王石留下的遺產

Two years ago, it looked like Wang Shi would be able to retire on his own terms.

兩年前，王石似乎本可以功成身退。

Back then, the founding chairman of China Vanke, the country’s most valuable property company, could look back on an almost 30-year career with few regrets. In addition to building one of China’s most admired corporate brands, he had attained an almost rock-star-like popular following for his personal exploits, which have included summiting the highest mountains on all seven continents and trekking to both the North and South poles.

那時的王石，作爲中國最有價值的房地產公司萬科(China Vanke)的創始人兼董事長，回顧近30年的職業生涯，幾乎可以毫無遺憾。除了創建了中國最受尊敬的企業品牌之一，他還以個人壯舉——包括成功登上七大洲最高峯，以及徒步抵達北極點和南極點——贏得了搖滾明星一般的大衆支持。

Uniquely among his China Inc peers, Mr Wang built a business that could not be slotted neatly into either the state or private spheres. While Vanke’s shareholders included large state and private-sector enterprises, until late 2015 none held more than 12 per cent of the company and all were content to let Mr Wang’s management team run it as they saw fit.

王石創建了一家不能完全歸類爲國有或民營的企業，這在中國企業界是獨一無二的。雖然萬科的股東包括大型國企與民企，但直到2015年底，其股東持股比例無一超過12%，而且全都願意由王石的管理團隊按照其所認爲合適的方式來運作萬科。

Last week Mr Wang, 66, confirmed that he would be leaving Vanke, whose shareholder register now includes a state-owned mass transit group with a 29 per cent stake: Shenzhen Metro, which builds and operates subway systems, will henceforth be Vanke’s dominant owner.

上週，66歲的王石證實自己將離開萬科。萬科現在的股東名冊包括持股29%的國有軌道交通集團深圳地鐵(Shenzhen Metro)，這家主營建設和運營地鐵系統的集團今後將成爲萬科占主導地位的股東。

Vanke’s journey from management-led champion to de facto ward of the state in less than two years was, for Mr Wang, the best of some pretty bad options. He had been on the verge of having to surrender control of his company to an upstart rival who he dismissed as a “barbarian”. But for a corporate boss who appeared to revel in his reputation as a maverick, it is a humbling outcome.

萬科在不到兩年的時間裏，從管理層領導的冠軍企業，變成實際上受國家監護，對王石來說算是一些糟糕選項裏最好的選擇。他曾險些不得不將公司控制權交給一個被他鄙棄爲“野蠻人”的暴發戶競爭對手。但對一個似乎醉心於特立獨行者名聲的企業老闆來說，這是一個屈辱的結果。

It is also an outcome that demonstrates, for all the Chinese government’s talk of giving market forces an ever freer hand in the world’s second-largest economy, the still very real limits of Beijing’s tolerance. Vanke is a listed company operating in a sector that is not considered particularly “strategic”, compared to telecommunications or energy. Its shares should be worth whatever a willing buyer is prepared to pay for them. But when just such a buyer emerged intent on acquiring control of Vanke, government regulators decided to intervene.

這一結果也表明了北京方面的寬容仍十分有限，儘管此前中國政府一再表示讓市場力量在這個全球第二大經濟體中越來越自由地發揮作用。萬科是一家上市企業，與電信或能源行業相比，其所在行業並不被認爲特別具有“戰略性”。只要買家願意出價，其股票就應該值這個價。但就當這樣一位買家出現、意圖收購萬科的控制權時，政府監管機構卻決定出手干預。

The disappointing denouement of Mr Wang’s career began in the second half of 2015 with the appearance of a then 44-year-old nemesis, Yao Zhenhua, who was as little known as Vanke’s chairman was famous. Mr Yao’s Baoneng Group acquired more than 20 per cent of Vanke’s shares. It was the most dramatic hostile takeover ever attempted in corporate China. In just three weeks in December 2015, Vanke’s share price shot up 71 per cent.

王石職業生涯的結局令人失望，這一切始於2015年下半年一位強硬對手的出現，當時44歲的姚振華還遠遠不如王石那樣有名。姚振華的寶能集團(Baoneng Group)收購了萬科20%以上股份。這是中國企業史上最戲劇性的敵意收購嘗試。萬科股價在2015年12月的短短三週內上漲了71%。

Like Vanke, Baoneng is based in Shenzhen, the special economic zone bordering Hong Kong, and began life as a property developer. That is where the similarities between the two groups and their warring chairmen end. Vanke stuck to its core business. Baoneng diversified, most notably into the insurance sector, where looser regulations were allowing asset managers to raise enormous sums of money. In the four years through 2015, the premium income of Baoneng’s insurance arm soared 30-fold, from Rmb272m ($38m) to Rmb78bn.

與萬科一樣，寶能也位於毗連香港的經濟特區深圳，而且也起步於房地產開發。這是兩家集團以及它們相互敵對的董事長之間僅有的相似之處。萬科堅持其核心業務。寶能則更爲多元化，尤其是進入保險行業，該行業較爲寬鬆的監管使資產管理者能夠籌集大量資金。在截至2015年的四年裏，寶能旗下保險業務的保費收入增長了近300倍，從2.72億元人民幣（合3800萬美元）漲至780億元人民幣。

Mr Yao also kept a tight grip on his group. Baoneng’s wealth was his wealth, which the Hurun Report estimated at $1.9bn in 2015 and $17.2bn just a year later.

姚振華也牢牢把持着他的集團。寶能的財富就是他個人的財富，《胡潤百富榜》(Hurun Report)估計，2015年姚振華個人財富爲19億美元，而僅一年後就達到172億美元。

Mr Wang never parlayed his position as Vanke’s founding chairman into a sizeable — let alone controlling — stake as its business took off in the 1990s. Had he done so, he would have become one of China’s biggest billionaires. So when Mr Yao decided to take a run at Vanke, Mr Wang could only resort to rhetoric and politics. He dismissed Baoneng as “barbarians” and sought government protection.

萬科的業務在1990年代就已起飛，王石從來沒有將自己作爲萬科創始人兼董事長的地位轉化爲可觀的股份，更不要說控股股份。如果王石這麼做了，他應該已成爲中國最大的億萬富豪之一。因此，當姚振華決定收購萬科股份時，王石只能訴諸於言論和政治。他鄙棄寶能是“野蠻人”，並向政府尋求保護。

Vanke’s fate hung in the balance for a year until December 2016, when China’s securities regulator borrowed Mr Wang’s “barbarian” rhetoric in criticising highly leveraged insurance companies and their hunger for acquisitions at home and abroad. Luckily for Mr Wang, his interests had dovetailed with the government’s growing concern about the financial risks building in the insurance industry. Mr Yao was subsequently banned from the sector for alleged violations by Baoneng’s insurance unit, and Shenzhen Metro paid $9.4bn to acquire its blocking stake in Vanke.

萬科的命運懸而未決了一年，直到2016年12月中國證券業監管機構借王石“野蠻人”的說法，批評保險公司的高槓杆以及它們對國內外收購的飢渴。王石很幸運，他的利益與政府對保險業金融風險日益增長的擔憂相吻合。姚振華隨後因寶能旗下保險部門存在違規行爲而被禁止從事這一行業，深圳地鐵以94億美元贏得在萬科的第一大股東地位。

In the end, Mr Wang got the politics right. Unfortunately for his legacy, he will be remembered as much for that as for the business he built.

最終，王石正確利用了政治——遺憾的是，就他留下的遺產而言，人們既會記住是他創建了萬科，也會記住這一點。