If there is no call for bank equity sale, the equity of China Banking Industry may be based on HSBC’s share price of 1.86 yuan per share, Bank of America’s shareholding in CCB is 1.17 yuan per share, Royal Bank of Scotland shares in Chinese bank price For the price of 1.22 yuan per share, ICBC’s pricing is only 1.15 yuan and all the way down. Chinese banks have been lowering the private equity prices of foreign investors, making every Chinese who is not wealthy feel painful. However, the dispute over financial equity “selling” or “selling” is only a matter of pricing of equity. One of the most apparent problems. Concerns about this issue and even extreme attention, can not find the fundamental answer to the question. On the contrary, excessive attention to this issue may make our policies and strategies more short-sighted and impetuous.
In fact, the question that really deserves to be discussed is: Why does China want to sell equity in financial companies (including banks)? Why do you want to sell out the equity of financial companies that hold the fate of industrial capital in a large proportion? Most Western developed countries ban the sale of more than 10% of bank shares to foreign investors. Why are we so generous? Is China lacking foreign exchange? In fact, we have too much foreign exchange, and the RMB is facing tremendous pressure for appreciation. Is it that the Chinese people can’t afford the original shares of CCB of 1.17 yuan per share? Is it that the local private capital of shoe-making and weaving does not need to upgrade the industry to the tertiary industry, especially the financial services industry?
We can look at Taiwan. If Taiwan did not protect local financial companies for nearly 30 years in the 1960s, I am afraid that Taiwanese industrialist Wu Huoshi and his descendants are still struggling to run the traditional textile industry, and they are struggling to solve textiles. The event will never be able to produce today’s Shin Kong Financial Holdings Group. If you think about these deep-seated problems, it is not difficult to find out whether the real problem is not “selling” or “selling”, but why you want to sell, why is such a large proportion of sales, and why the RMB is facing tremendous pressure for appreciation. Is it so eager to sell (including raising the quota of QFII), and let the US dollar realize the “opening position” of RMB assets? Can our actions today stand the test of history? Are we repeating the mistake of “Great Leap Forward” in the process of opening up to the outside world? Does the opening up of the Chinese banking industry and the entire financial industry also need to implement the scientific development concept? These more profound problems have not received the attention and satisfactory answers so far.
Besides, is it possible to sell bank equity? In fact, it is only necessary to compare the stock price of Xinhui Holdings’ “Deep Development” to GE Finance’s private placement and the issue price of China Construction Bank. Regardless of asset quality or scale, network, customer resources, brand, etc., “Shenzhen Development” is obviously far less than the construction bank after asset restructuring. According to common sense, the selling price of CCB shares should be higher than the selling price of “Shenzhen Development” shares, but in reality On the contrary, GE’s purchase of “Shenzhen Development” price is 5.25 yuan per share, which is 4.49 times that of CCB’s introduction of foreign strategic investors’ bid of 1.17 yuan and 2.23 times of IPO price of 2.35 yuan. There are public opinion in China that the price of 1.17 yuan and 2.35 yuan is sold by CCB shares. Recently, senior officials of GE Finance said in the media that buying “Shenzhen Development” shares at a price of 5.25 yuan per share is “value for money.” If the “Shenzhen Development” share of 5.25 yuan is worth the money, then the price of CCB’s introduction of strategic investors at the price of 1.17 yuan is obviously low. The trend of rising stock prices after the listing of CCB has already explained everything.
Here, let us not talk about financial equity should not be sold to foreign investors, only in terms of the trading strategy of selling bank equity itself, there are also unbelievable problems. Some of the arguments for selling bank shares abroad are often the following three paragraphs: Banking equity has not been sold, or even sold; there is still a large amount of banking equity to sell, and 25% is not the upper limit; these banks used to How about, “It used to be a time bomb.” For example, to sell salted duck eggs as an example. There is an old lady in a remote village. She has not read a doctor or even a kindergarten. She does not speak foreign languages or even speak Mandarin. She has no culture and only has 5 baskets of salted duck eggs. She has sold 2 baskets of salted duck eggs, leaving 3 baskets of salted duck eggs. It can be concluded that this illiterate old lady will definitely not announce to the world under the big tree at the head of the village: the two baskets of salted duck eggs that she sold to her neighbors were sold for sale, and there was no sale at all. Salted duck eggs need to continue to be sold to neighbors, and these salted duck eggs have not been so good, it is a “time bomb.” If we compare 5 baskets of salted duck eggs to Bank of Communications, China Construction Bank, Bank of China, ICBC and ABC, then should we learn from the old lady about the trading strategy of selling salted duck eggs?
Some people believe that CCB and Bank of America, HSBC and Bank of Communications and Shanghai Bank’s joint venture, foreign banks can get the market, the Chinese banking industry can get funding and get new technology. What do they think is the successful experience of China’s 20 years of reform? It is good at learning. You look at China’s auto industry. How good the car is. It is no longer the classic cars of the 80s and 90s. We took the latest technology. They believe that the service industry is soft technology, financial services are mainly based on people, foreign investors must come in to train your people, people have been trained, and culture has been cultivated; it cannot be said that our automobile industry has not brought people’s technology, we The domestic Dongfeng Windmill, Xiali is very good in all aspects, we have learned a lot in the competition with foreign and domestic joint ventures.
This kind of view is actually selling the book and seeking the end, or saying that the “end” is exchanged for the “end”, which is equivalent to the “technology for changing land for food and changing grain.” The equity of the enterprise is equivalent to the land in the countryside. In rural areas, it is impossible for farmers who have no culture to take the land to trade with foreign investors in exchange for the latest technology for growing grain or to exchange food. The peasants know that if there is no land, even if the multinational company sends him to Cornell University to take a doctorate in agriculture and grow the grain, the grain is better, and the yield per mu is over 10,000 kg. However, the food is not his, but The landowner is fine, even though the Chinese can buy the food like a Toyota.
Faced with this situation, economists and column commentators who often “aphasia” may blame farmers for “not trusting foreign capital, not believing in globalization, and opposing China’s agricultural opening up”. The managing director of foreign financial institutions may also give The peasant put on a “narrow nationalism and protectionism” hat that he had never heard of and could never understand, and he could also sell them to farmers through their brain-filled supply and demand curves and mathematical models. The open concept, however, the peasant’s heart has its own iron abacus: food products can be traded, but the land can not be used for food, technology, management, and mechanism.
If state-owned banks are encouraged to transfer shares to foreign banks, and at the expense of the bank’s equity, they will change technology, change management, change mechanisms, and exchange income. Then, this method is in exchange for land, technology, management, and food for grain. What is the difference between essence? We should learn from Chinese farmers about simple narratives to adjust our opening-up strategy.
We must persist in opening up to the outside world and oppose the closure of the country. However, any open strategy requires an analysis of costs and benefits, so as to develop a scientific strategy and reasonable steps for opening up. For a long time, a popular view is that “the money can buy the system”, that the equity can be exchanged for management, the equity can be exchanged for technology, and the equity can be exchanged for the credit culture. They believe that financial equity must be sold to foreign investors on the grounds that “the money can be bought”, and there is no sale. However, a careful analysis can be found that the “buy money to buy system” contains a two-layer meaning: First, the “cost of money” is to recognize the sale of equity, is a euphemism for the sale of equity, so that the sale of equity is rationalized. If there is no sale, then what about “spending money”? Secondly, the “buy system” is that the income gap formed by the sale of shares can be exchanged for foreign management, technology, and credit culture, and the latter can make up for the sale gap. However, in reality, equity may be sold out, and the gap may not be compensated. Attempts to improve the financial industry, including the banking sector, through the sale of equity and the introduction of foreign investors are purely similar to the auto industry’s wish for market-for-technology.
Let us not talk about the huge cost of “returning land for management and equity for the system”. Just look at the results and it is not difficult to see a paradox: First, if only a small amount of equity is sold, then minority shareholders cannot Fundamentally change the governance structure. In response, Moody’s investment report on China’s banking industry released in June this year is a good explanation: foreign investors with only a few ownership may not have the strong incentive to provide technical and management advice. Moreover, if foreign minority shareholders are introduced, the major domestic shareholders will say that it is not counted by the minority shareholders, which is not in line with the spirit of corporate governance.
Second, if the controlling stake of the bank is sold, the foreign investor has the final say, the management is very good, and the account is also very clear, just like the “deep development” of Xinqiao Holdings. However, this foreign-controlled bank is essentially It is not a Chinese bank, but a foreign bank similar to Citi. Citibank’s governance is very good, the return on net assets is high, and the return rate of foreign bosses is high. What does it have to do with you? Therefore, the result of the “buy money to buy system” is that the equity has been sold, the price has been paid, the money has already been spent, and the system bought is not the system of Chinese enterprises, it is the system of investment enterprises controlled by overseas capital. . If the success of the future “deep development” is regarded as the success of the Chinese banking industry, it is obviously a kind of self-love, and its ridiculous degree is similar to the success of Korean football as the success of Asian football and thus the success of China in Asia.
A bank is different from a natural person as a legal person. A bank legal person has no gender. However, the behavior of a bank legal person institution is “gender”. According to certain principles of financial behavior, we can distinguish them as “female banks” and “male banks” according to the different behaviors of bank legal entities. The “female bank” belongs to the “bank to be married” and is the bank that wants to sell the shares; the “male bank” belongs to the “bank that wants to marry” and is the bank that wants to go abroad to acquire foreign financial enterprises. From the behavior analysis of the Chinese banking industry eager to sell equity-seeking partners, it can be concluded that the “male-female ratio” of the Chinese banking industry and the entire financial industry has reached a serious imbalance, and the consequences are self-evident. If all walks of life in China are “female legal persons”, how can we defend China’s economic map and financial map? How to ensure China’s economic security and financial security? Even if he wants to repeat the history of Mulan’s army, Mulando has been married to the ocean, and perhaps recently in the tax haven Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands.
Finance is the most important means of arranging social resources. By allocating resources to guide various production factors, it will reshape the economy and even the social structure. In today’s world, who has a developed financial market, who has a strong financial industry, who will become the world’s financial center, will become the protagonist on the social and economic stage. The United States has become a world power, in addition to its defense strength, but also because it holds the world’s most important financial market, its financial industry includes commercial banks, insurance, leasing, securities, fund management and trading markets for various financial products. It is the most competitive in the world.
It is for this reason that the governments of Western developed countries have always tried every means to set obstacles to the entry of financial capital in other countries. Can Chinese financial companies easily set up branches in Western developed countries or buy shares in their financial companies cheaply? It is hard to imagine that Chinese companies can obtain more than 10% of the bank’s equity in Western developed countries. Even China Construction Bank has set up representative offices in New York and London for more than a decade, and it has not yet been upgraded to a branch. Western developed countries have various reasons to prevent you from entering its market territory, and do not expect to purchase a large proportion of their financial equity, even if it is a seat in the exchange. They will block you from setting up branches overseas because of concerns that China’s banks may go bankrupt, even though Chinese banks are backed by national credit. However, if you want to sell the equity of the Chinese banking industry, they hope to do more and better, and no other excuses. In the battle for global financial resources, it is important to remember that sitting opposite the negotiating table is not only our partners, but also our competitors. Can you follow the advice of your competitors to develop an open national policy? This is the unbearable and innocent we can’t bear.
Some overseas experts believe that the proportion of foreign-funded banks holding Chinese banking is less than 10%, far lower than the proportion of foreign-funded countries holding more than 35%. I believe that the actual shareholding ratio of foreign capital in emerging market countries (such as Latin American countries) may not be the standard that must be met by China’s banking or financial industry. If Western financial companies want to get more than 35% of the equity of Chinese financial companies, then, as a reciprocal condition, they must also transfer more than 35% of the shares to Chinese financial institutions or Huijin companies or give the same proportion of option commitments. Is it worthwhile to hold a 35% stake in Goldman Sachs Group and Citigroup than to hold US Treasury bonds? Or in exchange for 35% of the shares of American oil companies? With the savvy of Americans, it is clear that they cannot sell these valuable shares to foreign investors. Regrettably, foreign experts have not suggested that China, a big country, should learn from the big countries and learn from the United States. Instead, it suggests that China should learn from small countries, learn from South Korea, and learn from Latin American countries.
Of course, countries, big or small, have places worth learning, but look for examples of learning. No one dares to say that the Singapore government is not strong, but the DBS Bank, which the government actually controls, operates very well; no one dares to say that Singapore is not open, but Chinese companies will never acquire a 35% stake in DBS. In the context of globalization, we must adhere to an open policy. However, openness is a means of development, not an end. More importantly, we need to make a clear distinction: Is the opening of Western countries to China “open at the grain (product) level” or “open at the land (equity) level?” Should our concept and strategy of opening up to the outside world be in line with international standards, be in line with Western powers, and not be in line with Latin American countries? Do we need to compare the “targeting management” methods commonly used in the business management process: How are Western old capitalist countries and their enterprises open to China? They are even reluctant to open their markets to China, such as textiles and toys. Are they willing to open more than 35% of their financial equity to China?
In the strategy of opening up to the outside world, we must clarify our goals and pursuits. When China gradually dissolves into the world division of labor system, whoever owns the equity, who is the boss; who has no equity, who is the migrant worker. Whether the open-ended opening without the correct strategy will make us a migrant worker in the global division of labor system is a strategic issue that must be calmly considered. Open markets must have transactions, but they are not necessarily fair and equitable transactions. Before the fair and fair trade, it is necessary to maintain self-independence and autonomy. We must defend our economic map and cannot take principles.
The equity of a company is similar to that of rural land and belongs to the content of the economic map. Equity in the financial industry is a core component of the economic landscape. If equity is our land, then financial equity is our fertile land. It is not the responsibility of the land to grow many weeds on this fertile land. Therefore, we should not take the land for food, technology, and management. The painful practice of market-for-technology, equity-for-management, and failure lessons tell us that core technologies and management cannot be changed. Management is not available, this is the advice of the late management guru Peter Drucker to China.
As Liu Yuhui, the financial institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said, the problems of banks are very complicated. The formation of non-performing assets is related to the uneven reforms and unbalanced opening and even excessive opening up. It is also related to the government investment impulses that are hot and cold. It is related to the artificial lag of the capital market, and it is not a factor in the bank governance structure. Even in order to improve the governance structure, the introduction of foreign capital may not have the imaginary effect. According to a survey conducted by the central bank in 2003 on the historical reasons for the formation of non-performing assets in China from 2001 to 2002, the non-performing assets of banks formed by administrative intervention accounted for 80% of the total non-performing loans, and the internal management of state-owned commercial banks The reason for the formation of non-performing loans is only 20% of the total. What is more interesting is that the Financial Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences recently published a research report on regional financial ecological environment, and found that the quality of China’s financial sector assets is more than 70% depending on the institutional environment of financial operations.
The current situation of China’s banking industry is clearly a big problem in institutional arrangements and mechanisms. Its improvement is far from an overnight success. It depends on the promotion of a series of deep-level reforms of China’s economic and social system and mechanism, such as the transformation of local government functions, the improvement of the legal and institutional environment for the development of the financial industry, and the construction of social integrity culture. Wait, it is not as simple as the transfer of shares to foreign capital.
It can be seen that the improvement of the external business environment of the banking industry can solve the 80% problem of the bank; it can be solved through the establishment of state-owned banks with excellent domestic banks, management of state-owned banks through the establishment of banking industry management companies, and future domestic listings. The remaining 20% of the questions. Through the efforts of the above two aspects, the existing problems of the Chinese banking industry can be solved 100%.
China Merchants Bank has neither overseas strategic investors nor overseas listings, but it is recognized as a good bank at home and abroad. In the case that the domestic financial environment is so poor (completely different from the operating environment of Hong Kong Hang Seng Bank as exemplified by overseas experts), in the short period of 15 years since the establishment of China Merchants Bank, a bank that is proud of the Chinese has been created. The industry miracle, and for four consecutive years, won the “World’s first 25 best capital profit rate banks.” China UnionPay also created a miracle in China’s financial industry and defended the financial landscape of the Chinese bank card industry. We can imagine that if the Bank of Communications is custody to the management team of China Merchants Bank, it may be a reform with the lowest cost and the least cost.
In the case of exchange behavior, the following two reforms can be compared: The first option is to sell the controlling stake to HSBC. HSBC can have RMB 4 billion per year from Bank of Communications, and may get RMB 10 billion annually from the future. Profit, this is the cost of spending money on the system. In fact, careful analysis will find that Chinese people spend money, but the system they buy is not their own system, but the system of bank account under HSBC Holdings. Essentially, all of this is HSBC. The second option is to administer the Bank of Communications to China Merchants Bank, which will provide China Merchants Bank with a management fee of RMB 2 billion per year (only half of the RMB 4 billion).
There is no reason for China Merchants Bank not to enter advanced management methods into the Bank of Communications according to the contract. The result: the reform cost of Bank of Communications is relatively low; China’s wealth has not flowed out; the income of China Merchants Bank has increased substantially, the stock price has risen sharply, the people have benefited, and domestic demand has increased. Of course, some foreign institutions may make remarks that such reforms are not thorough, they are not truly open to the outside world, they should learn from South Korea, and so on. In fact, doing a stupid thing will often be praised by the beneficiaries, and praise will bring intoxication. In particular, a long-term oppressed and unconfident nation can receive recognition from foreign countries, and it will certainly produce a short intoxication; A clever thing often gets a variety of criticisms, which requires a long-term oppressed and unconfident nation to restore self-confidence and persistence.
The mistakes in the opening up strategy of the banking industry and even the financial industry are just a microcosm of the mistakes in the opening up strategy of most industries in China (such as aviation manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, machine tool manufacturing, commercial logistics, etc.). This discussion also needs to trigger our reflection on whether the opening up strategy in other fields may lead to the colonization and Latin Americanization of China’s economy. “Independent innovation” has become our national policy to change the mode of economic growth. However, independent innovation first requires “independence” at the ideological level, and then “innovation” at the level of actual action. The brain that guides China’s reform and opening up strategy should not grow on the shoulders of others, so that it can be “autonomous”. This is the basic premise for building a harmonious society in China. Don’t dedicate the cheapest goods and the most valuable future equity to the world, and leave high incidence of energy, pollution, explosions, landslides, overwork, low blood pay, and cancer incidences six times higher than the global average. For yourself and your children, you will eventually repeat the history of the Indians.If there is no call for bank equity sale, the equity of China Banking Industry may be based on HSBC's share price of 1.86 yuan per share, Bank of America's shareholding in CCB is 1.17 yuan per share, Royal Bank of Scotland shares in Chinese bank price For the price of 1.22 yuan per share, ICBC's pricing is only 1.15 yuan and all the way down. Chinese banks have been lowering the private equity prices of foreign investors, making every Chinese who is not wealthy feel painful. However, the dispute over financial equity “selling” or “selling” is only a matter of pricing of equity. One of the most apparent problems. Concerns about this issue and even extreme attention, can not find the fundamental answer to the question. On the contrary, excessive attention to this issue may make our policies and strategies more short-sighted and impetuous. In fact, the question that really deserves to be discussed is: Why does China want to sell equity in financial companies (including banks)? ...