[quote=“cctang”][quote=“mr_boogie”]
In the guys own story, he went to China to make a clothing company and owned a company (60%) while a bank owned the rest. Then someone (didn’t catch if it was the bank or the government) stopped the cash coming in, the employees went on strike because there was no sallary and the company was sold for .3% of it’s value the next day to a taxi driver. All this also happen while he was out of town. [/quote]
Sorry, what was the point of your story? Don’t start a company if you don’t have a sure source of cash flow? Great idea anywhere in the world, if you ask me.
I don’t know if you really are a businessman, but you sure don’t talk like one. Banks don’t voluntarily take equity positions in businesses. By definition and design, they aren’t in the business of taking on risky assets that aren’t backed by collateral.
Second, I guess I’m a little stunned you believe that this clothing “company” was “sold the next day” to a passing taxi driver. Just what kind of a company are we talking about here? A retail outlet, or some sort of a manufacturing business? Why would this person be in a rush to sell “the next day” for 0.3% of its actual book value? Why didn’t he just say, say, wait 2 days and find try to someone willing to pay 0.4% of the actual book value? And for that matter, what kind of a taxi driver throws out money to buy a clothing “company” after less than a day of analysis of its business potential?
And third, why did this businessman borrow from Chinese banks at all? Why didn’t he tap international capital, either through Hong Kong or other markets? (I know why he didn’t tap Taiwanese banks: they aren’t available on the mainland.) If it was a cash-flow issue, why was he so highly leveraged that he’s dependent on a single source? And could be forced into bankrupcy by a single unilateral decision?
Fourth, please tell me where I can start a business, where the government will protect me from my idiocy? I’d be very interested in investing in any market where I can run out of cash, not pay my employees, and still be able to create a successful business.
And finally, who really cares whether you invest on the mainland? Seriously, who cares? There’s tens of billions of dollars flowing into the mainland on an annual basis, and far more sophisicated international businesses are making money hand over fist. Mainland China must be doing something right, wouldn’t you say? If you’re afraid of a market that you apparently know nothing about… well, will anyone even notice?[/quote]
ooh burn.
Look, I’d like to see your link to the story before I comment on it. That said, there certainly are stories of unfortunate saps losing tons of money trying to make a success in China. Lots of Chinese know this, and so they con people. But then again, these are old stories in every place. Sucker born every second, and conmen everywhere.
So what else is new? But for every con story, there’s a success story in China, whether it is the mainlanders themselves, overseas Chinese, or foreigners.
- But the truth is that the US are feeling themselves constrained by the way China is doing things - and the message that passed was that the US government will not bow down to China’s interest. :bravo: for mr Bush in that aspect, because US has to maintain it’s position of dominant power. If Mr. Hu was not happy with the words from Bush that is his own problem, so I consider a small victory (and a big oxygen bottle for CSB). The truth is that even if Bush does not support openly TI, it does not condemn it. It is a good ambiguity for Taiwan, as now they know exactly that US are not against Independence (neither they can be, because they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Self-Determination Right is there).