论文部分内容阅读
China is making its mark on one of the world’s most prestigious lists. A total of 95 Chinese companies made it on this year’s Fortune Global 500 List， which was compiled by Fortune magazine. Those 95 companies include 85 from the Chinese mainland， six from Taiwan and four from Hong Kong.
Fortune compiles its annual list based on a company’s gross revenues， not profits. Chinese companies now account for nearly 20 percent of all companies on the list， roughly the same proportion of its population against the global population. But a closer look at the companies reveals that the problems plaguing the world’s second largest economy are the same ones that could keep China Inc. from truly going global.
On the rise
Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell topped the list with revenues over $481.7 billion in 2012， followed by Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil， both U.S. companies. China now has the second most companies on the annual ranking behind the United States， which boasts 132 companies. China added an additional 16 and overall exceeds the number of Japanese companies at 62.
Chinese companies account for 17 percent， or $5.2 trillion， of the gross revenues by the top 500， compared with the 28 percent， or $8.6 trillion， by U.S. companies.
Three Chinese companies made it to this year’s top 10. With gross revenues of $428.17 billion in 2012， China Petrochemical Corp.（Sinopec Group） was ranked fourth overall. China National Petroleum Corp. （the parent company of PetroChina）， with gross revenue of $408.63 billion in 2012， ranked fifth. Both companies edged up by one spot from last year. The State Grid， with a gross revenue of$298.45 billion in 2012， was ranked seventh， the same as last year.
Concerns
Numbers， of course， don’t mean everything. Chinese companies on the Fortune list are indeed big enough， but experts say the presence of many Chinese companies on the renowned list could be nothing more than a mirage.
Concerns include low profit margins and a lack of international operating skills. Among the mainland companies on the list， 10 of them logged losses in 2012 and six of them are even on Fortune magazine’s ranking of top 50 companies （selected from its Global 500） with the biggest losses， while 33 saw declining profits.
In sharp contrast with the losses， China’s financial industry players on the list raked in exorbitant profits in 2012. A total of 13 financial institutions from the Chinese mainland are on the list， including nine commercial banks and four insurance companies. Their profits account for a whopping 56.5 percent of the total. In comparison， 27 U.S. financial institutions are on the list， including eight commercial banks， four diversified financial companies and 15 insurance companies. Their profits account for only 25.9 percent of the total. Experts say those profits are worrisome.
“Financial excess is a phenomenon that the Chinese Government should be highly alert against，” said Zhou Zhanhong， Assistant Executive Editor in Chief of the Chinese version of Fortune magazine.
The growing presence of Chinese stateowned enterprises （SOEs） in the rankings has rung some alarm bells for reform. Among the 85 Chinese mainland companies， over 90 percent are SOEs， meaning the country’s private sector has largely missed out. Only seven of them made it onto the list. Two more private companies were added this year： the Shenzhen-based Amer International Group and Beijing-headquartered China Minsheng Banking Corp.
“Some of the Chinese SOEs on the list are in industries that don’t have complete competition， such as those in the petroleum，electricity， telecommunications and financial sectors，” said Wang Zhilei， a research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation， in a research note. “Their financial gains are due to their monopoly status. Although SOEs are an important part of the Chinese economy， further market-oriented reform should be rolled out to add to their competitiveness in the global market.”
Wang adds that Chinese SOEs are too reliant on the home market and are ill-prepared to take on the world’s top companies.
“Market-oriented reform means SOEs should gain access to resources， such as capital， raw materials and land usage through market competition like any other kind of company. This way， they can learn to use global resources to make money instead of only using China’s resources in the Chinese market. If SOEs don’t roll out further marketbased reform， they can hardly adapt to changes from globalization，” Wang said.
China’s unbalanced economic structure is evident in the rankings. Chinese firms on the list are largely focused in traditional industries such as steel making， power generation， and energy and chemicals sectors that are struggling with overcapacity. Very few Chinese companies on the list come from high-end manufacturing， the service industry or the technological sector and many of them have reported declining profits or even losses.
Zhuang Ziyin， a professor with the Institute for Advanced Studies at Wuhan University， says China must engineer a transition toward high value-added and technology-intensive industries to avoid a repeat of the woes that have plagued SOEs for years. Zhuang adds that resources and cheap labor are not stable sources of longterm economic growth. Chinese technology companies， which are under pressure to become the main drivers of growth in the future， are nearly absent from the list， underscoring the urgent need for the country to revamp its economy toward more consumption-based and technology-oriented growth. Only two Chinese technology firms appeared on the Fortune rankings—Lenovo and Huawei—out of 44 hi-tech companies in total.
Lenovo rose to 329th from 370th a year ago， but remains far behind HewlettPackard， the world’s largest PC manufacturer， and technology heavyweights Apple and Samsung Electronics. Telecoms equipment maker Huawei jumped to 315th from 351st.
High-leverage ratio is also a source of concern for Chinese companies. The average leverage ratio， the debt-to-equity ratio， for nonfinancial Chinese companies on the list came in at 4.42， much higher than the 2.79 of U.S. companies， a sign that Chinese companies are relying too heavily on borrowed money for business expansion.
“After the financial crisis， the United States has been trying to de-leverage its economy while Chinese mainland companies still have a high leverage ratio，” said Zhou.
“The recent cash crunch showed the resolve of policymakers to de-leverage the economy， but it’s going to be a tough road ahead for Chinese companies.”
Fortune compiles its annual list based on a company’s gross revenues， not profits. Chinese companies now account for nearly 20 percent of all companies on the list， roughly the same proportion of its population against the global population. But a closer look at the companies reveals that the problems plaguing the world’s second largest economy are the same ones that could keep China Inc. from truly going global.
On the rise
Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell topped the list with revenues over $481.7 billion in 2012， followed by Wal-Mart and Exxon Mobil， both U.S. companies. China now has the second most companies on the annual ranking behind the United States， which boasts 132 companies. China added an additional 16 and overall exceeds the number of Japanese companies at 62.
Chinese companies account for 17 percent， or $5.2 trillion， of the gross revenues by the top 500， compared with the 28 percent， or $8.6 trillion， by U.S. companies.
Three Chinese companies made it to this year’s top 10. With gross revenues of $428.17 billion in 2012， China Petrochemical Corp.（Sinopec Group） was ranked fourth overall. China National Petroleum Corp. （the parent company of PetroChina）， with gross revenue of $408.63 billion in 2012， ranked fifth. Both companies edged up by one spot from last year. The State Grid， with a gross revenue of$298.45 billion in 2012， was ranked seventh， the same as last year.
Concerns
Numbers， of course， don’t mean everything. Chinese companies on the Fortune list are indeed big enough， but experts say the presence of many Chinese companies on the renowned list could be nothing more than a mirage.
Concerns include low profit margins and a lack of international operating skills. Among the mainland companies on the list， 10 of them logged losses in 2012 and six of them are even on Fortune magazine’s ranking of top 50 companies （selected from its Global 500） with the biggest losses， while 33 saw declining profits.
In sharp contrast with the losses， China’s financial industry players on the list raked in exorbitant profits in 2012. A total of 13 financial institutions from the Chinese mainland are on the list， including nine commercial banks and four insurance companies. Their profits account for a whopping 56.5 percent of the total. In comparison， 27 U.S. financial institutions are on the list， including eight commercial banks， four diversified financial companies and 15 insurance companies. Their profits account for only 25.9 percent of the total. Experts say those profits are worrisome.
“Financial excess is a phenomenon that the Chinese Government should be highly alert against，” said Zhou Zhanhong， Assistant Executive Editor in Chief of the Chinese version of Fortune magazine.
The growing presence of Chinese stateowned enterprises （SOEs） in the rankings has rung some alarm bells for reform. Among the 85 Chinese mainland companies， over 90 percent are SOEs， meaning the country’s private sector has largely missed out. Only seven of them made it onto the list. Two more private companies were added this year： the Shenzhen-based Amer International Group and Beijing-headquartered China Minsheng Banking Corp.
“Some of the Chinese SOEs on the list are in industries that don’t have complete competition， such as those in the petroleum，electricity， telecommunications and financial sectors，” said Wang Zhilei， a research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation， in a research note. “Their financial gains are due to their monopoly status. Although SOEs are an important part of the Chinese economy， further market-oriented reform should be rolled out to add to their competitiveness in the global market.”
Wang adds that Chinese SOEs are too reliant on the home market and are ill-prepared to take on the world’s top companies.
“Market-oriented reform means SOEs should gain access to resources， such as capital， raw materials and land usage through market competition like any other kind of company. This way， they can learn to use global resources to make money instead of only using China’s resources in the Chinese market. If SOEs don’t roll out further marketbased reform， they can hardly adapt to changes from globalization，” Wang said.
China’s unbalanced economic structure is evident in the rankings. Chinese firms on the list are largely focused in traditional industries such as steel making， power generation， and energy and chemicals sectors that are struggling with overcapacity. Very few Chinese companies on the list come from high-end manufacturing， the service industry or the technological sector and many of them have reported declining profits or even losses.
Zhuang Ziyin， a professor with the Institute for Advanced Studies at Wuhan University， says China must engineer a transition toward high value-added and technology-intensive industries to avoid a repeat of the woes that have plagued SOEs for years. Zhuang adds that resources and cheap labor are not stable sources of longterm economic growth. Chinese technology companies， which are under pressure to become the main drivers of growth in the future， are nearly absent from the list， underscoring the urgent need for the country to revamp its economy toward more consumption-based and technology-oriented growth. Only two Chinese technology firms appeared on the Fortune rankings—Lenovo and Huawei—out of 44 hi-tech companies in total.
Lenovo rose to 329th from 370th a year ago， but remains far behind HewlettPackard， the world’s largest PC manufacturer， and technology heavyweights Apple and Samsung Electronics. Telecoms equipment maker Huawei jumped to 315th from 351st.
High-leverage ratio is also a source of concern for Chinese companies. The average leverage ratio， the debt-to-equity ratio， for nonfinancial Chinese companies on the list came in at 4.42， much higher than the 2.79 of U.S. companies， a sign that Chinese companies are relying too heavily on borrowed money for business expansion.
“After the financial crisis， the United States has been trying to de-leverage its economy while Chinese mainland companies still have a high leverage ratio，” said Zhou.
“The recent cash crunch showed the resolve of policymakers to de-leverage the economy， but it’s going to be a tough road ahead for Chinese companies.”