Skin-deep restructuring in Japan
Believers in market principles have been predictably - and rightly - outraged by the failure of the merger of Kao and Kanebo and what this says about the unreconstructed state of much of corporate Japan. But the extent of the back-room deal-making is only gradually becoming clear.
To recap a little: Kao, a successful household goods company, was prepared to pay Y440bn to take over Kanebo's cosmetics business, the only successful bit of an otherwise loss-making and over-indebted group. This was a big premium to the Y200bn to Y300bn at which analysts value Kanebo's cosmetics arm.
Given Kanebo's Y520bn of debt, one would have thought this was too good an offer to refuse, but Kanebo did so, citing union opposition to possible job cuts. Instead, it threw itself into the arms of the IRCJ, a government-funded body set up to restructure ailing companies - which is expected to bail out Kanebo at huge expense to the taxpayer.
So far, so bad. Since then, however, two things have happened that make this mess appear a little more palatable. Only at first sight, however.
The first is that Kanebo's president and then its entire board offered to resign. Strike a blow for the IRCJ? Not exactly. It appears that Sumitomo Mitsui, Kanebo's main bank, has another important customer starting with "K": Kao. To appease Kao's anger at the failed deal, the bank arranged for the Kanebo directors to fall on their swords. The right result perhaps, but hardly corporate governance in action.
Second, it now looks as if the IRCJ will take over all of Kanebo and pay only about Y380bn - less than feared. Again, this sounds like the IRCJ is being tough on Kanebo management, but it is really due to the fact that only by taking over the entire company can it extract some loan waivers from Kanebo's banks.
To be fair, that should save some public money, though given the negative net value of the Kanebo rump, probably not much. The irony is that despite their dreadful track-record, Kanebo managers have to ask for help under IRCJ rules - nobody can force them to relinquish control.
Hong Kong's budget
While economic revival has started to refill the coffers, tomorrow's budget proposal for 2004/5 will be a reminder of Hong Kong's grim fiscal position. Over the past five years, the territory has racked up a cumulative budget deficit of HK$146bn. Once investment income and asset and land sales - both volatile and ultimately unsustainable sources of revenue - are included, that rises to HK$215bn.
It therefore falls to Henry Tang, the new financial secretary, to tackle this underlying structural deficit. The government has already taken measures to reduce spending, such as cutting civil service pay and subventions, though cutting education funding seems counter-productive in the longer term.
But the real trick will be to tap into more stable sources of revenue - higher taxes, in plain language. Only 37 per cent of employees paid income tax in 2001/02, according to Morgan Stanley, a good indicator of how narrow Hong Kong's tax base is.
On the other hand, the tax system is already pretty progressive. The top 5 per cent of income earners account for half the entire tax take - hence the controversial idea of introducing a goods and services tax (GST), in order to spread the burden beyond the rich and the middle classes.
While lots of Hong Kongers are upset about this, it is not unusual in the developed world. Even in Asia, virtually every other country, including poorer ones such as China, the Philippines and Malaysia, all have some measure of value added tax.
Mr Tang may well have to adopt a bit of both - an income tax rise and a new GST to balance the budget and maintain Hong Kong's current strong credit rating. But who said being a politician was all about being popular?
Australian rules
It was another good week for Australia. Fourth-quarter economic growth of 4 per cent, year-on-year, was the strongest since 2000 and well above expectations. Business investment, consumer spending and even the farm sector are all healthy.
Even so the Australian dollar, which had gained 37 per cent against the US dollar in the previous 12 months, has dropped sharply over the past month. Helped by the central bank's decision to hold interest rates last week, it has weakened from above 80 US cents on February 18 - just two days after this column wondered whether it had peaked - to below 75 cents.
Another (expected) rate increase in the next couple of months should lend the Aussie dollar some renewed support. But economic growth and the strength of commodity prices are probably priced in by now, while investors around the world are focusing more on imbalances such as national current account deficits. On that front, it is worth remembering that Australia's, at about 6 per cent, is bigger even than the USA's. All that suggests that the Australian dollar has further to fall.
日本企业重组不彻底
可以预料，花王(Kao)和嘉娜宝(Kanebo)合并案的失败，以及从中体现的多数日本公司顽固守旧的状况，已令信奉市场法则的人感到愤慨，而且他们理应如此。但是，密室交易的严重程度还只是逐渐呈现出来。
扼要说一点：花王是一家成功的家用品公司，它准备以4400亿日元的价格收购嘉娜宝的化妆品业务。对债务缠身的嘉娜宝而言，化妆品业务是它唯一成功的部分，若非如此，该集团的业务全线亏损。分析师对嘉娜宝化妆品业务的估价是2000亿到3000亿日元，就此来看，花王的报价溢价很高。
考虑到嘉娜宝5200亿日元的债务，人们原本以为，花王的收购要约好得难以拒绝，但嘉娜宝就是拒绝了，理由是收购后可能会有裁员而遭致工会反对。相反，它投入了日本产业再生机构(IRCJ)的怀抱。日本产业再生机构是日本政府投资设立的机构，旨在重组危困企业，预计该机构将为嘉娜宝纾困，但将由纳税人承担巨额纾困费用。
迄今为止，一切看来都很糟糕。不过，自那以后发生了两件事，使目前这种混乱局面显得略微让人舒心了些。然而，那只是最初印象。
第一件事，嘉娜宝总裁提出辞职，随后公司整个董事会也递交辞呈。这对日本产业再生机构是个打击吗？不能完全这么说。嘉娜宝(Kanebo)的主要债权银行三井住友银行(Sumitomo Mitsui)似乎还有一个重要客户，它的名字也以"K"打头，那就是花王(Kao)。花王因并购失败而非常生气，为让花王息怒，这家银行安排嘉娜宝董事会"引咎自裁"。结果也许是正确的，但公司治理几乎没有发挥作用。
第二件事是：现在看来，日本产业再生机构将整个接管嘉娜宝，而且将仅仅支付约3800亿日元，要比市场担心的价格还少。另外，这好像是日本产业再生机构在对嘉娜宝管理层采取强硬措施，但实际上，真正原因只是这样一个事实：只有通过接管整个公司，日本产业再生机构才能从嘉娜宝的银行获得一些贷款豁免。
公正地说，这样做会节省一些公共资金，但考虑到嘉娜宝遗留的资产净值为负数，可能也节省不了多少。但具有讽刺意味的是，尽管嘉娜宝管理层过去的经营纪录一团糟，但他们必须按照日本产业再生机构的规则寻求帮助，没人能强迫它们放弃对公司的控制权。
香港的预算与税收
虽然经济复苏已开始重新充盈香港的政府金库，但明天公布的2004/2005年预算案，将提醒人们关注香港严峻的财政形势。过去5年中，香港特区财政赤字累计已达1460亿港元。若把投资收入、资产和土地销售额计算在内，赤字额将增至2150亿港元，这三项数字都不稳定，而且最终都是不可持续的收入源。
因此，解决这一根本结构性赤字的重任，就落到了香港新任财政司司长唐英年(Henry Tang)的身上。香港政府已采取一些措施来削减开支，比如削减公务员薪水和教育津贴，尽管从长期来看，削减教育经费似乎会起到反作用。
但真正棘手的问题是如何获得更稳定的收入来源，说白了，就是如何增加税收。根据摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)的数据，2001/02年，仅有37%的就业人员缴纳所得税，这一指标很好地说明了香港的税基是多么狭窄。
另一方面，香港的税收系统已经相当进步。整个税收的一半由收入最高的5%的人缴纳，因此有人提出引入商品服务税(GST)，以便纳税负担不仅由富人和中产阶级来承担，而这个想法引起了争议。
虽然许多香港人对此感到沮丧，但缴纳增殖税在发达国家这并不是什么新鲜事。即便在亚洲，几乎每个国家，包括中国、菲律宾和马来西亚等较贫穷的国家，都征收一定程度的增殖税。
唐先生不妨两种做法都采用些--在提高所得税的同时引入新的商品服务税，以便平衡预算并维持香港目前强劲的信用评级。但是，谁说做一名政客就是要受人欢迎呢？
澳元仍将进一步下挫
澳大利亚又过了美妙的一周。第四季度同比经济增长率达4%，是2000以来最强劲的水平，且大大高于预期。企业投资、消费者支出，甚至农业领域都呈现健康态势。
即便如此，在过去一个月内，澳元兑美元汇率大幅下挫，而此前12个月里澳元兑美元升值37%。上周，澳大利亚央行决定维持利率不变，在一定程度上导致澳元走软，澳元兑美元从2月18日的80美分跌至75美分以下。而就在2月16日，本专栏曾怀疑澳元兑美元汇率是否已经见顶。
接下来两三个月里，(预计)会有另一次加息，此举应能重新为澳元提供支撑。但目前，经济增长和商品价格强势也许已反映在澳元汇率中，而全球各地的投资者正越来越多地关注国家经常项目赤字等不平衡因素。就此而言，有必要记住，澳大利亚的经常项目赤字相当于其国内生产总值的6%，甚至高于美国的赤字水平，这一切均显示，澳元兑美元将进一步下挫。
