State-owned economic reasons for the transfer of four controversial

 State-owned economic reasons for the transfer of four controversial
difficulties here. State-owned legally in the public consciousness that belongs to all assets, but in fact they never take care of by government departments and officials. In the state-owned assets and the actual management of the legal owner of the between, never form a clearly defined tricks commission, agency, monitoring the rights and responsibilities. This is the state-owned enterprises State-owned non-compelling reasons to change, but also the reasons for state-owned enterprises State-owned die hard.
Zhou Qi Ren / Economic Observer
This article discusses several of extensive controversy. these disputes, without exception, involve the transfer of state assets and the pricing. I think the problem is precisely to discuss these disputes themselves. We suggest that the economic source of controversy four state-owned assets are in a unique economic nature. owing to the controversy four, state-owned assets may increase the difficulty of the transfer, the speed may slow down, but the state-owned enterprises State-owned how to adapt to the challenges of the market economy, and therefore does not and can not disappear.
to three major controversy
We look at a controversial recent .2006 March, the annual a serious loss of assets, 370 billion U.S. dollars, hh 80% of which has a monopoly of resources, high-quality state-owned enterprises. of course, very alarming. Imagine, however ten years, China's only state-owned enterprises listed overseas charged with the loss of assets to 500 billion yuan. to the amount of calculation, this asset is equivalent to almost all of the SAC declared net operating assets of 16 state-owned assets %. If this is not the loss of assets and is cash, it is at least equivalent to the national total revenue in 2005 one-sixth! Yes, if Ji of the above allegations are true, not trigger a magnitude 9 earthquake in our be considered the normal state.
Ji's surprise first attracted scholars see different views. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of Finance Yi Xianrong comments the first time: out, but the loss of assets other hand, the really strange! their own situation, the firm is independent in decision-making unit, we respect their decision, it is beneficial to the international feel to the international benefit, it is the advantage that, then the domestic benefit. view or the first foreign, then domestic, mainly our central and local institutions need to have some international experience. conditions. and community interests will be a dramatic departure from the simple to the free market choice, market failure is bound to produce l r problems. Therefore, the height from the national strategic interests, long-term benefits from the social point of view, large-scale blind intervention overseas listing and constraints are reasonable. ;. In this connection, state-owned enterprises listed overseas not only caused loss of assets, or even can not be measured in dollars of national economic security issue (see March 13, officials and the head of a large state-owned enterprises, they Ji's argument. a network media wasted no time in public opinion polls conducted in the face of market price is reasonable, Listing is not being sold at premium level of assets, IPO price, and price changes after the listing of the meaning of the CCB and other issues, have aroused public controversy. all the criticism focused on the fact that loss of state assets also.
criticism caused the central bank, China Banking Regulatory Commission and other competent authorities, Bank, China Construction Bank and the responsible person's response to some scholars. Among them, the Central Huijin Xie Ping, general manager of the interpretation of most systems. Xie Ping said, a portion of the shares of state-owned commercial banks to sell foreign investment institutions, there is a clear, unshakable premise that China maintains absolute control of these banks is not the right mm 51%, but more than 66%. In this context, the introduction of foreign strategic investors, hoping to bring improved governance structure, bringing new technology, bringing management and risk control. As to whether or cheap, to see the earlier introduction of strategic investors, IPO market in the post, if the investment risks if people do not come in, IPO price was so high as not necessarily, therefore, can not say there is difference of these two trading session, that it is the offering. concrete and China Construction Bank, Bank of America said about the last day , it made an offer higher than Citi was willing to pay the price, and no other bids were, in this case we decided to sell. Finally, why not the domestic market, mainly afford to wait, because they do not know when to complete share reform, do not know when discharged to the market. with international standards of transparency, regulatory standards in terms of our major shareholders is beneficial (Xie Ping is a network version of his speech, if the references are not allowed, by the author is responsible).
In contrast, after 2004 the local state-owned enterprise restructuring That the controversy surrounding, and have actually looked like a storm in a teacup. is the summer, the Chinese University of Hong Kong reported Chairs not existed mm, Lang, a high-profile allegations of Haier, TCL and Kelon other three companies are restructuring and mergers and acquisitions, Feast of state property. problem was upgraded to big government of the country management buyouts, and the introduction of Lang who disagreed allegations lightly. My main criticism Lang response to lack the most basic of the three companies first-hand research, and pointed out that the so-called question, that if the three companies reorganized the existence of
This dispute involves the same three questions, that is, the transfer of state assets and pricing. In order to understand the problem, I would like to ask: transfer of assets is very common in a market economy, it should be almost every day, why is involved in state-owned assets, to again and again and again to the controversy caused by large-scale?
example, almost every day in trading assets Li Ka-shing, plate into the disk out, never heard of any controversy, in particular, can lead to many people getting in. dispute. really it was found that Li Ka-shing to the transfer of assets and pricing differences. such as the Royal Bank of Scotland into the capital of our state-owned commercial banks, which have different views on the board, shareholders are more different opinions. their advice is certainly not the Chinese or cheap, but the Bank of Scotland The how to do? can be disgruntled, can also sell their own equity share of trouble, is not endless debate. British newspapers have reported, but one message is enough.
With this reference, I think that the property; (b) All state-owned assets as the owner what and how to fulfill the rights and obligations of asset owners, has never been a clear tricks.
start with the first point. State-owned belongs to all people, wrote in mm on the fact that the law is also not, or could have other explanations. However, the state-owned assets was formed in as a historical era, that any citizen as private can not be legally owned means of production. State-owned course of production, therefore, all the people only as an indivisible subject, co-owned state-owned assets. This is different from the modern joint-stock companies, joint stock company from the common property has clear ownership of each individual shareholder of the private property.
the number of Chinese nationals already in the world, and the whole range and mm in the constantly changing continuously animate the Chinese people have died, but has also been changed from the adult age. such a very large population, the changing composition range, and never in terms of property rights can be divided into the main body, whether as how to fulfill their All assets of the owner's responsibility then?
this out of the country's second feature information that has never been a clearly planned. there is no reason, not only because the reform from the socialist transformation of the historic environment is full of turmoil and variables, state-owned assets management system has not stabilized, and can not be separated because of the tricks of those acts are clearly defined. difficult to clearly define the behavior of the main body, the rules we talk about it?
In fact, the state-owned assets has never been in the hands of governments and government departments, implementation and management by government officials. is good or bad, for humans to comment on the historical merits and demerits, but this is the actual state-owned property rights situation. to apply the terms of modern economics, state-owned assets by the government agent to manage the assets. The question is, what client? in the history and reality, what the client how to implement the National mm mm entrusted assets, how to delegate supervision of the process and results, and how an agent entrusted with, to bear responsibility for what and how the process of being supervised in the agency? answers to these questions, has never been lacking. This is Why do I think that the government departments and officials to take care of. In the law of state assets between the owner and the actual management, organization of writing has never been clearly defined in the formation of commission, agency, monitoring the rights and responsibilities. This is the state-owned enterprises State-owned non-compelling reasons to change, but also state-owned enterprises State-owned the reasons for die hard.
Why has not disputed? is my understanding that reforms in the planned economy era and the early transfer of state assets has not yet put on the agenda. state-owned assets without the transfer of the original, as has always been allocated through administrative instructions. a national project on Guangzhou, or on Beijing, no negotiations, agreements, even without pricing. In fact, many of the state-funded projects over the decision-making, away from economic laws, has long been devalued assets, or saying that they had in the pan , where disputes have different views and it?

go a long plagued the market line, asset transfer and pricing issues will inevitably put on the agenda. but because of the reasons mentioned above, , the transfer of state assets and the pricing of the inherent difficulties facing. truth is, transfer of assets related to resource use rights and the right to permanent changes in income, the valuation of different individuals vary widely. modern stock company is a private property-based public property, individual shareholders and other shareholders have different views, in accordance with the Articles of Association dealing with differences, but also However, way early, it may be well aware of the major problems and difficulties, to take the escape or avoidance strategies. the Chinese stock market, for example, world unheard of come from? The answer is simple, is to avoid below the issue price, even below the level of net asset value, but also for what account? look back, it is smart choices at the time: state-owned shares simply do not trade shares without having to follow the fluctuations of noise every day, ;. The problem is that small a big problem other wise lead to the end yet to be resolved today.
look at the huge non-performing assets of state-owned banks. Here we do not discuss why had so many bad loans, while the discussion has taken place Why is there no non-performing loans timely disposal of non-accumulated into an astronomical figure, only concentrate on resolving? the answer is also simple: to have occurred once the disposal of bad loans, the value of losses to the surface, everyone can see. do not dispose of it? because the book the same value of the assets, who can say are not fulfilled, changed to a controversy begins!
This shows that state-owned assets transfer and the difficulties of pricing information from the basic nature of the country, not a technical expedient to deal with the past. In contrast, Lang public statements against the state-owned assets transfer, request a refund ; big government system is the low price-earnings ratio of overseas capital market, the domestic stock market with high price-earnings ratio, the difference between the two rates lead to a serious loss of state assets. The problem is more than the world market price-earnings ratio between the total gap between the highest price-earnings ratio today, where you choose public, tomorrow another place into the highest, you do not follow the turn? you do not turn, Ji Xiaozhang criticize its assets. back and forth move? it is not called public, but can only be called There will never change the market price-earnings ratio, or loss of assets do not escape the charges. In my opinion, if Ji is seriously their inner logic of speech, he can only remain fully consistent with Lang, is simply not in favor of state-owned assets listed in any market.
States not to transfer the cost of capital
Well, not to transfer state assets have a price? If the transfer can not be good management, but also to the people of the country's strong and continued to contribute to the growth of welfare, why we do not agree with the idea of state-owned assets may not be transferred? if not to transfer state-owned assets, there is no pricing trouble, naturally, there is no loss of assets does not dispute the loss.
problem is not to transfer state assets has a price. obvious consideration is that RMB trillions of state-owned commercial banks, problem loans and bad debts, operating losses of state-owned enterprises and insolvent. that state assets are not state-owned enterprises reform, not restructuring, not to transfer, there is no loss of assets, the views, not ignorance or deception. it still depends on lodging day
not to transfer state-owned assets, we must give up the transfer to bring all the benefits. give up the benefits that? is the cost and price. is really not Xiangman, I own a controlling stake in the government reserves, only the small share transfer to the market mode reservations and doubts. but keep the return reservation, doubt go doubt, can only be left for further observation and verification. For the state-owned enterprises listed overseas, behavior change, management has improved, the mechanism has changed, it is obvious to all observers. From business point of view, while the introduction of capital to bring technology, management thinking and corporate governance advances, of course, important benefits are listed overseas. do not transfer, not all these gains. is that the domestic listed companies, numerous problems, many investors want to crying without tears, is a fact. But compared with the traditional state-owned enterprises, is quite different. In the tradition of state-owned enterprise system, we, as property owners, that total number of state-owned assets it? interested certificates? read the report? participated decision to vote? points over the red? This is a response to the year before last when I asked Lang problem, not repeat them here.
is endless controversy, itself a price. human life is limited, what enjoyment do not Well, have to controversy? the tragedy for the scientific issues, and perhaps also to increase knowledge. time and effort, but never state-owned state-owned assets to provide income right of individual citizens do not turn in mm SOE profits only just begun to discuss, is turned over to a personal relationship with citizens has yet to be investigated mm the tragedy, and do not like to see Promise as a public political issue. such as mentioned above, the transfer of state assets at a price, but also a cost not to transfer, in principle, possible, but it is more important, our views and can not be identical, but also noisy, or no chance to last. < br> But if reluctantly, in the controversial ideas on ways to reduce the road, I can list the following three directions for reference. The first is the fundamental strategy, talked about, is simply stopped the transfer of state assets. In fact, as long as the cost of transfer is too large, especially the formation of political and social pressure is bound to slow down the transfer of state assets, reduce the range. This is part, is already a fact of experience. In this case, we must consider the above-mentioned ; not to transfer price , that is, not as a business-type state-owned assets, or even free of charge, open to all citizens. Another little alternative model is not required State-owned value-added, but may charge an operating cost of maintaining assets are well managed and to provide public services to citizens, similar to a national park, open to the public, good management, but not allowed to profit. but obviously, the huge state-owned assets is still not all enter the model.
second direction is the right to regulate the transfer of state assets. There are also several levels First, Administrative Rules, is that the SAC by the government departments led to the form of administrative regulations to regulate the transfer of state assets. The second is the transfer of state assets submitted to the NPC level, the NPC legislation and supervision of administrative agencies. Third, citizens exercise owner of the rights of State-owned institutional arrangements. in this direction can not directly address the state-owned assets transfer pricing issues, but the transfer of pricing information for the country to provide What kind of specification needs to absorb large amounts of information.
third direction is a recent observation in the investigation I see that the real property from the state-owned assets Reform of the starting position. This contains a few points. First, China as large as many state-owned assets, not all to the national level to solve the problem. Shiliu Da document speaks of by Qingdao Haier to discuss the matter, the relevant parties to receive it; things Lenovo's decision by the Academy of the parties concerned can not be responsible for real names, all of the National People's discussion. Secondly, the national level, the central state-owned assets, SASAC management, but it should also be possible to decision-making process.
short, around the state-owned assets transfer and pricing disputes everywhere, is the state-owned assets into the transformation derived from an economic phenomenon, rooted in the nature of state-owned enterprises State-owned economy. four pricing system. In the long run, practice will not stop, will continue to explore.