中国依赖指数

　　Declaration of Chindependence

　　跨国企业对中国市场的“独立宣言”

　　For an American multinational, is exposure to China still a good thing?

　　对于美国的跨国企业来说，把命运寄托在中国市场上的做法还是一种明智的选择吗？

　　Jul 20th 2013 | SYDNEY |From the print edition

　　BEFORE the global financial crisis, emerging economies like China aspired to “decouple” themselves from the rich world, hoping that local demand and regional trade would sustain them even if Western markets faltered. After the crisis, rich economies aspired to couple themselves with China, one of the few sources of growth in a moribund world. Carmakers in Germany, iron-ore miners in Australia and milk-powder makers in New Zealand all benefited enormously from exports to the Middle Kingdom. Every company needed a China story to tell.

　　在全球金融危机前，像中国这样的新兴经济体一直不愿同富国掺和在一起，他们希望拉动内部需求，促进区域内贸易，这样即使在西方市场衰退之际也能保持经济发展。在经济崩溃的大背景下，中国是为数不多依然还能保持经济增长的国家之一。金融危机后，富国都想和中国加强经贸联系。德国的汽车企业，澳大利亚的铁矿石开采公司以及新西兰的奶粉制造商向中国大量出口，都获得丰厚的利润。每个企业的都渴望进驻中国市场。

　　Explore Sinodependency by year and sector with our interactive “tree-map”

　　浏览交互式的树状图了解下每年各行业的“中国依赖指数”

　　But as China slows and America gradually recovers, those stories are becoming less compelling. Some of them are turning into cautionary tales. Exposure to China does not always endear a firm to investors, as GlaxoSmithKline, a British pharmaceutical giant embroiled in a corruption scandal in the country, is now discovering.

　　但是随着中国经济增速放缓，美国经济逐渐复苏，中国市场也并不那么吸引人了，一些公司在中国的发展境遇还起了警示作用。外资公司和中国虽联系密切，但他们会发现自己并不受欢迎，如卷入行贿门事件的英国制药业巨头葛兰素史克肯定对此深有体会。

　　As a rough gauge of multinational exposure to China, The Economist in 2010 introduced the Sinodependency index, a stockmarket index that weights American multinationals according to their China revenues. The latest version of the index includes all of the members of the S&P 500 index that provide a usable geographical breakdown of their revenues. The weight of each of these 133 firms in the index reflects their market capitalisation multiplied by China’s share of their revenues. A company worth 100 billion dollars that derives 10% of its revenues from China has the same weight as one worth 20 billion dollars deriving half of its revenues from China. Where firms report their revenues for Asia-Pacific but not for China, the index assumes that China’s share of regional revenues matches its share of regional GDP.

　　《经济学家》杂志于2010年引入了一种股价指数——“中国依赖指数”作为粗略衡量跨国企业对中国依赖度的标准，该指数是根据这些企业在中国取得的收入将其在中国市场的比重作为权数，对应相应的公司股价，进行加权处理而得出的。最新的“中国依赖指数”覆盖了位于美国标准普尔500指数之列且能提供不同地域收入细目的所有公司。133家企业的各自权数反映了他们的市值与其在中国收入占总收入的比重的乘积。市值为1000亿美元在中国收入占总收入10%的公司，其权数与市值为200亿美元在中国收入占总收入一半的公司的权数一样。对于那些只公布在整个亚太地区收入的公司而不公布在中国的收入，该指数假设这些公司在中国的收入所占份额就是其在这一区域的GDP中所占的份额。

　　The biggest members of the index are Apple, with an 11% weight in 2013, followed by Qualcomm (8.3%) and Intel (7%). Most of the firms in the index are more dependent on China now than they were. China accounted for 11.2% of their revenues on average in 2012, compared with 9.8% in 2009.

　　苹果是“中国依赖指数”最高的企业，2013年的权数为11%，其次为8.3%的高通和7%的英特尔。加入该指数中的大多数企业如今更加依赖中国了。相对于2009年这些企业在中国的收入占比平均为9.8%，2012年在中国的收入占比已为11.2%了。

　　Although the dependence has risen, the rewards have not (see chart). After handily outperforming the S&P 500 benchmark in 2009-11, the Sinodependency index has since struggled to keep pace. So far this year it has risen by 9.6%. That is far better than China’s own stockmarkets, which have fallen by over 9%. But both have been overshadowed by the much stronger performance of the conventional S&P 500 index, which is up by 18%. Perhaps the 367 S&P 500 companies that are not in our index should loudly proclaim their Sino-independence.

　　不过虽然对中国的依赖程度上升，股票回报率却并未相应上升（如图所示）。在2009-11年度轻松高出标准普尔500基准指数后，“中国依赖指数”便自此难跟上标普500指数的脚步了。今年到目前为止“中国依赖指数”涨幅为9.6%，表现要比中国的股票市场好得多，中国股市跌幅已超过9%。然而“对中国依赖指数”和中国股市的股指相对于表现强劲的传统标准普尔500指数来说只能望其项背，标普500指数涨幅为18%。也许另外367家不在“中国依赖指数”覆盖范围内的标普500企业能骄傲地声称他们是对中国一点都不依赖。