值超過100億美元的非上市公司)。這些公司如今都被視為潛在上市公司，盡管它們處于虧損且?guī)缀醵急憩F(xiàn)出了燒錢傾向。

Those with a vested interest in a buoyant IPO market — the advisers, exchanges and regulators who have chafed at start-ups’ predilection for staying private for longer — point to tightening monetary policy and founders’ egos as reasons for more of them to go public.

那些在活躍的IPO市場存在既得利益的人——那些苦惱于初創(chuàng)公司傾向于在更長時間內(nèi)保持私有狀態(tài)的顧問、交易所以及監(jiān)管部門——指出，不斷收緊的貨幣政策和創(chuàng)始人的自我價值感是促使更多企業(yè)上市的原因。

Others may find it a less than irresistible proposition.

其他人可能發(fā)現(xiàn)這個觀點沒那么令人信服。

For investors, start with precedent. Some companies have performed supremely well after listing but half of last year’s Chinese start-up IPOs are trading below their offer price, according to Dealogic.

投資者請先看看先例。一些企業(yè)在上市后表現(xiàn)極為出色，但根據(jù)Dealogic的數(shù)據(jù)，去年進行IPO的中國初創(chuàng)公司中，如今有一半都跌破了發(fā)行價。

Tech is an industry where Chinese regulators are playing catch-up but they carry big sticks when they do. Case in point: payday lenders, which took a hit when Beijing signalled concerns about injudicious lending, usurious interest rates and coercive collection practices.

中國監(jiān)管部門正在中國科技業(yè)玩追趕游戲，只不過他們是拿著棍棒。典型的例子：“發(fā)薪日貸款”(payday loan，即小額短期貸款)機構(gòu)——當北京方面對不當貸款、過高利率和強制還款的做法發(fā)出擔憂信號時，辦理此類業(yè)務的機構(gòu)遭受了打擊。

Last October, Qudian, which is backed by Alibaba affiliate Ant Financial, raised $900m on the New York Stock Exchange, the largest US IPO ever by a Chinese fintech group. It was followed by PPDAI, which raised $221m in a deal that priced below the initial price range. Share prices of each are now roughly half the offer price.

去年10月，由阿里巴巴(Alibaba)關聯(lián)企業(yè)螞蟻金服(Ant Financial)出資支持的趣店(Qudian)在紐交所(NYSE)融資9億美元，是有史以來中國金融科技公司在美國最大規(guī)模的IPO。隨后，拍拍貸(PPDAI)以低于最初發(fā)行價區(qū)間的價格融資2.21億美元。兩家公司的股價如今都僅為發(fā)行價的一半左右。

Second, Chinese tech is an entirely new ballgame, not US mark 2. As John Hsin, a partner with China Renaissance’s Huaxing Growth Capital puts it, US investors like investing in Chinese copycats of US companies: they know and understand the business model, and simply get to plug in a bigger number because China has more people.

第二，中國科技業(yè)是一個全新的局面，并非美國2.0。正如華興資本(China Renaissance)旗下的華興成長資本(Huaxing Growth Capital)的合伙人John Hsin所說的那樣，美國投資者喜歡投資那些模仿美國企業(yè)的中國公司：他們知道并理解其中的商業(yè)模式，只需要換上更大的數(shù)字，因為中國人口更多。

But, he adds, Chinese tech has evolved away from companies focused on a single area, such as social media, towards tech conglomerates that invest in everything from banking to shopping to video games. Meituan-Dianping, which began life as a discounting site like the US’s Groupon, now offers food delivery, travel bookings, restaurant reservations and ride-hailing.

但是，他補充稱，中國科技企業(yè)已經(jīng)從專注單一領域(比如社交媒體)進化為投資從銀行業(yè)務到購物、再到視頻游戲等各個領域的科技綜合企業(yè)。由類似于美國Groupon的折扣網(wǎng)站起家的美團-點評(Meituan-Dianping)，如今提供外賣配送、旅行預訂、餐廳訂位以及叫車服務。

Companies also have reason to be wary of the public markets. Sure, there is cash to be had, particularly overseas cash which few Chinese groups earn and is useful for acquisitions. There is prestige too, and an IPO means less reliance on a smaller (but very rich, very liquid and very willing) pool of investors. Yet existing investors can be a useful bunch. Most tech start-ups have received money from Alibaba or Tencent, and the two giants bring more than money. Most important, they can provide traffic: Tencent’s WeChat app has just shy of 1bn monthly active users; Alibaba boasts 550m mobile customers who use its Chinese marketplaces every month.

企業(yè)也有理由對公開市場保持警惕。當然，上市可以獲得現(xiàn)金，尤其是中國企業(yè)很少能賺到、但對收購很有用的海外現(xiàn)金。另外還有聲望，IPO意味著減少對更小的一群(但非常富有、流動性很強、意愿強烈的)投資者的依賴。然而，現(xiàn)有投資者可能是一群有用的投資者。大多數(shù)科技初創(chuàng)企業(yè)都從阿里巴巴或騰訊(Tencent)那里獲得了資金，這兩個巨頭帶來的不僅僅是金錢。最重要的是，它們可以提供流量：騰訊微信(WeChat)應用的每月活躍用戶接近10億;阿里巴巴聲稱旗下平臺的月度手機用戶達5.5億。

Most Chinese start-ups are still burning through cash. In businesses where scale is everything, subsidies to woo drivers and other suppliers as well as customers are a cost of doing business. That makes it tricky to estimate when things will be profitable, which does not go down well with the impatient investors who dominate Wall Street.

大多數(shù)中國初創(chuàng)企業(yè)仍在燒錢。在規(guī)模就是一切的企業(yè)中，提供補貼以吸引司機和其他供應商以及客戶是做生意的代價。這讓評估企業(yè)何時能盈利變得困難，這一點很難被那些主宰著華爾街的急躁投資者所接受。

Xiaomi by all accounts is back in the black, but not massively so. It has supplemented its initial business model — making iPhone-like phones for a fraction of the price — with connected home appliances, exercise wristbands, looping them all into a fledgling ecosystem. But saying that is worth $100bn is a heroic assumption too far — and one that risks swiftly dampening animal spirits.

根據(jù)各方說法，小米已實現(xiàn)盈利，但規(guī)模不太大。小米在其初始商業(yè)模式(生產(chǎn)類似iPhone的手機，但價格僅為前者的幾分之一)的基礎上，增加了互聯(lián)家電、運動手環(huán)，把它們都圈入一個已具雛形的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中。但說它價值1000億美元則是一個太過大膽的假設，此假設可能很快就會打擊動物精神。