China Business Blog and Podcast

Download this podcast
Length – 8:27

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We just received a comment from a faithful Podcast listener which spawned some interesting ideas here at China Business Podcast World Domination Headquarters (located in beautiful downtown Shanghai).  Full disclosure here … the “faithful listener” that made the comment, Dave, is actually a good friend of mine.  So I guess this is kind of like responding to a review of an elementary school play made by your mother … but I will take it where I can get it!

In any case, the question was a good one.  Dave asked, “Tell me this, as you think about the last 20 years, do you see a noticeable shift in the energy and excitement the Chinese Governments (local and central) have for recruiting western companies to expand their businesses to China? In the collection of articles I see, and recent business development work, I get the sense that there is a growing indifference. Is the China domestic growth ‘engine’ becoming so strong that western investments have become ‘ho hum’?”

Great question and good timing, Dave.  Because not only is this a topic of conversation among foreign companies here, but the Chinese leadership is talking about it as well, although in somewhat less-than-direct terms.  Chinese President Hu Jin-tao just this last week made a speech that, I think, is going to be referred back to in years to come as marking a turning point in Chinese economic development.  As far as speeches by politicians go, it was … well … a speech by a politician, and a lame-duck politician at that.  Remember that President Hu is expected to step down in 2012 and hand over the reigns to new leadership.  The leading candidate is Xi Jin-ping, one of China’s “princelings” with a significant political pedigree here, but a lot can happen in the next two years so stand by for further updates.  So President Hu is looking down the road at early retirement and he is trying to find ways to cement his legacy.  He’s already tried a couple of things.  Mr. Hu was behind the tepidly-received 和谐社会 or “Harmonious Society” campaign leading up to the Olympics which attempted to get people to stop spitting on the streets and be nicer to each other in public.  No one here has paid much attention to this – as evidenced by my messy shoes and bruised body from riding the subway to work every morning.

So this past week, President Hu had a chance to speak at the Party School of the Chinese Communist Party … now when I say “Party School”, I am not talking about the University of Wisconsin or Bowling Green.  This “Party School” is the institution that trains all up and coming cadres in the Communist Party of China, or CPC.  They used to teach these cadres how to wear musty wool Mao suits and engineer their comb-overs to cover bald spots … but now, they have more serious things on their minds.  The topic of President Hu’s speech – oddly, not covered much by the mainstream Western media – was on economic development in China.  Here is the English synopsis from the CPC website:

“General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee, Chinese President and Chairman of the Military Commission of the CPC Central Committee Hu Jintao delivered an important speech, stressing that we shall seize the opportunity to undertake the historic mission to take speeding up the transformation of economic growth mode as the important target and strategic measure to deeply carry out and implement the scientific outlook on development to unswervingly accelerate the transformation of economic growth mode and constantly improve the quality and efficiency of economic growth and increasingly raise the international competitiveness and the risk resistance capacity of Chinese economy in a bid to get higher quality, larger space and broader road of development.”

Got that?  Yea … no wonder this was not picked up by mainstream media.  I am actually interested in this stuff and I started to doze off by the line about “unswervingly accelerate the transformation of economic growth mode” (as a side note, this might be good advice to give drivers here in China because they tend to accelerate in a “swervingly” manner … President Hu’s people can contact me if they want further advice on this one).  Anyway, the speech in Chinese was not much more thrilling (like political speeches in ANY language, the Chinese for such situations tends to be very flowery and over-laden with adjectives).

In the past couple of months, China has been crowing about its 8% growth while the rest of the world is in the dumps and President Hu was responding to accusations that China’s economy was build on a foundation of sand … that government investment in infrastructure was going for short-term growth while ignoring long-term economic drivers such as technology innovation, consumer spending, etc.  Such accusations are not only coming from foreign sources but locals as well … the running joke in China is that the current leadership is pursuing the 保八计划 or “Protect the 8% Plan”, at any cost insuring that China reached that magic 8% growth that everyone thinks they need to avoid economic collapse.

This speech, I think, was intended to tell everyone that, “No, we really do have a plan here … we are not just going for short term development but we are trying to set China up for success in years to come.”  And how is that to be done?  Well, President Hu listed a lot of things: encourage the new energy sector; reform agriculture; support the growth of science and technology … heck, I think he even called for the development of a bubblegum to arrest male pattern baldness (a key concern for much of the world’s political leadership these days … they may want to pay attention).  But jumbled among the disparate ideas is a key phrase that President Hu used that responds – finally! – to your question, Dave.  President Hu said that China’s economic development is going to be driven, in large part, by “independent innovation”.

This phrase, “independent innovation”, is an echo of rumblings we’ve been hearing in China for some time.  Just last November, several Chinese ministries came out with the “Indigenous Innovation Product Catalogue”, a listing of approved vendors that government entities can purchase from.  The restrictions on this Catalogue are quite tight and makes it difficult for a foreign firm to get on the list, spurring many foreigners to accuse China of being “protectionist”.

Are they being “protectionist”?  I don’t know … that’s kind of a loaded word and it can be applied to other governments as well (similar accusations have been leveled at the U.S. for keeping China out of their oil, technology and agricultural sectors in the past).  But what they ARE being is “independent” … and that means, that, yes Dave, I think they are going to value foreign participation in China’s markets differently.  Not necessarily “less”, but certainly differently … whether or not it is “less” determines what we do about it.

This is a topic we are going to keep our eyes on this year and is closely related to one of the “Themes for 2010” that we identified in December of last year – China’s growing confidence in their own power and importance in the global economy.  But suffice it to say that foreign companies are going to have to pay even closer attention to the value that they are bringing to the China market.  We’ve been saying for some time that things have changed here … no longer can foreign companies just show up with money and cool technology and have China fall all over them.  Foreigners need to clearly articulate their value and to get local Chinese partners to agree to this value and to partner with the foreign company to bring it to China.  In the process, foreigners are going to have to give up this value to their Chinese partners … the risk being that you are starting to train your future competitors.

I am often asked if business is becoming “easier” in China – as in, “are the structural barriers to foreigners doing business in China becoming less?”  In general, I think this is true … China’s entry into the WTO has brought them in line with many global practices.  Sure, there are still questions of currency exchanges and the like, but I really don’t see these as being the greatest barrier to working with China.  I actually think that business is, in some ways, becoming MORE difficult to do in China because it is more difficult to determine exactly what foreigners bring to the deal; what we can do that China cannot yet do for itself?  You are right, Dave … we foreigners are becoming less interesting to China.  We need to work harder to find out what our value is to China and sell it to people here.  This is our game to lose.

Download this podcast
Length – 18:21

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We are continuing our series on mergers and acquisitions in China through a conversation I have been having with Kim Woodard, a Vice President here at Technomic Asia and a specialist in China M&A.  In over 30 years of doing business in China, Kim has done deals both from within the corporate environment – with companies like John Deere and AMP – and as an outside advisor.  In the last part of this conversation we talked about the five key risk factors in doing a deal in China:

1. The acquiring company chooses the wrong target for the wrong reasons.

2. Failure to connect well and build trust with the shareholders, management, and other stakeholders of the target company.

3. Inability to bridge the valuation gap

4. The target company fails to meet due diligence expectations on financial documentation or on financial and commercial performance.

5. The C-suite in the acquiring company gets worried about post-acquisition performance.

Let’s get back into the conversation as we now turn to the best way to manage these risks …

Download this podcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

China’s rapid development in the past 15 years can leave one feeling a bit dizzy.  My first time in Shanghai in the late 80s – in town for an escape from the small central China city where I was living and teaching – was heady enough.  There were only 10 taxis in the entire city and you had to get around on diesel fume-belching busses or by foot (and it was a battle between the aerobic benefits of walking and the heart-stopping inhalation of diesel exhaust).  Now its tough to step in the street here and avoid getting hit by a cab (unless, of course, it is raining or you are late to a meeting or you have two heavy boxes you are trying to schlep to a client … and then there are NO taxis to be found in the entire city.  Go figure).

So when China seems like its returning to the bad old days, it is a bit shocking, particularly when this return is signaled by increased regulation from the Party.  There have been a series of steps over the past year that, in hindsight, are heading in a direction that could be of concern to everyone who does business in China, local and foreigner alike.  Late last year we saw the government put extra restrictions on Carlyle, the financial investor, as they sought to buy out XCMG, one of China’s leading heavy equipment manufacturers.  Carlyle eventually let the deal die because the limitations were so onerous.  At the time, everyone clucked about “protectionist policies” but eventually chalked it up to China wanting to guard an industry that could figure into national defense (ala the U.S. blocking the Chinese oil giant CNOOC from investing in a U.S. offshore oil company a couple of years ago).

The next big restriction was for visas for foreign visitors wanting to enter China just before the Olympics last year.  Thousands of businesses were impacted by this and many Olympic events were sparsely attended because people just could not get here.  Again, apologists for China cited so-called “legitimate” reasons for this … in this case there were serious security concerns.  The reality was that China was playing a game of CYA – “Cover Your Anterior-region” – and was willing to go overboard on restrictions in order to insure that nothing happened while the spotlight was shining so brightly on them.  Sure, it bothered me too but I guess I understand erring on the side of caution – my own country’s Transportation Safety Administration recently busted my daughter on a routine check at an airport … she was relieved of a fingernail clipper, ostensibly because she might use it to hijack the airplane to Cuba (where she would need said clipper because you simply cannot buy them there).  In the immortal words of Fleetwood Mac: “Oh well.”

But then this year, things have been getting even more tight, it seems.  We started the silly season off with Coke being denied their acquisition of the large Chinese juice manufacturer, Huiyuan.  The government was oddly silent on the specific reasons for the denial.  There were some mumblings of avoiding “monopolistic” practices which, in a way, was legitimate as the merger would create a beverage company that would rule in two key categories: sodas and juices.  But many legitimately pointed out that China’s industries are ripe for consolidation and that, following pretty much any other economy as its developed, there are, as time goes on, going to be fewer but larger players in the market.  There is speculation – no none of it published, as far as I have seen – that the government is pushing Huiyuan to themselves become more acquisitive … to go out and start buying up smaller beverage companies to grow larger themselves, in effect creating a competitor to Coke.  Typical of China, the old adage is flipped on its head: “if you can’t join them, beat them.”

Just this last week, two things have happened to make me even more concerned.  The first was the release last Friday of the new Postal Law in China which everyone in the logistics and delivery sector has been anticipating like Christmas morning at the Bill and Melinda Gates household.  However, much to the chagrin of foreign delivery companies like FedEx, UPS and DHL, the law bans foreign companies from participating in domestic express delivery, citing the original 1986 Postal Law that limits domestic delivery of regular mail to the government-owned China Post.

1986?  In China in 1986 it took an entire day to mail a letter!  We had to, literally, make our own envelopes, painstakingly cutting out a template from paper and then using paste thoughtfully provided by the post office to glue them together.  Then you had to let them dry before stuffing them with your letter.  You ended up with glue all over, trying to cram a sticky mess in a drop box with fingers webbed like Aquaman.  And if you wanted to send a parcel in China, fuggitaboutit!  You had to purchase white cloth and make your own bag in which to put your items.  Seriously, I am not making this up.  Around the post office were stores selling fabric, needles and thread and you had to form your own sweatshop on the steps outside the post office to assemble your package for mailing.  I had flashbacks to 7th grade home-economics class, nearly failing for improper needle threading and insufficient stitch tightness.  Who knew that I was actually learning life skills that would come in handy some day??

Anyway, I digress …  This new and unimproved interpretation of the Postal Law is going to be a serious setback to the entire postal system in China.  Plainly speaking, the foreign delivery companies have, for the most part, cracked the code in express delivery in their home markets.  Pretty much anywhere in Europe or North America, if I want something delivered by 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, its going to get there.  I might have to take out a second mortgage on my house to do it, but dang-it, its going to get done!  Now, I don’t for a minute think that any express delivery company would be able to quickly transplant their system in China … China is too big and too complex to do that simply.  But the China postal system could certainly use some external influence and best practices … mailing a letter by regular post is a hit-or-miss thing these days.  The Chinese authorities cited security reasons for keeping the foreigners out … I guess news of the express-delivered anthrax a couple of years ago in the U.S. freaked some people out here.  But seriously, can the Chinese postal system do any better??  I guess in one way they can – with such a dismal delivery rate for their mail the insidious package can’t do any damage if it never reaches the intended receiver.  Let’s hear it for incompetence!

The last indicator that something’s up is the rumor – at this point unsubstantiated – that China is going to once again be very restrictive in issuing visas this summer and into the fall.  This year marks two very important anniversaries in China: the 20 years this June since the Tiananmen Square movement and 60 years this October since the founding of the People’s Republic.  Like with the Olympics last year, China wants to keep out anyone who might make a placard and march on the streets, shouting their support of any one of a number of banned issues.  Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post published a story last Thursday saying that Beijing has said that all “F” business visas issued after April 15th will expire on September 15th.  An F visa is for short-term stays of less than 6 months.  The paper quoted several China visa agents who said that applications for F visas beyond September 15th would be put on hold until there were more clarifications from the government (who, like any government, avoids clarity like the plague).  Again, there have been no confirmed announcements of this, just newspaper articles … so let’s not wig out until we have to.

But shy of wigging out, I think there is some indication for concern here. There is DEFINITELY a protectionist wind blowing in China and with it could come a storm that could hit us all.  There are two sides of this coin here:

First, remember that Chinese regulations are often published but never – or are selectively – enforced (on a side note, the converse is also true … China has been known to enforce rules for which they do not allow the publishing of the official law … I have heard stories of people being prosecuted for breaking a law and were refused the request to actually read the law on the basis that the law was a state secret).  What this means is that there are varying levels of sensitivity in China – if you are a big company and are doing big things in China, the light shines more brightly on you and you have to take more care to cover your bases.  All the big Fortune 500 companies working in China spend squillions of dollars each year in lobbying efforts in Beijing and in the various localities in which they do business.  This is just good business practice (hey, they even do it in Washington!).

But for many companies, they work hard at doing a series of smaller things in order to stay below that radar and to not attract attention.  In any M&A deal we do in China, one of the biggest commercial due diligence questions to probe is how the regulating authorities will treat the new entity once it has foreign ownership.  Chinese companies can get away with things that foreign companies cannot, simply because they are foreign companies (and, contrary to popular practice, having local staff often does not protect you … the spotlight is just brighter on you when you are a foreign company).  So the lesson here is to explore all the possible regulatory implications of what you are doing in China … not just the laws on the books but to talk to all the authorities who touch your business to get their read on what might actually be enforced.  Your business leaders here – your general managers and CEOs – should be spending a large amount of their time schmoozing with the authorities here.  If they are not, you are exposed.

The second thing to remember is, simply, that China is different – it is a one-Party system and that Party is primarily concerned with maintaining their singular hold on power. On a global scale, it is not the riskiest place to do business – that honor is held with dictatorial grip by some southeast and African nations.  But it is comparatively riskier than doing business in the West.  Walk the streets of Shanghai and you can often forget that – the signs for Western products and services make it seem like New York with a really big Chinatown.  But its not.  China is different from other markets.

And, truthfully speaking, I often forget this.  Therefore, I have made myself a May Day resolution (my New Years resolutions having drowned in the Ocean of Poor Self Discipline long ago) – I resolve to be more observant of some of the macro-regulatory moves here and to not be so flip and dismissive of them when they do happen.  I firmly believe that China is moving towards more openness … my last quarter century hanging around here is proof of that.  However, these changes progress at glacial speed with short-term freezes and retreats in the midst of forward movement.  Whether what we have been seeing recently is such a momentary freeze or the tip of a larger iceberg remains to be seen.

The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) just released their report on the state of trade with China. Based on the way journalists, lawyers, consultants and others in the China Geeks Without Real Lives club have been effusing about the release of the report, you’d think this was the new J.K. Rowlings romp with Harry Potter. Nope. There might be a section on potions (Intellectual Property) and prestidigitation (legal enforcement), but this is all pure USTR prose.

For those interested in reading the report (and the reports on the reports), you can look here. As our friends at the China Law Blog have so pithily observed, we are all commenting on the report without having actually read the dang thing. To me, this says as much about the author as it does the reader: If they would write in a more exciting manner, I wouldn’t have to be hopped up on Red Bull Espressos to get through it in some state of consciousness.

My only comment at this point revolves around the places in the report that say “The Chinese Government has made a commitment to do such-and-such…” or “The Chinese Government will begin to regulate this-and-that more strictly…”

The “Chinese Government”? Who dat?? Despite what it might seem – and a reputation that proceeds me – I am not trying to be difficult here. I mean, I know they mean “the Chinese authorities” and, at some level, “the Party” and that saying “the Government” is a shorthand way of including all such powers here. But using such shorthand is mighty misleading because the “Chinese Government” can’t do anything here because IT DOESN’T EXIST!

The Chinese governing structure is – like Shrek’s onion – comprised of layers; and layers of layers. There are many points at which the Party’s rule is administrated: National, provincial, county, township/city, district and neighborhood (and I am missing some in there, I am sure). Often, administrative positions and people are repeated; for example, there will be a Party secretary at each level; a person in charge of land administration; someone in charge of communications (it is still called the Ministry of Propaganda here, a shout-out to less P.C. days in China). Each level is somewhat responsible to the one above it but each, in its own way, runs its own kingdom and has its own royalty.

To get anything done in China requires the cooperation – or at least the benign neglect – of many levels of the “Government”. Major props to the late Tip O’Neil’s universal observation that “all politics is local” – because, at some point, you will need to know who the local authorities are in your particular situation and you will need them on your side. Or at least get them to not say “no.”

A client of ours is very proud of their “connections” in the Central government in Beijing. They have spent a lot of time developing relationships (read “drinking like a sailor on shore leave”) with various departments and leaders. Given the opportunity, our client’s management (none of whom live here) will talk endlessly about the “great discussions” they have been having with said Central government leaders and bragging about their latest bai-jiu bacchanal.

However, four weeks ago our client was having a terrible time getting some of their product produced and shipped out of a manufacturer here in East China. They tried to get the assistance of their drinking buddies in Beijing and, despite many promises of “immediate action,” nothing happened at their East China supplier. Our client called us in to help. One of our senior guys, Daniel, went to the factory and spent a day or two there getting to know the local leaders – it was a state-owned factory, so their management were also local government leaders as well. Daniel listened to their grievances about our client (many of which were valid), broke bread and bottle with them, and got most of the issues solved … with the promise to solve the rest once the products were manufactured and shipped. What our clients “friends in the Chinese Government” could not do in months, a simple visit and many follow up phone calls accomplished in a week.

So when a report like this comes out touting what the “Chinese Government” is going to do, we should be encouraged that this is being discussed, but we should not start laying money on the fact that something is going to be done right away (or, if it is, that it will be done consistently across all of China). If you are involved in a situation with regulatory implications, I would encourage you to step back and assess just who you know and who you don’t know. If you don’t know people at the various local levels where your business is located, that’s where you should start working. The illusive “Chinese Government” is not going to help you out; they are not listed in the phone book because they don’t exist.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download

In today’s episode of the China Business Podcast, I sit down for a discussion with Steve Dickinson of the China Law Blog, one of the best blogs on the Web.

Steve is an American lawyer living in Shanghai. Over the last ten years Steve has taught law (in Chinese) off and on at Beijing University School of Law. He frequently lectures on Chinese law topics in the United States and on American law topics in China, and he is the author of the Chinese corporate law section of Matthew Bender’s International Corporate Law. Steve works for Harris & Moure, a law firm with which Technomic Asia has worked on a number of China projects.

Steve is completely fluent in Mandarin Chinese and nearly fluent in Japanese. He can also read Sanskrit and Tibetan and speaks a bit of Korean, as well. He managed to find spare time to chat with me — in English — about intellectual property concerns and other hot topics in China business and law.