The China Vortex

This is pretty self-explanatory.

Investors who bought notes due February 2018 on March 17, just after the Fed helped arrange the bailout of Bear Stearns Cos., have lost 6.2 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

The 10-year note, at 4.25 percent, yields no more than the inflation rate, leaving investors with real returns near zero. Consumer prices have exceeded 10-year yields by an average of 36 basis points since December, Bloomberg data show. In 1980, inflation reached a 33-year high of 14.8 percent and yields averaged 11.4 percent.

`Out of the Bottle’

Yields on 10-year notes had dropped to an almost five-year low of 3.28 percent on March 17, after the Fed cut the discount rate at an emergency weekend meeting and backed JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s deal to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Rates on three-month bills plunged to 0.39 percent, the lowest since the 1950s, the same day as investors sought the safety of the shortest maturity government debt.

Consumer prices advanced 4.2 percent in May from a year earlier, the Labor Department said June 13. The rate was above the median forecast of 3.9 percent in a Bloomberg survey of economists, and the highest since January.
Economists at New York-based Morgan Stanley say inflation will reach 5 percent to 5.5 percent this summer, the highest since 1991.

“The global inflation genie is out of the bottle,’’ Morgan Stanley analysts led by Joachim Fels, co-head of global economics, said in a June 11 report. Even if the pace moderates in coming months, “we are likely to see higher average inflation rates,’’ they said. Inflation averaged 3.1 percent during the past two decades.
`Unsustainable Levels’

Inflation is also eliminating the rewards of owning U.S. stocks. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index shares yield 0.2 percentage point more in profits than the interest on 10-year notes, the smallest advantage since 2004, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The last time corporate earnings returned less than bonds, the index posted its biggest monthly decline in five years.

“What did you say? You wanted us to buy more US assets?”

Oh, and I forgot to mention, this is in straight dollar terms only. You need to also figure in how much the US dollar is going to depreciate against other currencies in the coming ten years.

“Ouch!”

I wonder how the Chinese government is going to explain this to Chinese citizens, since it is their official responsibility to protect Chinese investments and assets? And that the situation, particularly re inflation, is going to get much worse before it gets better?

And it really doesn’t matter who becomes US president either, at least with regard to this set of issues.

Not even a US president can do anything about this.

Technorati Tags: assets, bearstearns, bloomberg, China, corporate, dollar, earnings, inflation, investment, notes, US

China Law Blog is a good source of legal information about Chinese business and investment regulations and one of his comments in my previous post got me thinking about why Chinese entrepreneurs don’t like to work not just with American lawyers, but lawyers of any nationality.

Here is his comment in full:

Right idea. Wrong country. What you predict will happen, I am certain of it. I am certain of it because our German and Russian clients have over the last few weeks been calling us (here in the US) like crazy to help with this or that deal they are doing or want to do. The deals range from high tech to old line manufacturing (that’s right) to real estate. When we tell them our legal fees I can almost hear them gasp (particularly the Germans) at how low they seem for those used to paying in Euros. That’s right, step right up, the US is on sale to foreigners ….. Like it or not. BTW, no calls from Chinese and I don’t expect many either, both because they tend not to use lawyers so much and they also tend not to be big buyers of existing US companies. At least not yet.

So why is it that Chinese entrepreneurs don’t like to use lawyers and legal services, even when using them the right way, and intelligently, will help them to greatly expand their businesses?

I have a theory.

For many Chinese, “the law” is whatever the Chinese government says it is. Just because some new kind of business is done in China, does not mean it is legal, it is just tolerated. It usually means that it is so new to the slow-moving bureaucracy that it hasn’t figured out whether it should be legal or illegal, so it’s “tolerated”.

Your business may be tolerated, then the government says it is “illegal”, or it may be tolerated, then the government says it is “legal”. Then it might switch from “legal” to “illegal” and told to shutdown almost overnight. This happens, and continues to happen all the time. This is part of the price of doing business in China.

Here’s another example.

The Chinese government says that new businesses in China have to list their “business categories” and the business they are in. Think about it; does this make sense? From a business point of view, it makes little if any sense. Let’s say a consulting business needs to do a marketing survey. They may run afoul of the law because this is not allowed; they registered as a consulting business but need to do a marketing survey for a client who wants to enter the Chinese market. So while it makes perfect business sense to do this, the bureaucrats and regulators prevent it from doing so, because from their POV (the government regulators), categorizing businesses makes more sense.

Among Chinese business people, there is a large degree of frustration at these sudden changes which come out in the morning, and may change before the sun goes down. For Chinese entrepreneurs, this is the face of the law.

So, in order to succeed, they spend a huge amount of their time avoiding the regulators and getting warned, or even shut down. If the regulation comes from Beijing and they are in Hangzhou, they will go talk with Hangzhou city government officials to avoid getting crushed because local Chinese officials have the power to “interpret” the law. Sometimes this means ignoring what Beijing says, without openly confronting Beijing.

And this is why many Chinese entrepreneurs avoid lawyers, because so much of the time, the government officials are the face of the law, and are not there to represent their rights, but are there to warn them, or even shut them down. So, from their perspective, the law is bad news.

When Chinese companies go overseas, they continue to act this way. They avoid relatively small up-front legal fees, thinking that they can outmaneuver them and the regulators, never thinking that the law can in fact work both ways, and can help them to gain benefits. They are guilty of thinking that they are still in China and behave as if they were still in China.

Moreover, they know that the advantage of Chinese businesses lie in their cost structure, and fear losing it if they go overseas. This means that they act very cheap when they go overseas, and acquire reputations for being cheap and micro-managing their foreign employees, trying to extract every little bit of time and value out of them.

In the long-term, this hurts the reputation of Chinese companies as a whole.

In fact, company cost structures evolve and adapt to the market and society they are a part of. No country can have the same cost structure as China, just as no country can have the same values as America does.

And there is no reason that they should.

Technorati Tags: , America, business, China, costs, illegal, investment, law, lawyers, legal

One of my recurring themes is that Americans have become too good at consuming, down to the point of consuming their children’s futures through deficit spending, and have not done enough to invest in the future. This is an important legacy of the current Bush administration which has repeatedly mortgaged the future in order to achieve their short-term political goals.

China has done a somewhat better job of investing in education and infrastructure; the recent snowstorms and transportation breakdowns in central and southern China have shown that even though large amounts have been spent, there is still a long road to go before China has a modern transport infrastructure which can serve the needs of its 1.3B citizens.

At one time, Americans were respected worldwide for their ability to make things. Now, these capabilities have been largely outsourced. Instead, American politics is much more focused on fractious issues which have little or no substantive meaning, but are manufactured to capture air time on television or on the Internet. The result: an increasingly polarized society where people increasingly talk at each other, instead of to each other.

For this reason, I was very pleased that a group of concerned Americans have set up a website to debate the future of science in the US, and the platforms of the respective presidential candidates on the issue.

If you are concerned about the future of American science, then you should take a look at it.

Technorati Tags: American, China, debate, future, infrastructure, investment, science, technology, transportation, US

Chinese can be very peculiar about some things.

One thing which is especially peculiar by western standards is that they get really annoyed and angry when a lot of money is lost, and they are not afraid to say so. Take the Chinese government’s loss, er investment, in Blackstone Group for example.

Within several weeks of the investment being made, Blackstone’s share price took a bath, and many Chinese got really angry. As a matter of fact, they got so annoyed that they actually demanded accountability. They reasoned that since this was their money, they had some say about it.

Obviously not a rational move. They just don’t understand the rules of the game.

Compare this with the subprime mortgage scandal in the US, which has morphed into a never-ending nightmare, seemingly growing bigger and bigger all the time…

Has anyone been blamed or gone to jail? No. Has anyone been held accountable? No. Have newspaper editorials placed the blame on anyone for the disappearance of billions, maybe trillions, in dollars? No. Is anyone angry because the futures of millions of Americans have been put in financial jeopardy? No. Have you heard any of the candidates talk about doing something about this? No.

We are above such petty finger-pointing, which won’t do any good anyway.

We’ve got more important things to worry about like race, and the right to life, and illegal immigrants taking American jobs, just to name a few…

In the meantime, the Chinese are having a hard time finding Chinese fund managers who want to invest and manage their trillion+ in reserves, especially since the Chinese manager of the Blackstone Group investment was unceremoniously removed from his post. Managing all this money sounds like an invitation to an execution.

Your own.

In the meantime, the French are partying with recent events of their own at Societe Generale…

In light of recent events, many Chinese can be excused if they think that globalization sounds more than a little like an invitation to the premier crossing of the Titanic from Southampton to New York.

UPDATE: Just in case you had any doubts the inmates might indeed be running the insane asylum, read this.
(hat tip to Chris Masse).

Technorati Tags: blackstone, China, funds, globalization, investment, titanic, US

In the west, there is a whole industry called “risk consultancy”. Basically, this industry is built around informing large- and medium-sized corporations about risk. Originally, this was built around business risk and would answer questions like “How safe is it to invest $500M in an industrial diamond mine in the Congo (formerly Zaire)?” The consulting firm would then send practice consultants to the target country, where they would study sunk costs (including bribes which were never written about in the report, regulations, who was related to the president, political opposition, major competing firms, etc.) Most of these questions were positioned as questions which any board would ask the CEOs before they would greenlight an investment.

Underlying all this is the belief, at least in west and among western corporations that “risk” is something which can be quantified and measured objectively.

One of the big topics in the west now is China’s investments in Africa. What is fascinating about China’s investments in Africa is that while the amounts of money and people who go to Africa are huge, China really doesn’t have risk consultancies, and Chinese really have not yet started thinking in terms of quantifying risk in the ways western corporations have.

So how have the Chinese judged risk so far, and will the present method change over time to something more akin to the western way of thinking? When it comes to Chinese investments in Africa, many of the early-stage investments were a part of Chinese foreign policy aimed at securing raw materials for manufacturing, and more importantly, energy sources. The typical model has been to find a country, build a new palace for the president and a new sports stadium to win over the people. This would help state-owned construction firms to gain a footing in the country, which were then quickly followed by Chinese logistics firms and wholesale distribution firms which would sell products to the local African population.

Viewing the local African population as customers were one area where Chinese viewed Africa fundamentally differently from the west. While Beijing, Shanghai and the Chinese tier one and tier two cities are relatively modern, it is very easy to forget that when it comes to pervasive poverty, China is only 10-20 years removed from the levels of African poverty. Basically, Chinese companies know how to sell to poor people because they had lots of practice in China.

When you are working from a low cost basis, there really is not a whole lot of need to measure risk because the only way to go is up. Remember, in China labor is still very cheap compared to the west, and the Chinese government is always interested in keeping people employed in the interests of social stability. On the other hand, when you have large risks but your investments are backed by the Chinese government, there is not a need to measure them either. But things get complicated when you are in the middle, and are a mid-sized Chinese company (US50M-1B) which is private and are looking at Africa, as many are now.

Right now, the path many are taking is to send executives, management and staff wholesale to Africa, and basically telling them to figure things out on the ground. This is the Chinese version of “Let’s throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” approach. But what happens when you don’t really have the protection of the Chinese government and local Chinese embassy, and the Africans start complaining that Chinese companies aren’t creating enough local jobs for local Africans? Obviously, these are the sorts of questions which are very complicated, since they include a social factor, in addition to the corporate and economic equation.

Will the Chinese companies turn to the western risk consultancies? Not likely. First of all, they are too expensive by Chinese standards; Chinese management is still very price-sensitive and is not likely to be willing to spend the large amounts which these companies charge. Also, they are not likely to entrust this kind of sensitive information to an outside firm which may recirculate some of the data for a competitor. Most Chinese companies are very tightly held, and risk is whatever the CEO thinks it is at that moment in time.

For western corporations which work from a high-cost basis, risk consulting is an item on “research” for executives, even though it may easily run into the millions of dollars.

For the Chinese, that’s way too much…

Technorati Tags: africa, China, consulting, corporations, culture, investment, management, risk, western

This morning I was watching a TV program on China’s CCTV-4 which talked about the history of gold, historically and in China. The program, all in Mandarin, had a fascinating format. It started off with history and the Bretton Woods agreement of 1945 and when the US controlled about 80% of the world’s gold reserves. At the time, the US Federal Reserve had a standing policy of letting non-US citizens redeem their gold at a price of US$35 per troy ounce, while not allowing Americans to own gold. Then, as the value of the dollar fell, Nixon basically opted out of Bretton Woods and the US government would no longer redeem gold. This started the period of different currencies floating against each other in floating exchange rates.

Before and during Bretton Woods, because of the tie to gold, the US dollar was often referred to as “meijin” 美金 instead of the now popular term “meiyuan” 美元 or US dollar. The implication is that in earlier times, the US dollar was as good as gold.

Not now.

In 1979 with 17% inflation in the US and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, gold shot up to US$850 an ounce. Then when things settled down, so did gold prices.

Now, because of all the trouble with the US dollar and the subprime mortgage crisis, gold is back between US$700-800 per troy ounce.

Then the program took a curious turn and started interviewing Chinese who were investing their savings in gold. The best way to describe it was as if it had suddenly become the Home Shopping Channel program for gold. China opened up the gold market to trading for Chinese retail investors in Oct. 2002. Then it proceeded to interview housewives and ordinary Chinese urban consumers about their investments in different gold markets, all in China, and how much money they had made. Then there were interviews with gold analysts for gold exchange websites, all of whom were gold bulls.

And this program went on and on for an hour. The interesting thing is that this program was broadcast on CCTV-4, which is the news channel. And of course, nothing gets on this channel without official approval. The underlying message of the program was that gold is a good investment for Chinese investors in turbulent times. Not euros, not yen, and certainly not the dollar.

Gold. So go forth and buy gold, and rest assured that you will not lose your investment money. I could not escape the impression that the Chinese government was trying to talk its citizens out of putting their savings in dollars, and wanted them to save their money in gold.

Fascinating!

Ever since the subprime mortgage crisis began, the US dollar has become the currency nobody wants. Private equity and venture capital firms from the US have been actively investing in Chinese companies, just because they want to get out of US dollars. This pace is picking up as even the top-tier VCs from the US are relocating to China. Sometimes I think that if you breathe and can count to 10 in English you can get seed funding for your China startup. (Follow-up rounds are not as easy; they depend on company fundamentals, at least for now.)

It seems like the Chinese are getting tired of buying economic activity in the form of exports to the US, and getting paid in depreciating dollars. Add to that some other recent tensions, and you get the picture that things are going to start getting more rocky on the economic, military and political fronts.

There was a time when the US financial markets were looked up to and trusted by the Chinese and the rest of the world as a model. That trust has been shattered. At the end of the day, that is what capital markets depend on to work: trust. Already we are seeing a trend away from going public in the US and to other capital markets.

All of this adds up to my view that globalization is one of those ideas which makes good sense when viewed from 30,000 feet, but simply will not work in the real world of economic, political and military power.

The US dollar’s fall, in a way, is a direct result of globalization. When the US had the world’s leading economy and was the home of the world’s most voracious consumers (consumers who continued to consume even after they had no savings), the rest of the world had almost no choice except to use the dollar as the main currency for international transactions. With the rise of Japan, then the European Union, and now China and the African nations, that has all changed. Economic strength and activity are now highly diversified; there is no single center of power.

China is investing heavily in the development of Africa. The world-famous China-Europe International Business School (CEIBS) based in Pudong, Shanghai will soon announce plans for an African campus. Other parts of the world, including India and oil-rich countries of the world continue to grow. And they have less need for dollars which continue to depreciate in value. Add on to this the general unpopularity of US foreign policy in the rest of the world. They are looking for more stable investments which more or less keep their value.

All this adds up to a picture of a world which has less demand for dollars. If the US did not rely on depreciating the dollar as a policy to lessen the debt burden, the falloff would not have been as precipitous as it has become. Sometime soon, American consumers will have to learn about living within their means, and saving money. I’m of the opinion that the sooner they learn, the better. In order for it be worthwhile for Americans to save, the dollar must be stable.

If there is one thing impressive about China, it’s all the investment in infrastructure. Sure, a lot of it is tacky and even poorly constructed, and sometimes there are bridge collapses, but it is getting better in quality. Most importantly, the government is building for the future.

It’s time the US started investing more in its own future, instead of just consuming for today.

But now, the world is looking for other choices besides the US and the US dollar. And globalization is giving the rest of the world more choices to pick from.

Technorati Tags: , , China, consumer, dollar, economy, globalization, gold, infrastructure, investment, trade, US

Over the past few years, one subject has dominated Chinese thinking on the government and enterprise levels: how to take Chinese brands global. During the runup to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and then the Shanghai Expo in 2010, this subject will become even more popular, as China’s economic power grows and the US’s economic dominance gradually recedes.

So far, the thinking is that Chinese companies, with some degree of Chinese government assistance, should buy leading US brands and manage them. This was the thinking, for example, behind Lenovo’s purchase of IBM’s money-losing PC division and the Thinkpad brand in 2004. It was also the thinking behind the aborted CNOOC purchase of Unocal, an offer which had to be withdrawn because of heavy US congressional pressure over security.

Outright purchases of foreign companies, in the form of hostile takeovers and mergers rarely go well, even when the cultures of the two companies are close. When they are as far apart as Chinese and western companies, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against success.

Now there is renewed interest in buying western companies for yet another reason: the Chinese government is sitting on US$1.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, and with the dollar falling against the euro and other major currencies, there is strong pressure to invest this money in something else besides US dollars, which will continue to depreciate. In order to slow down this depreciation, the Chinese government has announced that it will establish a Chinese sovereign wealth fund to invest about US$200-300B in higher-yield investments. Within the past year, sovereign wealth funds have proliferated as foreign governments seek to diversify their foreign-exchange reserves out of US dollars, especially as the US subprime mortgage lending crisis has spread overseas.

For the Chinese government, which likes to do great projects which it can then use in PR to the Chinese people, there is a fundamental bottleneck: there are not enough Chinese who have international experience managing global companies. And those who do have the skills usually decide to spend their time and effort in the private sector where their skills are more needed. In one article some time ago, Business Week claimed that China needed about 75,000 international executives while there are only 5,000 available.

There is another problem with creating global brands: in most sectors, it takes an awful long time to create them. If you look at Toyota in the automobile sector, it has taken the company mostly since the period from 1945 to become established as a leading quality maker. When it comes to manufacturing, global brands are not made, they are earned on the basis of quality products.

The place where brands have sprouted relatively quickly are in the computing and hi-tech sectors. Apple has been around since the 70s and has undergone a dramatic rebirth under the tutelage of its founder, Steve Jobs, who returned in 1997 after Apple’s acquisition of NeXT. Since his return, he has launched the iMac, iPod and now iPhone lines, all of which have won critical acclaim from users worldwide. Steve Jobs has shown that he is that rare type of executive, someone who learns from his mistakes and is passionate about creating excellent products. Now, even for dedicated Windows computer users, Apple’s products are something worth thinking seriously about. When it comes to evoking pure passion among users, there is no company like Apple. The way Apple has launched the iPhone globally has shown that it fully understands how to use the power of the Internet and the media to create global attraction for its new products at very little cost. On October 26, the company will launch its latest version of the OS X operating system, Leopard.

The company’s success has been rewarded on Wall Street; the company now has a market cap of more than 148.2B and its shares are trading at $172.

Another company which has succeeded in creating a global brand in a relatively short time is Google, which was founded on September 27, 1998. Google started as a technology company, and has morphed into a company which understands, and is now revolutionizing the media business. Coming from a very strong technology core base, they like to constantly talk about their technology, even though that is relatively unimportant backend stuff to most people. Very early on, Google figured out that as computing, and now mobile computing grew, more and more data would be accessed from online. The question was: “What was the economic/business models which would support it?” The answer is first search, and then other formats of online advertising. Google strived to make advertising more relevant and less disruptive, and strived to do this all with its Adwords solution.

It has also been a success on Wall Street. Even though expectations were high, it blew past the estimates with its recent earnings announcement , growing the company at twice the growth rate of the growing online ad market.

While Google has continued to have a hard time succeeding in China because of strong competition from Baidu, it is performing exceptionally well in other markets. Compared to their smaller local competitors, US companies continue to have a hard time succeeding in China. Nevertheless, Google continues to make inroads in China.

When talking about large investment amounts, it is easy to forget that the most important part of the equation in brand-building is always people, not marketing dollars or yuan. Buying into Apple and Google would get an inside view into how these leading companies are run.

So what is the best, the smartest way to buy into these companies?

My guess is that the smartest way is to buy Apple and Google shares on the open market and gradually build up enough to get a board seat, where the sovereign wealth fund’s proxies could quietly learn how these companies perform, and find out who are the people who really make contributions to the company. Steve Jobs likes to create the persona that he is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs, but the truth is not that simple.

Be a smart passive investor, not a dumb active investor. Learn to walk before you run. While it may seem a longer, slower process in the beginning, this is actually the faster, smarter and more economical way to go. Can you think of another way where you earn money while you learn instead spending big chunks?

So to sum up, the benefits of buying into Apple and Google are:

• Great place to park those extra depreciating dollars and get some appreciation
• Great way to learn how digital online products and brands are made
• Great way to find out who the smart movers and shakers are
• Great way to learn how to become a smart passive investor

If the sovereign wealth fund is doing what they were set up to do, they are already buying Apple and Google shares.

Now that would be real smart…

Technorati Tags: Apple, brand-building, brands, business, China, crisis, dollar, economic, funds, global, google, investment, media, mortgage, sovereign, subprime, US, wealth

If there is one thing which never ceases to amaze me, it’s the sheer number of overseas investors seeking entry to China, who have a hard time seeing past the most basic facts and figures about the size of the Chinese market.

Most of these firms are American, which are, generally speaking, more addicted to numeric data than their European and Japanese counterparts. Some statements they frequently quote are:

• The number of mobile phone subscribers in China is now greater than the US;
• China is now the world’s second largest auto market, trailing only the US;
• China’s demand for oil imports has far-reaching influence far outside its borders;

Looking at China’s economic statistics in these terms, it is very easy for executives who have little or no experience selling products outside their own home markets to think that the potential of the Chinese market is something which will fund their own retirement nest eggs.

The great danger is that more often than not, they are unable to see past these initial assumptions about the Chinese market on the board and senior management level. In fact, as many learn to their own dismay, the Chinese market is complicated, filled with traps to capture uninformed executives who fail to grasp the difficult realities of China’s markets.

Let’s take a look at some of these wrong assumptions, followed by the facts:

• “The size of the Chinese consumer market is huge.” (True, but for the most part, there is no single national market and no way to distribute nationally; you need to negotiate deals city by city and province by province. Every city and every province wants its own unique distribution deal in order to have uniqueness in the marketplace. The main problem is not high costs, but the amount of time it takes to roll out. While the customer numbers may be huge, revenue per customer/user are usually in fact very low in the beginning for most sectors compared to other more developed markets.)
• “If I partner with a company with national distribution, then my job will be easier.” (True, but the companies which take on partners are usually the ones who are in trouble. Many of these are state-owned enterprises which lack business marketing skills, and are trying to translate their monopoly charters into revenue with the foreign partner’s help.)
• “Our product is so good that it will market itself”. (If you believe your own PR in this regard, your company deserves to fail.)

For the most part, the most successful companies in China’s emergent consumer market economy are firms like Suning (in consumer electronics), Shanda (in online gaming and entertainment) and Suntech (in solar energy).

What do these companies have in common? They are new, and while they did have some government backing and connections in their very early stages, they have now transformed themselves into privately-owned businesses with their own management team and CEO. For the most part, these companies are very centrally managed by their founder/entrepreneur. Unless a foreign company is able to present a very strong case for partnering with them, they will prefer to build and distribute on their own. Why should they share their profits and revenues with another company, and help to build another brand which may become a future competitor? After all, that’s how they became dominant in their own sectors; they’re not about to make the same mistake themselves.

As China’s economy becomes more market-oriented, China’s state-owned enterprises are struggling to define their roles in this new economy. It is not enough to have a government-granted monopoly charter; they need to become profitable. This pressure for profit usually comes from the Chinese government’s State Council, which is China’s cabinet.

Their preferred solution is to set up a joint venture with a foreign company, which injects startup capital since the Chinese government, as a matter of policy, does not inject capital into joint ventures, instead offering other fuzzy stuff like “markets” and “connections” into the joint venture.

Most of these joint ventures fail because the two sides fail to do the hard work to insure that there is a complete alignment of interests and accountability for their investment in the JV. Most of the time, I blame the foreign partner’s inability to see past the market hype and think and discuss the whole project through with the Chinese government partner and clearly defining which partner has responsibility to perform what needs to be done.

The endless procession of foreign companies who come to China and throw good business sense to the winds without performing proper due diligence in order to secure a footing in the “China market” never ceases to amaze me. Why is it they seemingly only do this in China? Do they think that the Chinese will throw them out of the country for asking good legitimate business questions?

Chinese SOEs are in particular need of modern management skills, especially in the areas of marketing, sales and cost accounting. Foreign JV partners would in fact be helping the Chinese companies reform by holding them accountable to reach specific business goals. The SOEs have strong connections and resources in a potentially large market.

It is only when both sides are honest about their goals and expectations that they can succeed.

Technorati Tags: autos, board, business, China, Chinese, data, diligence, due, economic, economy, facts, global, interest, investment, investors, joint-venture, management, market, oil, phones, Shanda, SOE, Suning, Suntech, US