中美如何在世行暗中角力 World Bank exit highlights China fears

When the Postal Savings Bank of China announced it had raised $7bn from a group of international investors it marked a significant step towards what is expected to be one of the biggest Chinese listings in 2016.

中國郵政儲蓄銀行(Postal Savings Bank of China)宣佈向多家國際投資者募集了70億美元，標誌着該行朝着首次公開發行(IPO)邁進了一大步。外界預計，該行的上市將是2016年中國最大的IPO之一。

Alongside China Life and giants of global finance such as UBS and JPMorgan, it raised funds from the World Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, representing a turnround for a state bank that just three years earlier had seen its president charged with corruption.

除了中國人壽(China Life)以及瑞銀(UBS)、摩根大通(JPMorgan)等國際金融巨頭以外，中國郵儲銀行還從世界銀行(World Bank)旗下的私營公司國際金融公司(IFC)募集了資金。這表明，與3年前行長被控貪腐的時候相比，這家國有銀行已經迎來了徹底的轉變。

But the deal has become emblematic of the often subtle ways in which Beijing and Washington battle for influence behind closed doors at the World Bank. It has also cast a shadow over the departure of China’s most senior official at the World Bank, former Goldman Sachs banker Jin-Yong Cai, who after a turbulent three years at the helm of the IFC leaves this week to return to Asia and the private sector.

這筆交易也凸顯出北京和華盛頓是如何在世行中暗地裏爭奪影響力的，這種較勁經常以十分微妙的方式進行。它也給世行中級別最高的中國籍官員、前高盛(Goldman Sachs)銀行家蔡金勇(Jin-Yong Cai)的卸任投下了陰影。在IFC首席執行官位置上度過了風雲變幻的3年後，本週他將離開世行，重返亞洲再次投身私營部門。

While Mr Cai and other senior World Bank officials insist that he is leaving 10 months before the end of his four-year term for personal reasons and there are no allegations of any wrongdoing, his exit followed an unusual rebuke by the World Bank’s board for the Postal Savings Bank of China transaction that he championed. It comes amid what senior bank officials say were mounting concerns by the US and others over alleged favouritism involving a growing number of IFC deals with Chinese state-owned companies.

儘管蔡金勇和其他世行高層官員堅稱，他提前10個月離職——他的任期本該是4年——是出於個人原因，而且他也未被指控從事了任何不當行爲，但在他離職前，世行執行董事會曾不尋常地譴責了IFC投資中國郵儲銀行的交易（該交易得到蔡金勇支持）。這件事發生的同時，有世行高層官員表示，美國和其他方面對IFC與中國國有企業達成的越來越多的交易涉嫌偏袒日益感到擔憂。

At $300m, the IFC’s investment paled in comparison with the $2.5bn China Life paid for its 5 per cent stake in the Postal Savings Bank. However, it was the largest the IFC had ever made in a Chinese bank and Mr Cai saw it as an example of the “big bang” deals for which he hoped to be remembered.

中國人壽買入中國郵儲銀行5%股份所花費的25億美元，讓IFC的3億美元投資相形見絀。然而，這是IFC有史以來對一家中國銀行進行的最大一筆投資，被蔡金勇視爲“重磅”交易的一個範例，他希望通過促成這樣的交易爲人們所銘記。

According to senior World Bank officials though, big shareholders questioned how the investment fitted with the IFC’s mandate to lend to private companies in places where capital was either unavailable or too expensive and other investment options were not available.

不過，按照世行高層官員的說法，世行大股東質疑這筆投資是否符合IFC的使命——放貸給缺乏資金或資金成本過高並且缺少其他投資選項的地方的私營企業。

Plenty of other investors were lining up for a stake in the Postal Savings Bank of China. Moreover, it was unclear, the officials said, just what the development impact — a crucial test for IFC investments — would be despite Mr Cai’s claims that it fit with the bank’s “financial inclusion” strategy.

除了上面提到的投資者，還有大量的投資者在排隊等候買入中國郵儲銀行的股份。此外，這些官員們表示，儘管蔡金勇聲稱該交易符合世行的“金融包容”戰略，但這筆交易帶來的發展影響並不明確，而發展影響正是對IFC投資的一項關鍵考覈標準。

“It is unclear to me what the role is for the IFC in [the Postal Savings Bank of China],” says Peter Woicke, a former JPMorgan banker who ran the IFC from 1999 to 2005 and oversaw its initial investments in China’s banking sector. “If that [investment returns] is why you are doing it you might as well be Goldman Sachs. But the job of the IFC is not just to be Goldman Sachs.”

“在我看來，IFC（在中國郵儲銀行）扮演的角色並不清楚。”前摩根大通銀行家彼得茠伊克(Peter Woicke)說，“如果這樣做是爲了（投資回報），你可能就和高盛差不多了。但IFC的職能不止是爲了成爲高盛。”沃伊克曾在1999年到2005年間領導IFC，監督過IFC對中國銀行業的首批投資。

The IFC and Mr Cai argue the investment in the Postal Savings Bank will help bring financial services to many of China’s “unbanked” and provide a healthy investment return as well.

IFC和蔡金勇表示，投資中國郵儲銀行有助於將金融服務拓展到中國許多“沒有銀行賬戶的人”中間，同時還能帶來健康的投資回報。

The clash surfaced when the World Bank’s board considered the IFC’s $300m investment in June. When the 25-member board gathered to vote on it June 9, according to minutes, the representatives for the US, Japan and big European shareholders including the UK, Germany and France all abstained. Altogether nine directors responsible for 56.4 per cent of the IFC’s voting shares withheld their approval.

6月世行執行董事會商議IFC這一投資事項時，衝突浮出了水面。根據會議紀要，6月9日董事會25名成員開會投票時，美國、日本還有英國、德國和法國等主要歐洲股東國的代表全部棄權。總共9名董事拒絕贊成該投資，他們合佔56.4%的投票權。

Because those directors abstained rather than voted against, the investment went ahead. But in the nuanced arena of World Bank board politics where outright votes against projects backed by powerful shareholders such as China are rare the vote amounted to a dramatic rebuke to Mr Cai.

由於這些董事只是棄權而非投反對票，這項投資得以推進。但是，在世行董事會政治這個微妙的舞臺上，直接投票反對有影響力股東（如中國）支持的項目是很罕見的，因此這次表決等於是以一種戲劇性的方式譴責蔡金勇。

“It’s very unusual,” said Chad Hobson, executive director of the Bank Information Center, a Washington-based campaign group focused on the World Bank. “They don’t [normally] go to the board when they are going to lose a vote.”

關注世行、總部在華盛頓的活動團體銀行信息中心(Bank Information Center)的執行董事查德霍布森(Chad Hobson)表示：“這很不尋常。（通常）如果他們會輸掉投票，他們就不會參加董事會會議。”

The vote, according to current senior bank officials, came after the US had for more than a year been expressing growing concerns about a number of IFC transactions involving Chinese state-owned companies around the world. Those concerns had seen the US either abstain or vote against a renewable energy project in Pakistan and a proposed $140m in investment in IFC projects involving Chinese state-owned grain trader COFCO.

根據世行現任高官的說法，這次投票之前，美國一年多來對IFC在世界各地一系列涉及中國國企的交易表達出越來越大的擔憂。出於這種顧慮，對於巴基斯坦一個可再生能源項目，以及對有中糧集團(COFCO)參與的IFC項目擬議的1.4億美元投資，美國不是投棄權票就投反對票。

It also came as Chinese stock markets were in turmoil and just ahead of the release in July by the World Bank of a report, which the bank later pulled, in which it warned that China’s “distorted” financial sector was in urgent need of reform.

這次投票還發生在中國股市暴跌之際，之後世行還在7月發佈了一份報告，警告中國“扭曲的”金融業亟需改革——不過隨後撤回了這份報告。

Mr Cai defended the investment but noted that anything to do with China often had extra sensitivities attached.

蔡金勇爲這筆投資辯護，不過他也指出，任何與中國有關的事情都格外敏感。

“There are always different views on projects in China,” he said. “I understand that.”

他說：“我明白，人們對中國的項目總是抱着不同的看法。”

With its 40,000 mostly rural branches, the Postal Savings Bank of China allowed the IFC to help spread financial services further into China’s countryside where some 235m still did not have bank accounts, Mr Cai said. It would also enable the IFC to learn from one of the world’s biggest postal banks. “How do we gain our experience? We can’t just get it by reading books. We have to be involved in transactions,” he told the Financial Times.

蔡金勇表示，憑藉中國郵儲銀行主要分佈在農村地區的4萬個營業網點，IFC能夠幫助中國農村地區普及金融服務。在那裏，大約2.35億人仍然沒有銀行戶頭。此外，IFC還可藉此從全球最大郵政銀行之一的身上學到經驗。他告訴英國《金融時報》：“我們如何獲得經驗？我們不能只從書本上獲得經驗。我們必須參與交易。”

Mr Cai insisted it was a good investment for the IFC, which has had to sell other equity holdings in China to fund dividend payments to the World Bank to finance its low-interest lending to the world’s poorest countries.

蔡金勇堅稱這對IFC來說是一筆很好的投資。IFC不得不賣出在中國持有的其他股權以向世行支付股息，爲世行向貧困國家發放低息貸款充實資金。

Some of the IFC’s other equity investments had had a difficult time, he said. In the year to June 2015 it took $700m in writedowns on its equity investments in emerging markets, according to figures provided by the IFC. China had been a rare bright spot, Mr Cai says, although the IFC declined to provide details of how its investments there had performed amid recent turmoil in the Chinese market.

蔡金勇說，IFC其他股權投資中有一部分情況不妙。根據IFC的數據，在截至2015年6月的一年裏，IFC在新興市場的股權投資減記了7億美元。蔡金勇表示，中國是個少見的亮點。不過，IFC並沒有詳細披露今年中國股市暴跌期間其在中國的投資情況如何。

“We have made so much money from our investments [in China]. We are so lucky. We thank the Chinese for giving us this opportunity,” Mr Cai said.

蔡金勇表示：“我們從我們（在中國）的投資中賺了很多錢，我們很幸運，我們感謝中國人給了我們這種機會。”