Chinese financial scandals

　　中國金融丑聞

　　SHORT-SELLERS have been feasting of late on acrop of Chinese companies whose shares have collapsed on foreign markets amid allegations ofdeceptive accounting. Take Sino Forest, a forestry firm listed in Canada, whose sharesslumped from C$25.30 in March to as low as C$1.99 in June after a research outfitquestioned its accounts .

　　在賬目作假的指控聲中外國市場上一批中國公司股票大跌，這讓賣空者欣喜不已。如在加拿大上市的嘉漢公司，在一研究機構(gòu)對其賬目提出質(zhì)疑后，其股票從三月的 25.30跌至七月的1.99.

　　A sharp fall in a companys share price after allegations of deceptive accounting is hardlyunexpected, except perhaps in China. What matters in a scandal there is a little differentfrom in most other places.

　　公司在被控告賬目作假后引起其股票的大跌是平常之事，或許在中國是例外。同大多數(shù)其他地區(qū)相比，在中國丑聞中的決定因素略有不同。

　　A recent study by three academics looks at several hundred scandals linked to companiestraded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges between 1997 and 2005. Their resultsare striking. Revelations of financial fraud and various other similar crimes, such asembezzlement and kickbacks, are not entirely irrelevant to a companys share price. But totrigger the sort of collapse in a companys stock, the loss of short-term financing and themanagerial and board changes that occur in America or other developed markets requiresanother element in China: the involvement of the state.

　　三位學(xué)者最近做的一份研究聚焦于近百起丑聞，這些丑聞涉及1997年至 2005年期間在上海和深圳股票市場進行交易的公司。他們的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)引人注目。對財務(wù)詐騙和各種類似罪行，如盜用公款，收取回扣等的揭露勢必對該公司的股票價造成影響。但如要引起一家公司股票的暴跌，除了短期資金的缺失，管理和董事會的變動，像美國或其他發(fā)展完善的市場發(fā)生過的那樣，在中國還需要另一元素：即政府的參與。

　　The study found that companies caught up in mereaccounting scandals saw their shares drop by anaverage of 8.8% over the six months on either sideof the incident. In those involving the bribery ofgovernment officials or theft of state assets, on theother hand, the stock fell by almost a third.

　　這一研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，僅陷于賬目丑聞的公司在這一事件之前或之后的六個月里其股票平均下跌8.8%。另一方面，在那些涉及賄賂政府官員或盜用國家資產(chǎn)的，其股票價格會下跌近三分之一。

　　Collapsing share prices tell only part of the story.Companies caught up in funny business involving the government faced a withdrawal ofshort-term financing and changes to the boardresponses common in Western companiesimplicated in all sorts of scandal but rare among Chinese companies caught cooking the books.

　　暴跌的股票只揭示了整個事態(tài)的一部分。因行為不軌被抓現(xiàn)行且有政府插手的公司面臨著現(xiàn)金的回收和董事的變革卷入一切丑聞后與西方公司的普遍反應(yīng)，但是在被發(fā)現(xiàn)篡改賬目的中國公司間卻很少發(fā)生。

　　The reason for the difference is that Western markets rely on contracts being enforced bycourts and on investors, suppliers and customers all acting on the basis of audited accounts.In China and other less developed markets, by contrast, business is done on the basis ofpolitical and social relationships, not numbers. That changes the dynamic of a scandal.

　　導(dǎo)致這一不同的原因是西方市場依賴于由董事會強制實行，由投資者實施的合約，供應(yīng)商和顧客以審計賬目為依據(jù)。相比較而言，在中國和其他較不完善的市場，做生意靠的是政治和社會關(guān)系，不是數(shù)字。這致使丑聞的動態(tài)格局不同。

　　Staying pals with the government is extraordinarily important: it can lead to cheap financing,land and contracts, along with one other often overlooked benefit.Because China lacks an impartial judicial system, Chinese companies are often at a loss as towhom they can trust when dealing with new customers or suppliers. Legal redress for aproblem may often hinge on a companys relationship with officials. If that is compromised andthe loss becomes public knowledgeas would happen with the disclosure of a government-related scandalthe companys ability to operate will be undermined.

　　與政府保持伙伴關(guān)系極其重要:這可以帶來底價資金，土地和合約，以及其它常常被忽視的好處。由于中國缺乏公正的司法制度，所以中國公司在同新客戶或供應(yīng)商交易時在可以信任誰上抓瞎。依法解決問題常常依賴于公司同政府官員的關(guān)系。如果這種關(guān)系受損，其損失公所周知同與政府相關(guān)的丑聞被揭發(fā)遭遇類似公司的運營能力將大打折扣。

　　It is not just markets that behave this way: officials seem to as well. Reports of prosecutions inChina over dodgy accounting in cases where investors or clients are victims remain scarce. Butthe penalties for financial crimes when the state is the victim can be extreme. A group ofpeople found guilty of counterfeiting money were sentenced to death in July.

　　不僅僅市場如此行事：官員似乎亦是如此。在中國對相關(guān)揭發(fā)控告欺詐賬目使投資者和客戶成為受害者的報道鮮有耳聞。但是當(dāng)國家作為受害一方時，對金融犯罪的懲處是極其嚴厲的。七月，一伙被證實偽造假幣的罪犯被判處死刑。

　　It has long been assumed that as Chinas market evolved, it would come to look more like the West with the legitimacy of Chinese companies hinging on their own accounts rather than their ties to the government. That assumption may be worth re-examining, not only because Chinas vast state apparatus shows little interest in shedding control but also because some Western markets are starting to look a bit more like Chinas.

　　人們一直想當(dāng)然的認為，隨著中國市場的演化，它會越來越像西方，即合法的中國公司更多的以自身為轉(zhuǎn)移而非依賴于同政府的關(guān)系。那一假想或許值得重新審視，不僅僅是中國的龐大政府機構(gòu)毫無放權(quán)的跡象，連一些西方的市場也開始看似中國市場。

　　Since the financial crisis governments in America and Britain, to name but two, have become large shareholders in financial and industrial companies. The conclusions of the academics paperthat the value of a company in developing markets is tied more tightly to its relationship with the government than its investorsmay become the new normal elsewhere too.

　　自經(jīng)濟危機后，僅列舉其二，美國和英國政府成為了金融和工業(yè)公司的大股東。這一學(xué)術(shù)報告的結(jié)論，即在新興發(fā)展市場，一家公司的價值與其同政府的關(guān)系息息相關(guān)，而非其投資者，這一結(jié)論很可能在其他地區(qū)亦成為新常態(tài)。

　　Chinese financial scandals

　　中國金融丑聞

　　SHORT-SELLERS have been feasting of late on acrop of Chinese companies whose shares have collapsed on foreign markets amid allegations ofdeceptive accounting. Take Sino Forest, a forestry firm listed in Canada, whose sharesslumped from C$25.30 in March to as low as C$1.99 in June after a research outfitquestioned its accounts .

　　在賬目作假的指控聲中外國市場上一批中國公司股票大跌，這讓賣空者欣喜不已。如在加拿大上市的嘉漢公司，在一研究機構(gòu)對其賬目提出質(zhì)疑后，其股票從三月的 25.30跌至七月的1.99.

　　A sharp fall in a companys share price after allegations of deceptive accounting is hardlyunexpected, except perhaps in China. What matters in a scandal there is a little differentfrom in most other places.

　　公司在被控告賬目作假后引起其股票的大跌是平常之事，或許在中國是例外。同大多數(shù)其他地區(qū)相比，在中國丑聞中的決定因素略有不同。

　　A recent study by three academics looks at several hundred scandals linked to companiestraded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges between 1997 and 2005. Their resultsare striking. Revelations of financial fraud and various other similar crimes, such asembezzlement and kickbacks, are not entirely irrelevant to a companys share price. But totrigger the sort of collapse in a companys stock, the loss of short-term financing and themanagerial and board changes that occur in America or other developed markets requiresanother element in China: the involvement of the state.

　　三位學(xué)者最近做的一份研究聚焦于近百起丑聞，這些丑聞涉及1997年至 2005年期間在上海和深圳股票市場進行交易的公司。他們的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)引人注目。對財務(wù)詐騙和各種類似罪行，如盜用公款，收取回扣等的揭露勢必對該公司的股票價造成影響。但如要引起一家公司股票的暴跌，除了短期資金的缺失，管理和董事會的變動，像美國或其他發(fā)展完善的市場發(fā)生過的那樣，在中國還需要另一元素：即政府的參與。

　　The study found that companies caught up in mereaccounting scandals saw their shares drop by anaverage of 8.8% over the six months on either sideof the incident. In those involving the bribery ofgovernment officials or theft of state assets, on theother hand, the stock fell by almost a third.

　　這一研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，僅陷于賬目丑聞的公司在這一事件之前或之后的六個月里其股票平均下跌8.8%。另一方面，在那些涉及賄賂政府官員或盜用國家資產(chǎn)的，其股票價格會下跌近三分之一。

　　Collapsing share prices tell only part of the story.Companies caught up in funny business involving the government faced a withdrawal ofshort-term financing and changes to the boardresponses common in Western companiesimplicated in all sorts of scandal but rare among Chinese companies caught cooking the books.

　　暴跌的股票只揭示了整個事態(tài)的一部分。因行為不軌被抓現(xiàn)行且有政府插手的公司面臨著現(xiàn)金的回收和董事的變革卷入一切丑聞后與西方公司的普遍反應(yīng)，但是在被發(fā)現(xiàn)篡改賬目的中國公司間卻很少發(fā)生。

　　The reason for the difference is that Western markets rely on contracts being enforced bycourts and on investors, suppliers and customers all acting on the basis of audited accounts.In China and other less developed markets, by contrast, business is done on the basis ofpolitical and social relationships, not numbers. That changes the dynamic of a scandal.

　　導(dǎo)致這一不同的原因是西方市場依賴于由董事會強制實行，由投資者實施的合約，供應(yīng)商和顧客以審計賬目為依據(jù)。相比較而言，在中國和其他較不完善的市場，做生意靠的是政治和社會關(guān)系，不是數(shù)字。這致使丑聞的動態(tài)格局不同。

　　Staying pals with the government is extraordinarily important: it can lead to cheap financing,land and contracts, along with one other often overlooked benefit.Because China lacks an impartial judicial system, Chinese companies are often at a loss as towhom they can trust when dealing with new customers or suppliers. Legal redress for aproblem may often hinge on a companys relationship with officials. If that is compromised andthe loss becomes public knowledgeas would happen with the disclosure of a government-related scandalthe companys ability to operate will be undermined.

　　與政府保持伙伴關(guān)系極其重要:這可以帶來底價資金，土地和合約，以及其它常常被忽視的好處。由于中國缺乏公正的司法制度，所以中國公司在同新客戶或供應(yīng)商交易時在可以信任誰上抓瞎。依法解決問題常常依賴于公司同政府官員的關(guān)系。如果這種關(guān)系受損，其損失公所周知同與政府相關(guān)的丑聞被揭發(fā)遭遇類似公司的運營能力將大打折扣。

　　It is not just markets that behave this way: officials seem to as well. Reports of prosecutions inChina over dodgy accounting in cases where investors or clients are victims remain scarce. Butthe penalties for financial crimes when the state is the victim can be extreme. A group ofpeople found guilty of counterfeiting money were sentenced to death in July.

　　不僅僅市場如此行事：官員似乎亦是如此。在中國對相關(guān)揭發(fā)控告欺詐賬目使投資者和客戶成為受害者的報道鮮有耳聞。但是當(dāng)國家作為受害一方時，對金融犯罪的懲處是極其嚴厲的。七月，一伙被證實偽造假幣的罪犯被判處死刑。

　　It has long been assumed that as Chinas market evolved, it would come to look more like the West with the legitimacy of Chinese companies hinging on their own accounts rather than their ties to the government. That assumption may be worth re-examining, not only because Chinas vast state apparatus shows little interest in shedding control but also because some Western markets are starting to look a bit more like Chinas.

　　人們一直想當(dāng)然的認為，隨著中國市場的演化，它會越來越像西方，即合法的中國公司更多的以自身為轉(zhuǎn)移而非依賴于同政府的關(guān)系。那一假想或許值得重新審視，不僅僅是中國的龐大政府機構(gòu)毫無放權(quán)的跡象，連一些西方的市場也開始看似中國市場。

　　Since the financial crisis governments in America and Britain, to name but two, have become large shareholders in financial and industrial companies. The conclusions of the academics paperthat the value of a company in developing markets is tied more tightly to its relationship with the government than its investorsmay become the new normal elsewhere too.

　　自經(jīng)濟危機后，僅列舉其二，美國和英國政府成為了金融和工業(yè)公司的大股東。這一學(xué)術(shù)報告的結(jié)論，即在新興發(fā)展市場，一家公司的價值與其同政府的關(guān)系息息相關(guān)，而非其投資者，這一結(jié)論很可能在其他地區(qū)亦成為新常態(tài)。