Posts tagged ‘List of companies of China’

21/11/2016

U.S. panel urges ban on China state firms buying U.S. companies | Reuters

U.S. lawmakers should take action to ban China’s state-owned firms from acquiring U.S. companies, a congressional panel charged with monitoring security and trade links between Washington and Beijing said on Wednesday.

In its annual report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said the Chinese Communist Party has used state-backed enterprises as the primary economic tool to advance and achieve its national security objectives.

The report recommended Congress prohibit U.S. acquisitions by such entities by changing the mandate of CFIUS, the U.S. government body that conducts security reviews of proposed acquisitions by foreign firms.

“The Commission recommends Congress amend the statute authorizing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to bar Chinese state-owned enterprises from acquiring or otherwise gaining effective control of U.S. companies,” the report said.CFIUS, led by the U.S. Treasury and with representatives from eight other agencies, including the departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security, now has veto power over acquisitions from foreign private and state-controlled firms if it finds that a deal would threaten U.S. national security or critical infrastructure.

If enacted, the panel’s recommendation would essentially create a blanket ban on U.S. purchases by Chinese state-owned enterprises.

The report “has again revealed the commission’s stereotypes and prejudices,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in Beijing.

“We ask that Chinese companies investing abroad abide by local laws and regulations, and we hope that relevant countries will create a level playing field,” he told a daily news briefing.

EXTRA WEIGHT

The panel’s report is purely advisory, but could carry extra weight this year because they come as President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is formulating its trade and foreign policy agenda and vetting candidates for key economic and security positions.

Congress also could be more receptive, after U.S. voter sentiment against job losses to China and Mexico helped Republicans retain control of both the House and the Senate in last week’s election.

Trump strongly criticized China throughout the U.S. election campaign, grabbing headlines with his pledges to slap 45 percent tariffs on imported Chinese goods and to label the country a currency manipulator on his first day in office.

“Chinese state owned enterprises are arms of the Chinese state,” Dennis Shea, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, told a news conference.

“We don’t want the U.S. government purchasing companies in the United States, why would we want the Chinese Communist government purchasing companies in the United States?”

The recommendation to change laws governing CFIUS was one of 20 proposals the panel made to Congress. On the military side, it called for a government investigation into how far outsourcing to China has weakened the U.S. defense industry.

The 16-year-old panel also said Congress should pass legislation that would require its pre-approval of any move by the U.S. Commerce Department to declare China a “market economy” and limit anti-dumping tariffs against the country.

The United States and U.S. businesses attracted a record $64.5 billion worth of deals involving buyers from mainland China this year, more than any other country targeted by Chinese buyers, according to Thomson Reuters data.

The push into the United States is part of a global overseas buying spree by Chinese companies that this year has seen a record $200 billion worth of deals, nearly double last year’s tally.

CFIUS has shown a higher degree of activism against Chinese buyers this year, catching some by surprise. Prominent deals that fell victim to CFIUS include Tsinghua Holdings’ $3.8 billion investment in Western Digital (WDC.O).

Overall, data do not demonstrate CFIUS has been a significant obstacle for Chinese investment in the United States. In 2014, the latest year for which data is available, China topped the list of foreign countries in CFIUS review with 24 deals reviewed out of more than 100 scrutinized by CFIUS.

Although the number of Chinese transactions reviewed rose in absolute terms, it fell as a share of overall Chinese acquisitions, the report noted, and the vast majority of deals reviewed by CFIUS were cleared.

Source: U.S. panel urges ban on China state firms buying U.S. companies | Reuters

Advertisements
20/08/2016

The Chinese admiral who spread Islam across Southeast Asia | South China Morning Post

Near my childhood home in Kunming (昆明), Yunnan (雲南) province, is a park dedicated to its most famous son: Admiral Zheng He.

Our teacher would take us to pay tribute to the great eunuch of the Ming dynasty, recounting his legendary seven expeditions that brought glory to the motherland.

The marble bust of Zheng He shows the face of a typical Chinese, with a square chin, brushy eyebrows and a flat nose. My father joked it more resembled comrade Lei Feng than the admiral. Not until years later did I realise how true this was.

A statue of Zheng He in Nanjing, where his armada was built. File photo

The statue was erected in 1979 – a year after Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) launched his open-door policy. Zheng, barely mentioned during the Cultural Revolution, was plucked from obscurity and hailed as a national hero who embodied China’s open spirit. A park near his ancestral home was dedicated to him. The same craftsmen who churned out revolutionary statues were employed to build his.

In real life, Zheng probably looked very different. My school textbook mentioned only that he was a Hui minority (Muslim Chinese). In fact, the admiral was a descendent of a powerful Persian family. Records discovered in 1913 trace his lineage to Sayyid Ajall, who was sent by Kublai Khan to conquer Yunnan and became its first governor. In 2014, Chinese scientists at Fudan University in Shanghai put the theory to test. They examined DNA samples collected from descendents of the admiral’s close kin and found they originated from Persia, modern-day Iran. In addition to Zheng He, most senior officers of the storied Ming armada were also Muslims.

Beijing follows the route well travelled by Admiral Zheng He in its belt and road initiative

Over the past decades, researchers have concluded Zhang and his armada were the key force behind Islam’s spread in Southeast Asia. The Arabs established settlements in Southeast Asia from the eighth century. But Islam did not become dominant there until the 15th century – around the time Admiral Zheng began to sail in the South China Sea. Historians found evidence of Zheng’s missionary work in documents discovered in Semarang, Indonesia, by Dutch officials in 1925. This prompted Indonesian religious leader Hamka to write in 1961: “The development of Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia is intimately related to a Chinese Muslim, Admiral Zheng He.

”A crowning moment of Zheng’s expedition was converting the King of Malacca, Parameswara, to Islam shortly after he paid homage to the Yongle Emperor in Beijing in 1411. The conversion played a crucial role in the spread of Islam in Southeast Asia, according to Professor Xiao Xian of Yunnan University.

A replica of a ship used by Ming Dynasty eunuch explorer Zheng He, in Nanjing. Photo: Reuters

Xiao was one of the scholars who presented research work on Zheng He at an international symposium in 2005. They painted a vivid picture of the Ming armada, which had all the elements of a multinational enterprise.

The 300 ships – many twice as big as the largest European vessels of the time – were constructed in dry docks in Nanjing ( 南京 ), Jiangsu ( 江蘇 ) province. Building materials were sourced from across the Ming Empire. The 27,000-strong crew included Han Chinese, Muslim Hui, Arabs, Persians, and peoples from Central and East Asia. The lingua franca was Persian or Sogdian – a language used for centuries by merchants of the ancient Silk Road, according to Professor Liu Yingsheng of Nanjing University.

Size was not the only difference between Zheng’s fleet and that of Christopher Columbus 70 years later. The Europeans aboard the Santa Maria were exclusively Catholic – the Ming fleet was culturally and religiously diverse. Zheng was a Muslim but he was fluent in the teachings of Confucius, Buddhism and classic Chinese philosophy. The fleet included many Buddhist missionaries. Many regard his expeditions as the high-water mark of Chinese civilization. The Ming armada’s true greatness lay not in its size or sophistication but in its diversity and tolerance.

A statue of famed Chinese navigator Zheng He overlooks the city of Nanjing, Jiangsu province. Photo: AFP

After the Yongle Emperor’s death, the Ming court lost its global vision. Power was in the hands of the Confucius gentry-class, who jealously guarded against other schools of thoughts. China became increasingly introspective and insulated. The court stopped further expeditions and banned seafaring. The Chinese civilization gradually lost its vigour and started a long decline.

Today as the new “Silk Road” and “soft power” become China’s new catchphrases, it is important to remember what makes the Chinese civilization unique in the first place. Its greatest strength lies in its people’s amazing ability to absorb, adopt and assimilate different cultures.

Buddhism, which originated in India, flourished in China. The Zen school – a hybrid of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism – spread to East Asia by monks in the Tang dynasty and became mainstream. Islam arrived from Central Asia and the Middle East during the Yuan and Ming dynasties. It took root in western China before spreading to Southeast Asia with Zhang’s fleet. We should remember that until 100 years ago, China was not a nation state in the Westphalian sense. Narrow-minded nationalism and xenophobia are the exception rather than the norm of the world’s oldest surviving civilization.

Source: The Chinese admiral who spread Islam across Southeast Asia | South China Morning Post

01/11/2015

China Abandons the One-Child Policy – China Real Time Report – WSJ

China on Thursday said it would formally end its notorious one-child policy, which was intended to curb a surging population but has since been blamed for looming demographic problems in the world’s No. 2 economy.

As WSJ’s Carlos Tejada reports: In a brief statement on Thursday, China’s official Xinhua News Agency said all Chinese would be allowed to have two children. It didn’t provide a time frame or any other details. China effectively hobbled the one-child policy two years ago, when it allowed couples to have two children if one parent came from a household without other siblings. It has also long allowed exceptions in some parts of the country. Advertisement

Still, Thursday’s move marked a symbolic shift as well as an acknowledgment that China now faces a looming worker-shortage in coming decades. China’s fertility rate, or the number of births per woman, was below the replacement level at 1.17 in 2013, according to the most recent data from the World Bank. Demographers have been urging Beijing to do more to thwart a predicted labor shortage, arguing that they should lift birth restrictions entirely. Read the full story on WSJ.com. Sign up for CRT’s daily newsletter to get the latest headlines by email.

Source: China Abandons the One-Child Policy – China Real Time Report – WSJ

21/10/2015

Powering Down: Chinese Electricity Demand Stalls Amid Slowing Growth – China Real Time Report – WSJ

A slowing economy means keeping the lights on in China is getting a whole lot easier.

The China Electricity Council, a state-backed industry group, is trimming its estimate of just how much power the country needs, after weak third-quarter economic data on Monday reinforced fears about a slowdown of China’s economy. The official Xinhua News Agency on Tuesday quoted Ouyang Changyu, deputy secretary general of the China Electricity Council, as saying the group had revised down its full-year electricity-demand estimate to 1% growth this year, from 2% previously. As recently as 2011, electricity demand had grown by 12% annually.

The revised estimate reflects both a slowdown in China’s overall growth rate—which is struggling to hit the government’s target of about 7% this year—as well as important changes in the type of growth China is experiencing. The government wants to make the country less reliant on the energy-intensive sectors that propelled growth for four decades and instead shift toward cleaner and higher-paying industries and companies, ranging from financial services to web-based startups. In the first nine months of 2015, electricity demand has grown by .8%, down from 3.9% growth in the same period last year.

Electricity demand that is falling far faster than the government’s GDP data is among the reasons economists and investors are skeptical over the accuracy of official growth figures. The government said Monday GDP rose 6.9% in the first quarter. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said in 2007 – back when he was a more junior official — that he relied on electricity data among other hard figures to get a truer picture of the country’s economic health.

Beyond electricity, other reasons for skepticism over the data include the decline of both imports and exports during the third quarter, weaker-than-expected industrial production and decelerating fixed-asset investment.

The ramifications of China’s slowing demand for electricity are global, and could contribute to weaker bottom lines at big companies such as coal and natural gas producers. Hong Kong-listed coal giant China Shenhua Energy Co. said its coal sales had plummeted by nearly one-fifth this year. The company is exporting far more coal this year than it’s importing — a sharp turnabout from 2014, when it imported four times as much coal as it exported.

The decline in electricity demand growth could also further weigh on natural gas—a cleaner alternative to coal in electricity production—which has suffered from stagnant demand this year.

Source: Powering Down: Chinese Electricity Demand Stalls Amid Slowing Growth – China Real Time Report – WSJ

14/05/2015

5 Gaps That Define the India-China Relationship, in Charts and Maps – WSJ

1 Trade Gap

To better understand why there is a gaping trade deficit between India and China, take a look at the list of things each country exports to the other.

Some of China’s biggest exports to India are telecommunications equipment, computer hardware, industrial machinery and other manufactured goods. India sends back mostly raw materials such as cotton yarn, copper, petroleum products and iron ore.

As India has grown its consumers and corporations have been importing an increasing amount of China’s affordable products but India’s exports to China have not kept pace.

During his visit to China, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be seeking better access to Chinese markets to correct the widening trade imbalance.

“The visit is going to be crucial because our trade deficit with China is very huge compared to other countries,” says N.R. Bhanumurthy, an economist at think-tank National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.

While China has a cost advantage in most products, analysts say India is very competitive in the pharmaceutical, textile and some services sectors. That is where it needs more access if it wants to start to rectify the skewed trade balance.

2 The 13-Year Gap

Even though India is now growing faster than China (see number 4)  the world’s largest democracy still has a way to go to catch up with the size of the economy in the world’s most populous nation.

China, though, got a 13-year head start on India in opening its economy and giving companies greater freedom to invest and produce. In exports, capital spending and foreign investment, India today is remarkably similar to China circa 2001.

That should both console and concern India as it gets back on its feet after three years of weak growth and high inflation. Console, since it suggests the country’s economy could remain on a China-like trajectory for years to come. But concern, because India’s delay could mean that the country has missed out on some big advantages that catalyzed China’s boom.

3 The Border Perception Gap

Friction along the two nations’ 2,200-mile-long border, much of which is undefined and contested, has mounted in recent years, India says. And it poses a serious hurdle to improving relations between Delhi and Beijing.

Part of the problem, Indian officials say, is that India and China have “differing perceptions” of their de facto border, known as the Line of Actual Control. Both sides patrol up to their respective perceptions of the border, leading to frequent claims of transgressions.

Without a clearly demarcated border, “it is quite natural for some incidents to happen,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Col.Geng Yansheng said in September during a border confrontation between the two countries.

4 The GDP Growth Rate Gap

Everyone from the World Bank to Goldman Sachs had predicted it wouldn’t happen for another two years but recent recalculations indicate that India has already dethroned China as the world’s fastest-growing big economy.

5 The FDI Gap

While Chinese companies have been great at peddling their products in India, they have been surprisingly reluctant to invest here. China has invested less in India than even Poland, Malaysia or Canada have.

via 5 Gaps That Define the India-China Relationship, in Charts and Maps – WSJ.

12/09/2014

Schumpeter: The China wave | The Economist

MANAGEMENT thinkers have paid surprisingly little attention to how Chinese firms are run. They routinely ascribe those firms’ rapid growth in recent years to their copious supply of cheap labour, or to generous financial backing from the state, rather than inventiveness. They have much more time for India, particularly its knack for frugal innovation, with all those colourful stories of banks putting cash machines on bikes and taking them into the countryside, and companies building water purifiers out of coconut husks.

However, it seems unlikely that China’s companies have come as far as they have just by applying lots of labour and capital. It is also hard to imagine that the huge expansion of China’s education system and its technology industries is not producing fresh management thinking. Western companies knew little about Japan’s system of lean production until its carmakers gobbled up their markets. The danger is that the same will happen with Chinese management ideas.

There are, however, signs that these are now getting the attention they deserve. The MIT Sloan Management Review devotes much of its current issue to examining innovation and management lessons from China. Peter Williamson and Eden Yin of Cambridge University’s Judge Business School contribute a fascinating essay on “Accelerated Innovation: the New Challenge from China”. The latest issue of the Harvard Business Review has a piece on “A Chinese Approach to Management” by Thomas Hout of the Monterey Institute of International Studies and David Michael of the Boston Consulting Group.

The first article suggests that the Chinese, like the post-war Japanese, have been doing a great deal of innovation under the radar. The second demonstrates that they are becoming more creative as they seek to solve the problems of a rapidly advancing consumer economy.

Messrs Williamson and Yin focus on the way that many Chinese companies are using mass-production techniques to speed up not just the manufacture but also the development of products. They break up the innovation process into a large number of small steps and then assign (often sizeable) teams to work on each step. For example, WuXiAppTec, a drug company, divided the search for a new treatment for chronic hepatitis C into eight steps, assigning dozens of people to each. The firm also adapted German software that was designed for managing assembly lines to co-ordinate the innovation process. Whereas a Western software firm typically releases an early “beta” version of a product only to a select group of guinea-pigs, Chinese firms are more likely to launch theirs straight into the market: they use consumers as co-creators, seeking their feedback and then rapidly adjusting their products.

This sort of accelerated innovation may not generate stunning breakthroughs. But that is not what it is for. China’s success has depended on its ability to be a “fast follower”, copying foreign ideas and turning them into mass-market products. Messrs Williamson and Yin argue that the Chinese can now apply accelerated innovation in lots of areas; and that the technique helps them make better use of one of the country’s most important resources—a pool of competent but unexceptional technicians.

Messrs Hout and Michael are also struck by Chinese companies’ emphasis on speed, and their willingness to throw things at the market. Goodbaby, which makes prams and car seats, introduces about 100 new products each quarter. Broad Group, a construction firm, puts up buildings rapidly by breaking them up into modules, fabricating those modules in factories, pre-loaded with utilities, and then plugging them together: an idea long talked about in the rich world but not much implemented.

However, their paper’s focus is broader—on how Chinese entrepreneurs are coping with the speed at which technology-related industries are changing. They note that even big companies delegate lots of authority to preserve flexibility: Haier, a home-appliances giant, consists of thousands of mini-companies, each of which reports directly to the chairman. That is an interesting contrast with Japanese firms’ obsession with seniority and consensus-building.

Messrs Hout and Michael also highlight the creativity of some Chinese companies when faced with the need to build entire ecosystems out of thin air, from supply chains to labour pools. Hai Di Lao, a hotpot restaurant chain, deals with one of its biggest problems—recruiting and retaining young people to train as branch managers—by offering them housing, schooling for their children and trips abroad. This sort of imaginative thinking on how to attract good workers will increasingly be needed now that China has used up most of its surplus rural labour.

via Schumpeter: The China wave | The Economist.

28/07/2014

Beijing gets tough on party officials who go private | The Times

China’s intensifying anti-corruption campaign has turned its guns on the people who link government and business, forcing nearly 230 senior Communist party officials to quit the company directorships they hold on the side.

China’s president Xi Jinping

The draconian orders, which have also affected tens of thousands of more junior officials moonlighting for corporate China, are said to have unleashed a mass “exodus” of independent directors from listed Chinese companies in recent months.

The government has promised there will be more to come. China’s state news agency warned that the authorities were planning another “detailed directive” that analysts believe would attempt to tighten further the restrictions on the roles officials can play in the private sector.

The rules are expected to crack down on the activities of retired officials: as the rules stand, they are able to take on company directorships if those positions do not relate to their former specialities as civil servants.

Sources believe that the new directives will broaden the terms of the ban in a way that could affect foreign companies in the mining, energy, banking and pharmaceutical sectors.

The same burst of anti-corruption propaganda also invited the public to “blow the whistle on violations”.

The crackdown began last autumn with a ban on senior government and party officials from working for outside companies. Although a few resignations followed that ban, the real purge did not begin until scores of listed companies were subjected to an inspection a few months later.

That inspection, according to Chinese state media, identified 229 officials at the ministerial or provincial level who were working for outside companies and 40,700 junior officials with a source of company income outside their civil servant salaries.

About 300 Chinese companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges have apparently been affected by the shakedown, losing the officials they specifically hired to build relationships with Beijing and bring the companies closer to the government.

The central role of those relationships within Chinese business has been laid bare over the past two years as details have emerged of the fabulous wealth amassed by the families of senior officials.

Also exposed has been the extent to which western companies operating in China have been convinced that their success can only be guaranteed by hiring either former officials or people with exceptionally strong personal links to the central and provincial governments.

via Beijing gets tough on party officials who go private | The Times.

09/07/2014

China signs deal to purchase 123 Airbus helicopters | Reuters

Airbus Group NV’s (AIR.PA) helicopter division sealed a $600 million deal on Monday to sell 123 helicopters to Chinese companies during a visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The logo of Airbus Group, Europe's largest aerospace group, is pictured in front of the company headquarters building in Ottobrunn, near Munich February 26, 2014.  REUTERS/Michaela Rehle

The orders, including both light single-engine helicopters from Airbus Helicopters’ Ecureuil family and the light twin-engine EC135, are being placed by three Chinese general aviation service providers, the company said.

The deal is among the biggest since China recently relaxed restrictions on low-altitude flying in its mainly military-controlled airspace.

The easing of controls has fueled projections of a sharp increase of orders to fill a gap in one of the world’s major untapped markets for helicopters and general aviation.

“We think these first sizeable contracts are signals that this market is starting to take off,” said Guillaume Faury, chief executive of Airbus Helicopters.

“Today there are 350 civil helicopters flying in China. In Europe there are 10,0000 and in the U.S. there are 12,000. Therefore the market potential for helicopters in China is huge,” he said in a telephone interview.

China currently buys about 50 helicopters a year out of an annual global market for 800 civilian helicopters, according to estimates by Airbus Helicopters, formerly known as Eurocopter.

By 2020, its purchases are expected to quadruple to 200 a year and by then, instead of 6-7 percent of the global market, it is expected to make up 20 percent of demand, Faury said.

via China signs deal to purchase 123 Airbus helicopters | Reuters.

12/02/2014

Xiaomi is the world’s third most innovative company; “Made in China” now a compliment – Yahoo News Singapore

For the longest time, China has been known as a manufacturing powerhouse and because of that, its quality of goods has a notorious reputation. Consumers shun away and give products a smirk whenever there is a “Made in China” label on it.

American consumers associate Chinese manufacturing with the terms “mass produced,” “cheap” and “poor safety standards” more than anything else.

However, that is now changing.

“Made in China” is now a compliment as the emphasis on quality is returning.

Fast Company just announced their own list of the World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. Other than tech giants from the west such as Google, Apple, Tesla, Dropbox and a handful of others, several Chinese companies rose to the list, raising the eyebrows of industry watchers.

In particular, Xiaomi, emerged as the third most innovative company just behind Google and Bloomberg, beating several other companies including Apple and Nike. Xiaomi is reinventing the smartphone business, a segment that is exploding around the world now.

via Xiaomi is the world’s third most innovative company; “Made in China” now a compliment – Yahoo News Singapore.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Law of Unintended Consequences

continuously updated blog about China & India

ChiaHou's Book Reviews

continuously updated blog about China & India

What's wrong with the world; and its economy

continuously updated blog about China & India