每天一篇经济学人 | Business in America 美国商业（2022

In 1997, in his first letter to shareholders, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, wrote that it was still “Day 1” for his firm. Day 2, he later explained, would mean stasis, followed by irrelevance. His rousing call to avoid complacency seems apt today. Silicon Valley’s five big tech giants, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft, have long been the bedrock of America’s stockmarket and economy, miraculously combining reliable growth and profitability. But after a torrid third quarter their market capitalisations have now collectively dropped by 37% so far this year. About $3.7trn of value has evaporated.

1997年，亚马逊的创始人杰夫·贝佐斯在给股东的第一封信中写道，这仍是他的公司的“第一天”。他后来解释说，第二天意味着停滞不前，接下来就是无关紧要。他呼吁人们不要自满，这一振奋人心的呼吁在今天似乎很恰当。硅谷五大科技巨头Alphabet、亚马逊、苹果、Meta和微软长期以来一直是美国股市和经济的基石，奇迹般地将可靠的增长和盈利结合在一起。但是，在经历了第三季度的艰难之后，到目前为止，他们的总市值已经下降了37%。大约3.7万亿美元的市值蒸发了。

The law of large numbers made it inevitable that the tech giants would mature. Sales growth in the last quarter slowed to 9%—barely above inflation. As they have grown bigger, they have become tied to the economic cycle; a fact which the digital surge during the pandemic only temporarily masked. Penetration rates for smartphones, digital advertising and streaming are plateauing. With slowing core businesses, the giants are venturing onto each other’s turf, increasing competition.

大数定律使得科技巨头不可避免地走向成熟。上个季度的销售增长放缓至9%，勉强高于通货膨胀率。随着它们规模的扩大，它们与经济周期联系在一起; 疫情期间的数字激增只是暂时掩盖了这一事实。智能手机、数字广告和流媒体的渗透率趋于稳定。在核心业务放缓的情况下，巨头们纷纷冒险进入对方的地盘，加剧了竞争。

Meanwhile, they are threatened by “conglomeritis”. The symptoms of this disease are bloating and egomania. Consider the recent orgy of spending on hiring, experimental ventures, vanity projects and building data centres. In March the five firms’ combined annual expenses reached $1trn for the first time, and the value of the physical plant of these supposedly asset-light businesses has reached $600bn, over triple the level of five years ago. Swollen costs and balance-sheets mean returns on capital have fallen from over 60% five years ago to 26%. Three of the five do not deign to pay dividends.

与此同时，它们受到“集团企业”的威胁。这一征兆的症状是膨胀和自大。想想最近在招聘、实验投资、面子工程和建设数据中心方面的肆意支出吧。今年3月，这五家公司的年度支出总额首次达到1万亿美元，而这些所谓的轻资产业务的实体工厂价值已达6000亿美元，是五年前的三倍多。膨胀的成本和资产负债表意味着资本回报率从五年前的60%下降到26%。五家公司中有三家不屑于支付股息。

It is hardly unprecedented for successful companies to lose their focus, or to fail to control costs. In the 1980s rjr Nabisco’s executives splurged on jets and golf before being ousted by private equity’s barbarians. General Electric sprawled and had to be partially bailed out during the financial crisis of 2008-09. The best safeguards against such indiscipline are active boards and investors. When successful managers start to believe that they always know best, it is the board’s job to rein them in.

成功的公司失去重心或无法控制成本并非没有先例。上世纪80年代， 烟草巨头纳贝斯克的高管们在飞机和高尔夫上挥霍无度，后来被私人股本的“野蛮人”赶下台。通用电气在2008年至2009年的金融危机期间扩张，不得不接受部分纾困。防范这种不守纪律的最佳保障是活跃的董事会和投资者。当成功的管理者开始相信他们总是最懂的时候，董事会就有责任约束他们。

But here, the tech firms’ governance rules add a twist. Often they entrust disproportionate power to bosses and founders, some of whom enjoy special voting rights that give them near-absolute control. Such bosses often cultivate an image as visionaries, whose daring bets horrify myopic outsiders but end up lucratively transforming the world.

但在这一点上，科技公司的治理规则增加了一个转折。他们经常把不成比例的权力交给老板和创始人，其中一些人享有特殊的投票权，这使他们拥有近乎绝对的控制权。这样的老板通常会给人一种远见卓识的印象，他们大胆的赌注让目光短浅的局外人感到恐惧，但最终却改变了这个世界，获得了丰厚的利润。

At the worst end of the spectrum is Meta, the owner of Facebook, run increasingly erratically by Mark Zuckerberg. Its value has dropped by 74% this year. Its core business is wobbly, attracting too much toxicity, too few young people and too little advertising. It has become clear that Mr Zuckerberg is betting the firm on the metaverse, an attempt to diversify away from social media, on which he plans to lavish 20 times what Apple spent to build the first iPhone. Because dual share classes give him 54% of voting rights, Mr Zuckerberg has been able to ignore the pleas of outside investors. Alphabet, the owner of Google, has performed better but is flabby. Its founders retain 51% of its voting rights, allowing them to overrule the wishes of other owners.

最糟糕的是Facebook的所有者Meta，在马克·扎克伯格的管理下，运营越来越不稳定。今年它的市值已经下跌了74%。它的核心业务不稳定，吸引的“有毒元素”太多，年轻人太少，广告太少。很明显，扎克伯格将公司的赌注押在了元世界上，这是一种从社交媒体转向多元化的尝试，他计划在元宇宙上投入20倍于苹果制造第一代iPhone的资金。由于双重股权结构赋予他54%的投票权，扎克伯格可以无视外部投资者的请求。谷歌的所有者Alphabet的表现要好一些，但也有些无力。该公司创始人保留51%的投票权，允许他们否决其他所有者的意愿。

In the middle is Amazon, which has over-invested in e-commerce and expanded too far, crushing its cashflow and returns. Mr Bezos, who remains executive chairman, owns less than 15% of the firm’s voting rights, so he has to be at least somewhat responsive to investors. Apple and Microsoft are at the benign end of the spectrum. Both firms are older, no longer have founders with controlling stakes and operate on the principle of one share, one vote. Both listen to outsiders. In 2013 Tim Cook, Apple’s boss, sat down for dinner with Carl Icahn, a fiery investor, and took on board his request to return money to shareholders through buybacks. In 2014 Microsoft invited an activist investor, Mason Morfit, onto its board. The two firms have performed the best of the big five this year.

处于中间位置的是亚马逊，它在电子商务领域过度投资，扩张过度，现金流和回报都受到挤压。贝佐斯仍然是公司的执行主席，但他拥有公司不到15%的投票权，因此他至少不得不对投资者有所回应。苹果和微软属于良性的一端。这两家公司的历史都比较悠久，创始人不再持有控股权，并遵循一股一票的原则运作。两者都听从局外人的意见。2013年，苹果公司老板蒂姆•库克与狂热的投资者卡尔•伊坎共进晚餐，并接受了伊坎通过股票回购向股东返还资金的要求。2014年，微软邀请激进投资者梅森·莫菲特加入董事会。这两家公司是今年五大公司中表现最好的。

When you have disrupted industries and created hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth it is hard to accept financial constraints and outside scrutiny. Nonetheless, many in big tech’s elite need to show more humility and better performance. Otherwise Day 3 might bring an escalating confrontation between them and investors over who controls the most successful firms of the past two decades.

当你颠覆了一些行业，创造了数千亿美元的财富时，你很难接受财务约束和外部监督。尽管如此，大型科技公司的许多精英需要表现得更谦逊，表现得更好。否则，第三天可能会引发他们与投资者之间不断升级的对抗，争夺过去20年中最成功公司的控股权。