"一帶一路"看着誘人 國外基建分羹卻不易
Zhou Yuan told a conference in Hong Kong last week that he could not promise to inform them, but that he hoped to entertain them. The dry-humoured head of strategy for China Investment Corporation then proceeded to do both as he talked about how China would view infrastructure investment in the region.
中投公司(China Investment Corporation)首席策略官周元最近在香港的一次會議上對與會者說，儘管他不能保證會向大家透露什麼情報，但他希望大家會對他說的東西感興趣。這位冷幽默風格的首席策略官後來談到了中國對該地區基礎設施投資的看法，可以說是既讓與會者瞭解到了一些情報，又引起了他們的濃厚興趣。
Few subjects generate more interest and debate in Asian financial circles than infrastructure. Participants want to know how the new China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will actually operate and what roles other groups, such as banks and long-term investors, might play.
在亞洲金融圈裏，鮮有話題比基礎設施更能引起人們的興趣和爭論。與會者想知道，新成立的、中國主導的亞洲基礎設施投資銀行（Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank，簡稱：亞投行）到底將如何運作，以及銀行、長期投資者等其他羣體可能會扮演什麼角色。At the heart of the matter are enormous estimates of what Asia needs to spend on infrastructure in the coming years and questions about how much of this China will provide — and on what terms.
最重要的是，很多人都在估算未來幾年亞洲需要在基礎設施上投入多少，並猜測中國會爲此提供多少資金、以及基於什麼條件提供。
“If you can’t expect a return — that is, if you can’t expect infrastructure projects to pay you a dividend some time down the road, you can’t call that investment any more. You might as well call that a Marshall Plan,” Mr Zhou said at the FT Investment Management Summit.
“如果你不能指望獲得回報，也就是說，如果你不能指望基礎設施項目在將來某個時刻向你支付紅利，那你就不能再把它稱作投資。你還不如把它稱作馬歇爾計劃(Marshall Plan)，”周元在英國《金融時報》投資管理峯會(FT Investment Management Summit)上表示。Inevitably, comparisons abound between China’s AIIB and the US-financed 1948 Marshall Plan that supported European rebuilding after the second world war, and which that deployed its current account surpluses in a way that backed American economic and geopolitical goals.
當然有很多人拿中國的亞投行與1948年由美國供資的馬歇爾計劃作比較。馬歇爾計劃支持了歐洲在二戰後的重建，並且有效地利用了美國的經常賬戶盈餘來支撐美國的經濟和地緣政治目標。China’s current plans include its Silk Road economic initiative (One Belt, One Road), its interest in a Brics development bank as well as the AIIB and other investments such as those funded by CIC, its sovereign wealth fund.
中國目前的計劃包括“一帶一路”、在金磚國家開發銀行和亞投行中的出資，以及其他投資——比如由其主權財富基金中投公司供資的投資。China Development Bank reckons the number of cross-border projects in train under the Silk Road effort already total $980bn in investment value. Other figures put Asia’s total need nearer $8tn by 2020. “Everyone will give you a different number. The one thing is they will all be wrong but they will all be big,” said James Cameron, head of project and export finance for HSBC in Asia.
中國國家開發銀行(China Development Bank)估計，“一帶一路”的項目儲備庫，涉及投資資金超過8900億美元。其他數字則顯示，亞洲直至2020年的基建總投資需求接近8萬億美元。匯豐(HSBC)亞洲項目和出口融資主管詹姆斯•卡梅隆(James Cameron)表示：“每個人給出的數字都不同。只有一件事是肯定的，這些數字全是錯的、但它們全都很大。”Back on the ground, China’s planned spending has banks and other investors wondering what might be left for them. Project financiers are already struggling because regulators are forcing banks to hold more capital against long-term lending in riskier emerging markets.
回到具體問題上，銀行及其他投資者想知道中國計劃中的支出會給他們帶來什麼機會。項目金融家的日子已然不太好過，因爲監管機構正迫使銀行爲在風險較高的新興市場的長期放貸留出更多資本金。Investors do not have it much easier. Backing a power station in Vietnam, secured against the future income of the plant, might seem a good bet to a pension fund manager looking for assets to match long-term liabilities. But regulators are worried about the currency and the country risk, so they ask for capital and other regulatory protections, pushing up the cost of such investments. “Pension funds and insurance companies are very interested but may not always be able to invest,” said François Leblanc, head of BNP Paribas’ Asia-Pacific financial institutions team, who cited funds’ own investment guidelines as another constraint.
投資者的日子也沒有好過多少。對一名物色資產以匹配長期負債的養老基金經理來說，投資越南的一座發電站並以該電站未來的收益作爲擔保，似乎是個不錯的押注。但監管機構擔心匯率和國家風險，因此他們要求留夠資本金並設立其他監管保障，從而推高了這類投資的成本。法國巴黎銀行(BNP Paribas)亞太金融機構團隊主管弗朗索瓦•勒布朗(François Leblanc)說：“養老基金和保險公司都非常感興趣，但或許不總是能夠投資。”他認爲基金自身的投資準則也構成了限制。“There are a lot of difficulties. Bridging the gaps isn’t easy between what markets can deliver today and what investors need,” he said.
他說：“困難很多，要填補如今市場供給與投資者需求之間的缺口並不容易。”On that basis, Mr Zhou’s comments about a commercial focus, at least from CIC, will be welcome. One fear has been that China would persist with vendor-style financing, where many developing countries with natural resources received funding for infrastructure — supplied, financed and built by Chinese companies.
考慮到這一點，周元在商言商（至少是從中投立場出發）的評論應該會受到歡迎。近來有一種擔憂是，中國會堅持供應商融資模式，即許多擁有自然資源的發展中國家得到資金來搞基建，而中國企業則是這些基礎設施的供應商、資金提供方和建設方。If China is more serious about a commercially based markets-based system — including via the AIIB, which it will lead — then Asia more generally stands to gain.
如果中國以更認真的態度建立一種在商言商的市場化機制（包括通過其主導的亞投行），那麼亞洲就可更普遍地從中獲益。“The AIIB has a range of potential tools,” said HSBC’s Mr Cameron. “They could invest or fund directly, look at perhaps taking a slice of the risk, provide guarantees or help with ensuring the right advice is given up front to structure projects to be more attractive for outside financing and investment. There’s a lot that could help develop the whole infrastructure financing space.”
“亞投行擁有一系列潛在的工具，”匯豐的卡梅隆說，“他們可以直接投資或撥款，考慮或許承擔部分風險，提供擔保，或幫助確保提前給出正確的建議，以便將項目安排得更具吸引力，好吸引外部融資和投資。有很多工具可幫助開發整個基礎設施融資領域。”Asian infrastructure is particularly tricky because of the region’s different legal systems and markets, all at varying stages of development. The sheer range of projects under way complicates the sector further. But any sign of standardisation — such as one power station or road system using the same funding template used by a previous, successful venture — would help the next project. And that could ultimately transform Asian financing as well as its infrastructure landscape.
亞洲基礎設施格外不好做的原因是，該地區的法律體系和市場多種多樣，而且都處於不同的發展階段。進行當中的項目的範圍之廣，讓這塊業務變得更加複雜。但任何走向標準化的跡象——比如一個發電站或道路系統使用此前某個成功項目使用過的融資模式——都將有助於下一個項目。這最終可能會改變亞洲的融資及基礎設施的面貌。
