Alphabet多元化架构为何受投资者欢迎
After software engineering and financial engineering comes linguistic engineering. Google this week raised its market capitalisation by $25bn by shuffling around some executive jobs and changing its name to Alphabet. Who knew that swapping your tiles in a game of corporate Scrabble was worth so much?
搞过了软件工程和金融工程之后，谷歌(Google)又搞起了语言工程。本周谷歌对管理层进行了一些调整，同时将公司名称改成Alphabet，结果市值增加了250亿美元。谁能料到在企业版拼字游戏(Scrabble)中换个名字就能赚这么多呢？
Everyone reads what they want into the new letters. For Larry Page, Google’s restless co-founder, Alphabet means jettisoning the cares of running a corporation and becoming a full-time inventor and venture capitalist, while Sundar Pichai takes the leadership of Google. For employees, it brings the hope of more valuable share options. For Wall Street, it spells clarity.
所有人都从这一新名称中看到了他们想要的。对于求新求变的联合创始人拉里椠奇(Larry Page)来说，Alphabet意味着抛下管理企业的烦恼，成为一个全职发明家和风险投资家，谷歌的领导权则交由桑德尔皮查伊(Sundar Pichai)。对于员工而言，Alphabet带来了提高认股权价值的希望。对于华尔街，Alphabet更加清晰明了。
Only governance renegades would invent a structure with one board for Google and Alphabet, the founding triumvirate — Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Mr Page — stacked above Mr Pichai, and Ruth Porat as chief financial officer of both. “Google is not a conventional company,” wrote Mr Brin and Mr Page in their 2004 founders’ letter, and by heavens they meant it.
只有在治理上离经叛道的管理者能发明出这种结构，谷歌和Alphabet共享一个董事会，皮查伊上面排着创业三巨头埃里克施密特(Eric Schmidt)、谢尔盖布林(Sergey Brin)和佩奇，露丝波拉特(Ruth Porat)担任两家公司的首席财务官(CFO)。布林和佩奇曾在2004年的创始人来信中写道：“谷歌不是一家传统公司。”想不到他们是认真的。
Still, being conventional is not the best way to build an innovative business or to make profits. Warren Buffett runs a unique combination of industrial conglomerate and investment fund at Berkshire Hathaway, and it has worked well for him. He made his largest ever acquisition this week, buying Precision Castparts for $32bn.
不过，坚持传统的确不是建立一个创新企业或实现盈利的最佳途径。沃伦巴菲特(Warren Buffett)掌管着一个独特的组合，他所执掌的伯克希尔哈撒韦公司(Berkshire Hathaway)结合了工业集团与投资基金业务，结果很不错。本周他做出了有生以来最大规模的收购，以320亿美元买下了精密铸件公司(Precision Castparts)。
Berkshire and Alphabet are different kinds of businesses. Mr Buffett values cash flow and mature brands; Mr Page prefers to create things. One of the purposes of this week’s reshuffle is to prove to investors that not as much as they fear is being spent on experimental start-up projects, such as Project Loon’s high-altitude balloons providing internet access to remote areas.
伯克希尔哈撒韦公司与Alphabet是不同类型的企业。巴菲特重视现金流和成熟品牌，佩奇则喜欢创造新事物。谷歌本周重组的目的之一，是想向投资者证明，花在实验性初创项目上的钱没有他们所担心的多，比如向偏远地区提供互联网接入服务的Project Loon高空气球计划。
Mr Page’s naming of Mr Buffett as a role model in providing “long-term, patient capital” to an array of businesses is not idle. He thinks that a multi-business group with a guiding intelligence at the centre can beat the single-sector company favoured by investors. The “conglomerate discount” applied by Wall Street can be defeated.
佩奇视巴菲特为榜样，称巴菲特向大批企业提供“长期以及耐心的资本”。这并非泛泛而谈，佩奇认为有着核心指导智慧的多元化企业集团，可以打败投资者所青睐的专注于单一行业的企业。华尔街所采用的“多元化企业折让”(conglomerate discount)是可以被战胜的。
In principle, that is an odd thing for Mr Page to believe. Google’s technology, after all, uses online auctions and markets — the wisdom of the crowd, not human curation. Why should conglomerates such as Alphabet, with their entrenched interests and fiefdoms, be better than capital markets at allocating capital efficiently? Does he trust in inside knowledge only when the insider is himself?
原则上，佩奇的这种想法相当奇怪。毕竟谷歌的技术所用到的在线拍卖和在线市场属于群体智慧，而不是人工筛选。为什么Alphabet这类拥有稳定的利益和市场主导地位的企业集团，在有效配置资本方面会胜过资本市场？难道只有当他自己是内部人时，他才会相信内幕消息？
But he is right. Conglomerates can outperform when they exploit their advantages and remain disciplined rather than falling prey to empire-building. Their ability to build a cadre of skilled managers and to pick the right investment projects is strongest in research-intensive industries that invest in intellectual property, which is Alphabet’s territory.
但佩奇是正确的。如果企业集团能够利用优势并遵守行为准则，不因打造商业帝国而陷入困境，是可以胜过单一公司的。在专注于知识产权的研究密集型产业——这正是Alphabet的领域——企业集团最擅长建立起经验丰富的管理骨干队伍，以及挑选合适的投资项目。
Neil Bhattacharya, a professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas, found in a study that multi-business companies ran operations more efficiently than single-sector ones. They had particular advantages in areas such as software and life sciences because managers could judge more accurately than stock markets which projects were likely to succeed.
美国德克萨斯州南卫理公会大学(Southern Methodist University)教授尼尔巴塔查里亚(Neil Bhattacharya)在一项研究中发现，多元化企业比单一企业在经营上效率更高，前者在软件和生命科学等领域具有独特优势，因为企业管理者比股市更能准确判断哪些项目可能获得成功。
This is counterintuitive, given US investors’ liking for simplicity, and view of conglomerates as inefficient. Public conglomerates in the US are valued at discounts of 10 to 15 per cent to single-sector companies, according to Boston Consulting Group — though the discount is lower in Europe, and Asian conglomerates often trade at a premium.
鉴于美国投资者喜欢简单的东西，并认为企业集团效率低下，巴塔查里亚教授的发现似乎与人们的直觉相反。根据波士顿咨询集团(Boston Consulting Group)的数据，在美国，上市企业集团的估值相对于单一企业会折让10%—15%，不过欧洲的这种估值差距要小一些，而亚洲的企业集团往往会溢价交易。
The suspicion originates in the 1970s and 1980s, the era of companies such as ITT and RJR Nabisco. Michael Jensen, a Harvard professor, later criticised the “billions in unproductive capital expenditures and organisational inefficiencies” at conglomerates, praising the trend toward “smaller, more focused, more efficient” enterprises.
怀疑始于上世纪七、八十年代，那是美国国际电话电报公司(ITT)和RJR纳比斯科(RJR Nabisco)等公司的时代。哈佛大学(Harvard University)教授迈克尔礠森(Michael Jensen)后来批评企业集团存在“数十亿非生产性的资本支出和组织效率低下现象”，赞扬了企业朝着“更小、更集中、更高效”的方向演变的趋势。
Big corporations remain prey to temptation. Boston Consulting Group found that the conglomerate discount is partly due to conservatism. They tend to invest heavily in their original businesses, which may be stagnant or in decline, while undervaluing newer divisions with more potential. Microsoft, for example, suffered from trying to reinforce its Windows franchise.
大企业依然难抵挡诱惑。波士顿咨询集团发现，造成多元化企业折让的部分原因是保守。企业集团倾向于低看拥有更大潜力的新业务，而大举投资它们最初的业务，然而这些业务可能是停滞乃至下滑的。比如，微软(Microsoft)因试图强化其Windows操作系统授权业务而受挫。
Yet even investors who are suspicious of quoted conglomerates delegate capital allocation and management oversight in private markets to informed insiders. Venture capital and private equity funds are both forms of conglomerate — they invest capital in a broad portfolio of businesses on behalf of outsiders who believe that such funds possess superior expertise.
然而，即使是对上市的企业集团抱怀疑态度的投资者，也会将私人市场上的资金配置和管理监督的事宜委派给知情的内部人士。风险资本和私人股本基金都是企业集团的形式——它们代表外部人士投资广泛的业务领域，外部人士则相信这类基金拥有出色的专业知识。
Why, though, should investors seeking exposure to new companies buy shares in Alphabet, which then channels Google’s surplus cash into its own venture and growth funds, Project Loon, self-driving cars and life sciences? They could instead invest money directly in a venture capital fund. Why take the longer and less-direct road?
尽管如此，寻求投资新企业的人为何要购买Alphabet的股票，这家集团会把谷歌的现金盈余投入到其风险项目、成长基金、高空气球计划、无人驾驶汽车和生命科学等？他们可以直接投资一个风险资本基金。为何要选择一条更远的弯路呢？
It depends on trust. Investors could also have bought shares in Precision Castparts last week for less than Berkshire Hathaway paid this week, but they do not complain because they trust Mr Buffett. Alphabet’s shareholders must believe in Mr Page and Mr Brin’s ability to use their intelligence and avoid the traditional pitfalls.
关键在于信任。在本周伯克希尔哈撒韦公司出手收购之前，投资者本来也可以在上周用更低的价格买入精密铸件公司股票，但他们并没有抱怨，因为他们信任巴菲特。Alphabet的股东必然也相信佩奇和布里有能力运用他们的智慧并避开传统的陷阱。
To judge by the shares this week, they prefer a conglomerate called Alphabet to a company that had not made plain what it was. Strange as it seems, it is a rational choice.
从本周的股价来看，比起一家没有说清楚自己是什么的公司，股东们更青睐一个叫Alphabet的企业集团。尽管似乎有点奇怪，但这是一个理性选择。
