首页艾问·每日人物每日人物文章从滴滴到教育培训，中国政策...

从滴滴到教育培训，中国政策真的发生转向了吗？

2021-8-4 作者：艾问人物来源：iAsk Media

作者：Raymond Dalio

翻译：Catherine

最近中国政策似乎正在转向：

1）对滴滴上市以及其数据使用的控制

2）中国的教育类公司（教育类公司指义务教育学科类教育培训机构）被要求转为非盈利机构

这两件事使得投资者对中国资本市场产生许多的疑问，所以今天我想帮助大家弄明白到底发生了什么。

我可以理解对于从未接触过相关事情的投资者的疑惑。我36年前曾到访过中国，我发现，大多数与中国政策制定者没有直接接触、也没有详细了解中国变化模式的西方国家的观察者，往往不相信中国运用资本市场促进发展的做法是真实的。

尽管过去四十年，在中国催生了一批批富裕的企业家，发展资本市场促进市场经济的趋势如此明显。企业家们依旧认为最近的政策是表明了中国反对资本主义市场政策的决心。由此引发的一个结果就是，这些市场观察者们错失了中国正在发生什么，甚至有可能会继续错失中国最新的政策改变。

在滴滴事件中，政策制定者向滴滴表示，继续上市可能不是最好的处理办法，他们希望解决数据隐私问题，这是可以理解的。在教育培训公司层面上，家长希望他们的孩子能够进行补课获得培训，但是他们很难承担起教育培训市场高额的费用。中国的政策制定者希望改变教育不平等的状况，减轻民众育儿经济负担。政策制定者认为，尽管股东不支持这些决策，但是这些政策是利于整个国家的。

我记得有很多类似的误解存在。比如，中国个体投资者溃败致使政府买入股票并操盘稳定市场一段时间。我还记得2015-2016年中国央行扩大浮动区间导致人民币大幅贬值，这导致很多投资者指出，这些事态的发展表明政策制定者正在远离发展中的资本市场。一些持怀疑态度的投资者认为，中国政府这些政策干预是不恰当的市场干预，同样的举措在资本市场发生过多次，但比起美国和其他发达国家的财政和货币政策，中国的政策干预显得相形见绌。通过这场危机，中国的政策制定者成功控制了危机的影响，并实现了他们的目标，也就是说他们的目标从未改变，一直支持资本市场的快速稳定发展、企业家精神和对外国投资者的投资开放。

所以我鼓励你们关注形势，不要误解和过度关注波动。

去搞清楚发生了什么，你们需要明白的是，中国运用资本是为大多数人的利益服务的，政策制定者不会允许那些敏感的资本市场和富有的资本家阻碍他们做对国家大多数人有益的事情。相反，处于资本市场的人们必须意识到他们在这个体系中所处于的从属位置，否则他们会因自己的错误承担后果。比如，他们不能错误地认为自己拥有财富就有权决定事情的发展。

还需要明白的是，在这个高速发展的资本市场环境中，中国监管机构正在制定适当的监管规定，因此很多情况尚处于变化不明确期，就会导致一些混乱，这些混乱可能会被误解反对自由市场资本运行的举动。

此外，你还需要了解，全球地缘政治环境变化也会带来变动。你可以看到美国政府政策的转变，如改变中国企业在美上市政策、威胁禁止美国养老基金在中国投资。

假使这些情况在未来的投资市场中发生，但也不要将这些波动误解为趋势形势的变化，不要期待着中国资本市场和西方的资本市场一模一样。

话虽如此，我确实认为中国决策者很多时候无法在公开场合更清楚地传达行动决策背后的原因，与市场的沟通需要加强。

至于投资在我看来，美国和中国的体制和市场都机会与风险并存，而且存在相互竞争的可能性。因此，它们都应该被视为一个人的投资组合的重要组成部分。我建议你不要误解这些举措，就像过去几十年存在的趋势的逆转，让它把自己吓跑。

原文：

Understanding China’s Recent Moves in Its Capital Markets

Recent Chinese policy moves related to 1) DiDi’s listing and controls on its data usage and 2) China’s education companies being converted into non-profits have created a lot of doubt about capitalism and capital markets in China, so I’d like to help clarify what’s going on there.

I understand that it’s confusing to people who are not close to what’s happening. Since I started going to China 36 years ago, I have found that most Western observers who do not have direct contact with policy makers’ and don’t follow in detail the patterns of the changes have tended to not believe that the Chinese Communist Party’s usage of capital markets to foster development is real. They interpret moves like these two recent ones as the Communist Party leaders showing their true anti-capitalist stripes even though the trend over the last 40 years has clearly been so strongly toward developing a market economy with capital markets, with entrepreneurs and capitalists becoming rich. As a result, they’ve missed out on what’s going on in China and probably will continue to miss out. In this case the policy makers signaled to DiDi that it might not be best to go ahead with the listing and they understandably want to deal with the data privacy issue. In the case of the educational tutoring companies they want to reduce the educational inequality and the financial burden on those who are desperate to have their children have these services but can’t afford them by making them broadly available. They believe that these things are better for the country even if the shareholders don’t like it.

I remember a number of such analogous misinterpretations. For example, I remember how the Chinese retail investor bubble bursting led to government stock buying and then the government trying to manipulate the market for a while. Also I remember the Chinese currency plunge in 2015-16 resulting from the PBoC widening the band and how that led to many investors pointing to these developments as evidence that policy makers were turning away from developing capital markets. Some skeptical investors looked at these moves as inappropriate anti-free market interventions even though these same moves happened many times in many capitalist markets and even though the fiscal and monetary policy interventions in the U.S. and other developed markets dwarf the Chinese government interventions in its markets. Through it all Chinese policy makers successfully managed the fallout and pursued their goals; i.e., the direction of their actions never changed. It has been in support of a fast and steady development of capital markets, entrepreneurship, and openness to investment to foreign investors. So I encourage you to look at the trends and not misunderstand and over-focus on the wiggles.

To understand what’s going on you need to understand that China is a state capitalist system which means that the state runs capitalism to serve the interests of most people and that policy makers won’t let the sensitivities of those in the capital markets and rich capitalists stand in the way of doing what they believe is best for the most people of the country. Rather, those in the capital markets and capitalists have to understand their subordinate places in the system or they will suffer the consequences of their mistakes. For example, they need to not mistake their having riches for having power for determining how things will go.

You also need to understand that in this rapidly developing capital markets environment Chinese regulators are figuring out appropriate regulations so, when they are changing fast and aren’t clear, that causes these sorts of confusions, which can be misconstrued to be anti-capitalist moves.

Also, you need to understand that the global geopolitical environment changing leads to some changes. You can see that reflected in the U.S. governments’ policy shifts such as a) changing its policies about Chinese companies’ listings in the United States and b) threats to prohibit American pension funds from investing in China.

Assume such things will happen in the future and invest accordingly. But don’t misinterpret these wiggles as changes in trends, and don’t expect this Chinese state-run capitalism to be exactly like Western capitalism.

Having said that, I do think that it is unfortunate that Chinese policy makers don’t publicly communicate the reasoning behind their moves more clearly.

As for investing, as I see it the American and Chinese systems and markets both have opportunities and risks and are likely to compete with each other and diversify each other. Hence they both should be considered as important parts of one’s portfolio. I urge you to not misinterpret these sorts of moves as reversals of the trends that have existed for the last several decades and let that scare you away.

作者简介：瑞·达利奥（Raymond Dalio），1949年8月8日出生于纽约，现居康乃狄克州费尔菲尔德县，是美国著名对冲基金——桥水基金(Bridgewater Associates)创始人兼首席执行官，桥水基金于2013年被列为全世界最大的避险基金公司，过去20多年，桥水基金曾创造超过20%的年平均投资回报率，管理基金规模一度超过1500亿美元，累计盈利450亿美元。