會計謎團中的阿里巴巴究竟價值幾何

For most of its time in the public view, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd has been able to capture the investor zeitgeist, shaping its asset portfolio to accommodate whatever investors think is sexy at the moment. Business-to-business commerce? Check. Online shopping for consumers? Check. Micro-blogging, social media? There’s Weibo for that. Online payment service? Got it covered with Alipay. Mobile Internet products and services? No problem, UC Web fits the bill. Cloud computing, online entertainment,professional soccer team? Check, check and check.

在公衆眼中，阿里巴巴集團（Alibaba Group Holding Ltd）總能抓住投資者的眼球，塑造符合當下投資者所推崇的資產組合。B2B商務？有。消費者線上購物？有。微型博客、社交媒體？有微博（Weibo）。在線支付服務？支付寶就是做這個的。移動互聯網產品和服務？沒問題，有UC瀏覽器。雲計算、在線娛樂、職業足球隊？有，有，都有。

Alibaba is not so much a company as it is essentially an exchange traded fund for exposure to Chinese technology and commerce.

阿里巴巴看上去並不怎麼像一家公司，倒像是一隻專注於中國科技和電商領域的交易所上市基金。

On the cusp of becoming publicly-traded in the United States, a Bloomberg poll of analysts puts the value of the entire firm at $198 billion. If Alibaba’s syndicate of heavyweights – Credit Suisse CS , Deutsche Bank DB 1.29% , Goldman Sachs GS 0.27% , J.P. Morgan JPM 0.02% , Morgan Stanley MS 0.41% , and Citi C 0.46% – pull it off, the company’s valuation would join the ranks of IBM, Toyota TM , Verizon VZ -0.32% , and most fittingly,Facebook FB 0.16% . That kind of valuation brings with it breathtaking multiples: 53.2 times (March) 2014 year end GAAP earnings, 40 times EBITDA, and 23.4 times revenues.

在即將成爲美國公開上市公司的當口，接受彭博資訊（Bloomberg）調查的分析師對阿里巴巴的整體估值爲1980億美元。如果瑞士信貸（Credit Suisse）、德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）、高盛（Goldman Sachs）、摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）、摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）和花旗（Citi）等大牌投行的聯合承銷獲得成功，阿里巴巴的估值將躋身IBM、豐田（Toyota）和Verizon等大公司之列，與Facebook比肩。相應的估值倍數很是驚人：是按美國通用會計準則計算的截至2014年（3月）的年度收益的53.2倍，息稅折舊攤銷前利潤的40倍，以及營收的23.4倍。

Nobody would expect an Alibaba IPO to be a bargain, but those levels go far beyond pricing the company for perfection – and this is a company that’s not perfect. Alibaba will be trading on the New York Exchange because first choice Hong Kong exchange couldn’t stomach the insider controlover the election of unting problems in its media acquisitions have raised questions about effectiveness of Alibaba’s due diligence efforts during its rambunctious, pell-mell acquisition binge. The inside-China ownership/outside-China capital structurecreates owners and shareholders with conflicting claims on the firm’s future. And the SEC is still studying Alibaba’s offering documents, pushing the roadshow off for another week.

沒人指望能在阿里巴巴的IPO中撈到便宜貨，但這樣的定價水平已經遠遠超出了即便是一家完美的公司所能獲得的估值，而阿里巴巴並不完美。阿里巴巴之所以赴紐約證券交易所上市，是因爲其首選的香港交易所不能接受企業內部人士對於董事會選舉的絕對控制權。阿里巴巴收購媒體企業後出現的一些會計問題也已經引發外界質疑。阿里巴巴在這一系列令人眼花繚亂的收購中進行的盡職調查是否有效？國內持有/國外投資的結構會造成所有人和股東們在公司未來訴求上的矛盾。美國證券交易委員會（SEC）仍在研究阿里巴巴的IPO文件，其路演再推遲一週。

One curiosity concerning the financial statements is Alibaba’s lack of information for each segment of its business segment information – something that should be critical for those analysts polled by Bloomberg in coming up their valuations. Alibaba’s disparate businesses aren’t all worth the same multiples of relevant yardsticks, and they don’t all grow at the same rate – and it’s impossible to realistically peg one Alibaba business to that of a stand-alone competitor. The firm’s financial statements are prepared on a U.S. accounting basis, requiring that the firm report essential information about the segments used by the chief operating decision maker for reviewing performance and making decisions about resource allocation. In a firm with an asset palette as widely varied as this one, it’s justifiable to expect at least a couple of different segments. After all, how similar is online commerce to social media?

令人疑惑的是，阿里巴巴的財務報告缺乏不同業務分類的細分信息，而接受彭博資訊調查的那些分析師們在計算估值時本該需要這些重要信息。阿里巴巴五花八門的業務不應獲得相同的估值倍數，它們的增長率也不盡相同。現實而言，也不可能將阿里巴巴的一項業務與某一獨立競爭對手相提並論。阿里巴巴的財務報表是按美國會計準則編制，要求公司報告首席運營決策者在考覈績效和進行資源分配決策時所需的業務細分數據。對於一家資產構成如此廣泛的公司，合理的預期是它能至少劃分爲幾項不同的業務。畢竟，互聯網商務與社交媒體有多少相似性呢？

Alibaba’s one-segment rationale, according to the prospectus: the chief operating decision maker is a “strategic committee comprised of members of the Company’s management team… the Company had one single operating and reportable segment, namely the provision of online and mobile commerce and related services. Although the online and mobile commerce and related services consist of different business units of the Company, information provided to the chief operating decision-maker is at the revenue level and the Company does not allocate operating costs or assets across business units, as the chief operating decision-maker does not use such information to allocate resources or evaluate the performance of the business units.”

根據招股說明書，阿里巴巴的單一業務理由是：首席運營決策者是“由公司管理團隊成員組成的戰略委員會……公司只有一項運營業務需報告，即提供互聯網和移動商務及相關服務。雖然互聯網和移動商務及相關服務由阿里巴巴不同的業務部門組成，但提供給首席運營決策者的信息是收入層面信息。而且，阿里巴巴不在業務部門間分配運營成本或資產，因爲首席運營決策者不會用這些信息來配置資源或評估業務部門的績效。”

No company likes to disclose more than required, least of all segment information. Yet taking Alibaba’s explanation for one-dimension reporting at face value still raises troubling issues. The chief operating decision maker/management committee is using only revenue to allocate resources or evaluate performance. Forget about asset and expense control – the only internal discipline is to grow revenues. Yet shareholders ought to expect more from the managers running their company, such as wise allocation of capital. Don’t expect it if managers are focused only on the top line.

沒有一家公司願意披露超出監管要求範圍的信息，尤其是業務細分信息。但是，即便是從表面上看，阿里巴巴給出的一維報告解釋仍存在一些問題。首席運營決策者/管理委員會只是按收入來分配資源或評估績效。也就是說資產與費用控制不在考量範圍內。唯一的內部約束機制就是擴大收入。但股東們對管理層的期待更多，比如明智的資本配置。如果管理者全都只盯着收入，就別指望這些了。

Then again, Wall Street won’t be loving Alibaba because of its managers’ asset allocation skills. It’s going to be all about the growth, no matter what the price. And the lack of meaningful information about the different segments may make valuation guesses just so much Ali-babble.

同樣，華爾街也不會因爲阿里巴巴管理者的資產配置技巧喜歡上這家公司。只談增長，不論代價。缺乏不同業務部門的重要信息，可能導致估值猜測淪爲一場阿里式的七嘴八舌。