<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, November 30, 2009

Reshuffling of Provincial PSs

Well, it is now clear that Hu is trying to maneuver as many of his people into position before he hands (some) power over in 2012. We see CYL veteran Hu Chunhua (also Hu Jintao's former secretary) and Lu Zhangong taking over Inner Mongolia and Henan respectively. Another official possibly related to Hu's faction, Wang Min, was rotated from PS of Jilin to Liaoning, a lateral promotion as Liaoning is a much more important province. Wang overlapped with Li Yuanchao in Jiangsu, although Li didn't really have a say over his promotion to Suzhou.

The other promotions, however, show that Hu did not have all the say. Sun Chunlan's promotion from a relatively powerless position in the union to party secretary of Fujian, for example, shows that Bo Xilai likely exerted some influence on high level promotions. Sun was Bo's successor in Dalian. Likewise, Huang Qifan's promotion to the mayoral post in Chongqing puts Chongqing further out of Hu Jintao's control, as Huang comes from the Jiang Zemin-Huang Ju faction in Shanghai. Again, to more credibly demonstrate his power, Hu will need to launch a comprehensive anti-corruption crackdown somewhere....



http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_460954.html
Home > Prime News > Story
Dec 1, 2009
'Little Hu' in front as future leader
Hu Jintao protege could well climb to top job in 2022
By Peh Shing Huei, China Bureau Chief

BEIJING: Chinese President Hu Jintao's protege, Mr Hu Chunhua, has
emerged as the front-runner in the race to be the country's future top
leader after a reshuffle of provincial chiefs yesterday.

The changes also included a new woman provincial party secretary, the
first in more than two decades. Ms Sun Chunlan, 59, was catapulted
from her position as a top unionist to Fujian party boss.

But it was the appointment of 46-year-old Mr Hu as the new chief of
the Inner Mongolia region which carried greater political
significance, noted analysts of Chinese elite politics.

'He is now on the fast-track to being China's sixth-generation
leader,' said Dr Bo Zhiyue, of the East Asian Institute in Singapore.
The two Hus are not related.

Going by the current trend of national leaders serving two terms of
five years each, Mr Hu and the 'sixth generation' politicians are
slated to take over as national leaders in 2022.

President Hu, 66, is widely believed to be stepping down in 2012 and
is likely to be succeeded by Vice-President Xi Jinping, 56, leader of
the 'fifth generation'.

The younger Hu, or 'Little Hu', is now in early pole position to
ascend to the top position of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
thereafter.

His Inner Mongolia appointment means he is the fastest in his cohort -
those in their 40s - to be made a provincial chief.

Only Agriculture Minister Sun Zhengcai, also 46, has matched his
speedy rise, after being promoted to the role of party boss of
north-eastern Jilin province yesterday.

But Mr Hu, who was the governor of northern Hebei province, is widely
regarded as the one with a stronger political pedigree, having been
the leader of the key Communist Youth League, the power base of
President Hu.

The Chinese studies graduate from Peking University has also spent 23
years working in Tibet, a tough posting which earned him respect from
the Chinese Communist Party rank-and-file. By comparison, Mr Sun, an
agriculture PhD-holder, spent his entire political career in Beijing.

Both Mr Hu and Mr Sun were among five young leaders profiled by a
state-run magazine in April this year - a sign that the quintet had
been earmarked for higher office. But only two were promoted to
provincial chiefs yesterday, indicating that they have surged ahead of
the pack.

The others appointed were above 50 years old, such as Ms Sun, new
Henan boss Lu Zhangong and new Liaoning chief Wang Min.

Analysts believe there is a good chance that the boyish-looking Mr Hu
will even make the leap to the elite 25-man Politburo in 2012, when
the CCP holds its 18th Party Congress.

It would resemble the arrangement which Mr Hu Jintao went through,
parachuting into the decision-making Politburo Standing Committee in
1992, a good decade before he took over the reins from Mr Jiang Zemin.

But analyst Wang Zhengxu from the University of Nottingham's China
Policy Institute warned that 'Little Hu' has an Achilles heel which
his political rivals may exploit.

'His biggest weakness is that he has been working in poor places,
including now Inner Mongolia. He lacks the experience of operating in
the rich coastal provinces, which are important as China becomes a
greater economic power,' he observed.

shpeh@sph.com.sg

Another Suzhou man promoted

BEIJING: The Communist Party bosses from Suzhou city continue to power
ahead. Mr Wang Min (above), who served as Suzhou party secretary from
2002 to 2004, left his position as Jilin provincial chief to head
neighbouring Liaoning.

While the appointment appeared on paper to be a lateral move, Liaoning
is widely regarded as a more important and prestigious province.

Mr Wang, 59, is the fourth consecutive Suzhou chief to climb the
political ladder. Predecessors Liang Baohua and Chen Deming are now
Jiangsu provincial chief and Commerce Minister respectively.

A key factor in their success is Suzhou's prominence in the national
media, thanks to the 15-year-old China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial
Park. The massive project has earned Suzhou party secretaries a
reputation as economic reformists who are pro-business and have a
global outlook.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

SCMP

Reshuffle sees new mayor for Chongqing

Verna Yu
Dec 01, 2009

The central government yesterday nominated a new mayor for the
municipality of Chongqing and also promoted a close ally of President
Hu Jintao to a regional party chief position, in a new round of
leadership reshuffling at the provincial government level.

The latest changes signal that preparations for the next party
congress in 2012 are quietly under way.

Chongqing Deputy Mayor Huang Qifan has been nominated to become the
mayor of the southwestern municipality, which has recently launched a
massive crackdown on organised crime, Xinhua reported.

Huang, 57, previously deputy secretary general of the Shanghai
government, became Chongqing's deputy mayor in 2001 and has since been
in charge of the municipality's finance and industry sectors.

Reports did not mention what the next appointment of his predecessor
Wang Hongju would be, although he turned 64 last month, one year from
the official retirement age.

Meanwhile, one of Hu's closest allies, Hebei province Governor Hu
Chunhua , has been promoted to party chief of the Inner Mongolia
region .

Born in 1963, Hu Chunhua became the youngest provincial governor when
he was appointed deputy governor and acting governor of Hebei last
year at the age of 45.

Hu Chunhua is one of the youngest senior party officials and is tipped
to be a leading candidate for the next Politburo in 2012.

Potential Politburo members often need the experience of two or three
top provincial posts, according to analysts.

Hu was previously first secretary of the secretariat of the Chinese
Youth League - the power base of President Hu - and worked in Tibet
for more than 20 years.

Meanwhile, the government also announced that Jilin province party
chief Dr Wang Min would take over the top post in neighbouring
Liaoning . He will be replaced by 46-year-old Agriculture Minister Dr
Sun Zhengcai . Wang, 59, has a PhD in machinery manufacturing, and Sun
has a PhD in agriculture. Sun, born in 1963, is also tipped to be a
leading candidate for the next Politburo.

The government said Sun Chunlan , the 59-year-old vice-chairwoman of
the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, would replace Fujian party
chief Lu Zhangong . Lu, 57, will become party secretary in Henan
province , replacing Xu Guangchun , who turned 65 this month.

Comments:
Hi Victor - what do you make of this?

http://finance.jrj.com.cn/2009/12/0101046552417.shtml

财政部“特急”叫停地方违规集资

一份加标“特急”字样的财政部文件近日被下发到各地财政部门。文件要求坚决制止正在发生的地方财政违规担保向社会公众集资的行为,严禁出现新的财政违规担保向社会公众集资的行为。

  对于地方政府利用融资平台筹措4万亿元投资配套资金的做法,相关决策部门一向采取默许态度,但也存在争议。此次财政部的通知实际上起到了盖棺定论的作用。财政部警告说,这些做法如任其发展,势必扰乱社会主义市场经济秩序,甚至危及地方社会稳定。

  此前,在金融危机以及中国实施宽松的货币政策背景下,中国各大银行大幅增加贷款,而地方政府担保的投融资平台成为了新宠。在很多手续还没有完善的情况下,大量贷款流向这些投融资平台。截至今年8月,全国共有8000家以上的各级政府投融资平台,其中,70%以上为县区级平台公司。由于地方财力有限,而且一个担保,多头贷款,风险不言而喻。面对这种快速上升的趋势,银行主管部门也逐步意识到风险,对这些投融资平台降低了放款规模。

  而银行的谨慎让地方政府犯了难,在国家4万亿元投资的推动下,地方政府需要的配套资金太多,尽管前段时间,财政部通过准国债的方式给地方政府发行了2000亿元的地方债券,但对于地方政府庞大的基础设施建设资金、各种社会事务的配套资金,几乎杯水车薪。于是,地方政府挖空心思寻找银行以外的一些资金,如此次叫停的用地方财政担保的向社会公众集资的筹资行为。之所以地方政府能够不断通过擦边球的方式,累加自己的投融资平台的负债,核心原因在于目前地方政府拥有对区域经济的巨大影响力以及中央与地方的事权和财权的不配套。地方政府通过财政担保来筹集资金,有着巨大的自身利益诉求。财政部的这一纸“特急”文件,能否就此打住继续高歌猛进的地方政府财政担保的势头还有待观察。
 
Well, Wang Hongju I suspect will not get another appointment as the talk in Chongqing is all of his being implicated in a big corruption scandal a few years back. Publicising this would embarrass Wang Yang too much, the gossip has it, so he's been persuaded to take early retirement.

Really can't see Hu Chunhua emerging as a future leader. He's way too close to Hu Jintao (who is no Deng Xiaoping to protect his protege), and Hu's successor will see him as a lackey for the older Hu. Also 20+ years in Tibet (if he really did spend all that time there) means no time spent making contacts with people in the rest of the country. Older Hu wisely got "altitude sickness" during his Tibet posting and moved back to Beijing where the movers and shakers were.

Interesting to see Bo Xilai emerging as something of a Song Ping kingmaker, with two proteges now in the big league (Huang Qifan is very closely tied to him).
 
Good pt Duncan about Bo Xilai, though why be king maker when you can be king!
 
Dr. Shih:

Just amazing to read all the tea-leaf reading from US hippie like you. You will never truly understand China. Good luck to your personal and professional obsession ...
 
Shane! Do you know what a hippy is? Or are you earning your 5 - fen either way?
 
Post a Comment

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


Leveraging Big-Time by Local Development Companies

I would just like to show readers the type of leveraging that is going on in China. Hainan Highway, set up by the Hainan government ten years ago to finance highway construction, is an early example of the thousands of local development companies that now pervade China. They usually get a bit of capital from the government and use that to borrow money from banks or issue bonds to investors. Fortunately, some of these entities are listed so we can see how they work. Note, however, that because they are listed, they already represent "the best of" local development companies. finance.Sina.com has a very powerful feature that breaks down various parts of listed companies' annual and quarterly reports. See here.

So here, Hainan Highway has total asset of around 2.7 billion RMB. The largest category is various kinds of accounts receivables. Well, that sounds good, except the annual report also states that the largest debtor to Hainan Highway is the founder of the company, Hainan Department of Transportation!! Moreover, its debt to Hainan Highway ballooned from around 150 million in 2008 to nearly 450 million RMB! Okay, so this is what is happening. Local governments use some land or revenue cash flows to start these entities, which then go and borrow money from banks and investors. Then, local governments in turn borrow from these entities, especially those that generate some cash flows. My question is: since these loans to local government is identified as asset, can these companies borrow even more from banks on the basis of this "account receivable?" I think they can!

Again, this is happening to thousands of such entities across China! (by the way, kudos to reader who figures out who Chen Xuehui is, as he got a million RMB loan from the company for no apparent reason).

Comments:
A very interesting find Professor!! After a quick look at other pages of their financial statements, this entity looks like many others --- with operations continuously burning cash, relying on the accumulation of receivables and debt to plug their deficits. Their actual liquid assests - cash and marketable securities - is pretty low relative to their level of leverage. It is also worth noting that receivables due from the Hainan jiaotongting are growing over time and aging (extended to 1-3 yrs to 1-4 in the page you cited). In reality, most of the projects the highway company does have a fiscal basis, meaning that they are included in budgets passed by the local NPC, and then the local finance office makes transfers to the investment co. to pay for part of them and service the related debt. The rising receivables number probably means is that the finances of the local government are not looking so good.
 
Is this proof of a bubble?
 
What is more worrisome is the municipal bond debt in US and the use of derivatives and mismanagement of variable rate debt.

Jefferson County is being called a canary in the coal mine.
 
【《财经网》/综合专稿】11月19日消息,昨日,国家发改委下发《关于水泥、平板玻璃建设项目清理工作有关问题的通知》(以下简称《通知》),由此,抑制部分行业产能过剩和重复建设的重拳砸向了建材业。《通知》要求,即日起对9月底前未开工项目全面停建清理,重新审核后方可决定留存,清理工作今年年底前要完成。

  《通知》明确指出了清理范围,其中,水泥为今年9月30日前尚未投产的在建项目、已核准未开工项目(含水泥熟料线和粉磨站);平板玻璃为今年9月30日前尚未点火的在建项目、已备案未开工项目。

  此前,在国务院印发的《国务院批转发展改革委等部门关于抑制部分行业产能过剩和重复建设引导产业健康发展若干意见的通知》(以下简称《若干意见》),提出了抑制产能过剩的四个原则、九项措施。国家发改委新闻发言人李朴民表示,当前,我国经济正处在企稳回升的关键时期,在保增长中要更加注重推进结构调整。《若干意见》将钢铁、水泥、平板玻璃、煤化工、多晶硅、风电设备六个行业确定为调控和引导的重点。

  目前我国在建水泥生产线418条,产能6.2亿吨,另外还有已核准尚未开工的生产线147条,产能2.1亿吨。这些产能全部建成后,水泥产能将达到27亿吨,市场需求仅为16亿吨,产能将严重过剩。通知还指出,目前我国各地还有30余条在建和拟建浮法玻璃生产线,平板玻璃产能将超过8亿重箱,产能明显过剩。

  根据《通知》要求,此次清理内容包括:在建项目重点审查是否符合产业政策,各项审批手续是否齐备,建设内容与申报内容是否一致。

  与此同时,各省市自治区已核准未开工项目要清查“是否符合国家和区域规划布局要求,是否符合产业政策,是否取得土地使用证、环境影响评价报告、银行贷款承诺函等项目核准所必须的相关材料。”

  《通知》还要求,清理时,水泥项目要提交石灰石矿山开采许可证;平板玻璃项目则应符合发改委等六部委文件和平板玻璃准入条件的要求。

  国家发改委关于清理水泥和平板玻璃现有在建项目和未开工项目的通知一出,众多上市公司正在建设的水泥项目可能不得不“急刹车”。

  近两年来,不少上市公司都通过增发或配股的方式募集资金,投向水泥生产线项目。虽然不少公司也在完成募资之前便通过自有资金开始上马建设,但至今尚未披露投产公告,或可视同为尚未投产。如此一来,也在被清理之列。

  市场人士分析,由于一些公司今年年中才筹备这些项目开建,估计目前竣工的可能性不大。同时,也有公司虽然在去年便开始筹备水泥项目,但由于资金问题到今年开解决,或许项目至今也未竣工。■
 
Does this not seem like a relatively low number of assets?
Just googling around a bit it seems that 1 km of highway could cost between a million or more Euros.

If we take one of the three highways on Hainan and ~ 300 km, that should be 300m Euros...at a minimum, 3 billion Yuan.
 
There is a lot of competition in the highway sector in China, and the combined effects of this and corruption mean that there is little money to be made, so construction quality is very low and actual costs (those related to building the road, not those related to greasing the local officials) are quite low. So far, it is still very difficult to capitalize bribes on a balance sheet and boost the overall asset balance.
 
Whenever I see data with scary numbers (the real ones are probably more so), it seems to signal action from the State Council or others. Look for this on the agenda of the upcoming economic working meeting. Will this set off tension between the centralizers and Hu's support network atop provincial governments? Please let us know professor!

中国地方政府融资平台贷款近6万亿 潜在风险隐现
地方政府融资平台隐藏的各种潜在风险开始隐现

  【《财经网》/综合专稿】来自中国监管部门内部资料显示,截至目前,中国各级地方政府通过超过8000多家融资平台获取的各项银行贷款余额已经累计6万亿元,尤其是在融资平台贷款中,项目贷款余额近5万亿元,占全部融资平台贷款的比例已经超过80%。地方政府融资平台隐藏的各种潜在风险开始隐现。

  近年来,在全国商业银行股份制改革的浪潮中,国有大型银行纷纷制定更为严格信贷政策,国有大型银行对地方政府要求的项目贷款大都不予支持。为此,各地纷纷成立地方城市商业银行,并努力推进农村信用社的商业化改造乃至完全成立农村商业银行,城商行和农商行瞬间成为地方政府获取项目贷款的当然角色。

  地方政府获取项目贷款的途径一般有以下两种:一是利用一个项目向多家银行融资,套取信贷资金。其操作手法是,如果地方政府的建设项目总投资为10亿元,其中自筹4亿元,项目公司可以籍此向城商行申请6亿元贷款的同时,又以同一项目向另外一家股份制商业银行申请3亿元的流动资金贷款,总体看建设资金高度依赖一航,项目资金根本有名无实。

  地方政府获取项目贷款的另外一条途径,是改变起初约定的用途,挪用信贷资金。最后,地方政府在通过融资平台获取的资金后,坚持“不赖账、不还账”的基本原则,而且多年如一日,据此久拖不还,长期占据信贷资金。

  近年来,地方政府都通过直接和间接出资,纷纷成立了各类融资平台公司,从事项目开发和建设任务。由于其和政府间千丝万缕的联系,绝大多数地方政府融资平台实为依附于政府的附属单位。因此,全国各地存在的各种地方政府融资平台本身实际上并不具有独立自偿能力,依赖财政拨款偿还贷款。

  为此,商业银行对于政府融资平台公司的贷款的风险评估,更多的仰赖于对地方政府财政收支状况的判断,而不是按照企业法人贷款的标准进行分析。在此信贷机制下,不可避免的形成许多地方融资平台的超过财政偿还能力的过度负债,虽然许多融资平台公司诚信不足,还款意愿难确保,更加上期限偏长,对银行流动性构成不利影响,对持续稳健的金融风险形成巨大的不确定性
 
Post a Comment

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Let’s Look at China’s Liabilities Again

Recently, on a China specialist bulletin board, the debate on “the China collapse” hypothesis flared up again. As you can imagine, things got pretty heated between my colleagues. I have learned that predicting the future is a losing game, but we can certainly look at facts and bring in some skepticism. Incidentally, I am working on a project to calculate the extent of borrowing from local government investment entities, which are discussed below. I am about half way through the provinces, but will update interested readers on my findings in the coming months. Below is my contribution to the “collapse” debate.

Chiming in among the skeptics, I think we tend to focus on the asset side of China’s balance sheet, which is quite impressive to be sure. However, the Chinese government is also good at hiding its various liabilities (in the accounting sense) through various entities and strategies. Let’s ignore human costs like reduced life expectancy from the environment, lack of social services and work safety for the moment and only focus on financial liabilities. Among the OECD countries, we see that public debt escalated tremendously due to stimulus programs and financial bailouts. However, it would be mistaken to argue that China accomplished 9% growth without getting into massive debt. In fact, it got into much more de facto public debt as a share of GDP than the US or Europe did. If Cpolers remember a conversation about the rise of deficit this year in China, which put official debt this year at a modest 25% of GDP. However, the reason growth is so high this year is due mainly to investment. In addition to the 4 trln RMB central government package, local governments also rolled out additional trillions in investment projects. In OECD countries, much of these projects will be financed through the official budget, but in China, local governments set up urban development companies to raise this money as “corporate loans” from banks. Thus, around 70-80% of this trillions in investment was financed through bank loans.

More will have to be spent to finance these projects. Local governments learned long ago (possibly in the 50s) that when the central government is feeling generous, start as many projects as possible as oppose to spend money to complete projects. This is because they know that the central government will retrench one day, but the center is still reluctant to cut off funding from on-going projects, which result in total loss. On this basis, Nomura Securities, typically a very bullish outfit, estimates that new lending will again have to be 10 trln RMB for both 2010 and 2011 to fully finance existing construction projects. This means local governments will need to get into trillions more in debt (probably 10 trln in addition to what ever the current amount is).

Does this mean a collapse? certainly not necessarily as the government holds a lot of assets. However, as with any country, we should also pay attention to the liabilities.

Comments:
Sure, China has more fiscal room to buy time, and this is what another injection of bank credit next year will achieve. But this also means that rapacious local officials are likely to squeeze all they can out of local businesses - especially private ones that are easier to 'tax' - to get around the constraints that accompany actual changes or uncertainty regarding policy. Without factionalism rising in Beijing, and without strong and clear top-down leadership where it comes to policy, local officials are going to be increasingly bold, mostly because no one is watching. This is hard to capture on any balance sheet, but follows the balance sheet effects. That is to say as debt levels rise to fund assets like bridges and speculative business ventures that do not generate adequate cashflows, the degree of 'liumang' in local government also increases. This will not subside until there is a more solid recovery in the economy the produces adequate local fiscal resources to reduce the need for bureaucratic predation on local economic interests.
 
Given the control over assets that top officials have, how much would actually be left over for the administration of government, if there were a "collapse?"

On a related subject, while there have been at least a handful of runs on local bank branches in the 1990s, one has not read of any in the Chinese press in the past 5 years or so. The last I can recall, and my memory may be faulty, was 2003.

Surely, the Chinese public, who believe 中央絕對不會讓它倒 don't ascribe to the possibility of collapse. In itself, this mitigates against panic.

Sincerely,

Rich Kuslan, Editor
Asiabizblog
www.asiabizblog.com
www.newhavenlawyer.us
 
I am not sure that 中央絕對不會讓它倒 is an effective risk mitigation technique. The question is really about who eats the losses. The last time around it was the people at large, as national savings cum foreign exchange reserves were used to bail out the banks that had to realize the costs of bad lending to inefficient and corrupt SOEs. Recapitalization is like hitting the financial re-set button, and now the local officials are at it again. Will the public accept a repeat of the last recapitalization exercise? Probably not. The scale factors here are also much larger, and we are talking about literally thousands of local governments and their investment vehicles. What is left for local officials forced to clean up their financial messes is the rest of the economy - generally private - that they have not 'taxed' in the past. They system will survive intact by dragging other interests down with it.
 
I didn't write of "risk mitigation techniques." Do you mean that the pervasive belief in the stability of the center doesn't contribute in itself to that stability? If not, of what import is public acceptance of a second bail-out?
 
Mitigating public financial risk in China would seem to be related to mitigating the risks of a "panic". The approach has always been to deal with social/political risks first, and then assign an economic cost. Presently, if local companies and financial institutions (such as city-level banks and cooperatives) are left to bear the costs of wasteful local spending, which everyone knows includes rampant cronyism, and eventually go under, then people may well take to the streets. One of the latest avenues for raisiing funding for local public financing platforms is to create a trust company of sorts to borrow money, which is then invested/capitalized under the umbrella of a captive government investment company. This is a clear no no, but one that is harder to trace and regulate. Having seen a number of local marches (peaceful) protesting after the collapse of similar schemes in the past (such as guaranteed fixed high interest returns - bosses flee the country - local left with nothing - city government eventually pays out something to quell the discontent), I think at present the public tollerance for such results has come down. So has the ability of the local governments to clean up the mess, measured in fiscal terms. For the laobaixing the risk is not collapse. For them the risk is getting stiffed with no resourse. Another macro-level bailout of the banking sector as during the Zhu Rongji era is less likely than a series of localized flare-ups when local financial alchemy goes sour. The former case involves national level policy that is set in a realm completely divorced from the lives of laobaixing. The latter case involves local interests, local public funds and other resources. The next round of bailouts is going to occur more at the local level, and thus the import of public acceptance of a second bailout should be obvious.
 
Belief in the stability of the center has nothing to do with what locals do when they get stuck with debts that are being piled up by their leaders. That is what is going to happen.
 
Great comments guys! Keep it up; I just twitted this link so more people can read it. My comment is that the PBOC guys are very cocky at the moment. They know of the problem, but they believe they can just form various asset management companies and carry out "relending" operations to recapitalize all of the distressed institutions. I am skeptical that the same tricks can work twice, but I may be wrong.
 
So pleased to find this great site. Not being an economist, but being aware of the numerous tensions gaining strength in China in 09, I would like to pose the big "collapse" question, esp in relation to what appears to be a massive Ponzi scheme in the housing market. ie debits turned in credits to leverage additional loans. Would anyone like to forecast what a collapse would look like, and how it would connect with other social tensions in Chinese society. As far as a trigger mechanism goes. I would (and I don't have any strong evidence) vote for rumour via net and text message leading to a run on the banks. Esp since a large percentage of people are extremely exercised about the massive increases per sq metre in last few years, without commensurate salary increases. Think of the tv show Small Houses.
 
Post a Comment

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Collapse of Caijing

As many of you know already, Hu Shuli, the editor of the influential Caijing Magazine, has quit her post and will become dean of the media and journalism school at Zhongshan University in Guangzhou. In the mean time, she is planning her new publication. The excellent NYT piece below outlines some of the behind-the-scene dynamics of this development. The main question of course is how much this has to do with political pressure against Caijing's hard-hitting style and how much this is related to Hu Shuli's desire to get a larger piece of the profit.

I am curious about another facet of this case-- why Zhongshan University. To be sure, it is a top university in China, but I wouldn't imagine it to be a top journalism school in China. There is journalism school at Peking U., Renmin University....etc. Why didn't any of those schools offer her positions, and why didn't she take them if offered? The issue certainly isn't money, of which she has plenty. This suggests to me that the Beijing schools were under some pressure to not hire her in an important position. Only Zhongshan University, a key institution in Guangdong Province governed by reformist leader Wang Yang, dared to hire her in an important position. Is this important? Maybe, and maybe it is useful to once again use terms like "reformist" and "conservatives" to describe the policy preferences of various elite actors.

New York Times

November 10, 2009

Editor Departs China Magazine After High-Profile Tussle

By JONATHAN ANSFIELD

BEIJING — The pioneering editor of the top Chinese business magazine has left her post with plans to start anew, after a tussle for control involving much the same mix of political and financial intrigue that she made her mark uncovering.

Hu Shuli, 56, resigned Monday from Caijing, the magazine she built into a thriving print and Web outlet that specialized in investigating government corruption and corporate fraud, said a Caijing spokeswoman, Zhang Lihui. Senior editors and most of Caijing’s journalists either had already resigned or were preparing to as well, magazine employees said.

For months, Ms. Hu, the editor in chief, and the business managers of the magazine had been locked in a stalemate with the owners of Caijing over the breadth of the magazine’s coverage and the budgeting of its operations, said former employees and current staff members who asked not to be identified because they feared losing their jobs.

The owners of the magazine had come under pressure from Communist Party officials to rein in Caijing’s aggressive journalism, people at the magazine have said.

Managers at Caijing told staff members that they had been fighting to maintain the magazine’s editorial integrity.

The managers had been seeking to create a more independent publication by changing the magazine’s shareholding structure, seeking outside investors and pressing the owners to allow more employees to own a stake in the magazine.

In a well-publicized exodus earlier this autumn, nearly 70 business employees resigned. Ms. Hu held on until Monday.

She has now accepted a new post as the dean of the journalism school at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, a job she had been offered before it became clear that she would leave Caijing.

At the same time, she, along with a large contingent of editors and executives departing Caijing, was working to secure new licenses and open a new venture, said the employees, who had knowledge of the plans but were not authorized to speak publicly about them.

Caijing’s parent company, the State Exchange Executive Council, or S.E.E.C., had already recruited a new team of editors from another progressive publication, The Economic Observer in Beijing, they said.

In 11 years at Caijing, editorials by Ms. Hu pinpointed interest groups and bottlenecks that she said blocked economic overhauls. And exclusives by Caijing hastened the demise of some of the more notorious felons in China.

But the magazine’s own troubles have involved just the sort of topic that Ms. Hu and Caijing relished covering.

The political price of success grew in recent years. Ms. Hu found herself increasingly at odds with S.E.E.C. bosses and their Communist Party guardians, according to employees and other colleagues during interviews in recent months.

After a run-in with a Caijing reporter covering the ethnic riots in the western region of Xinjiang in July, officials leaned harder on Ms. Hu’s superiors to curb her coverage, the employees said.

At one point, the S.E.E.C. was ordered to fire Ms. Hu, they said. The pressures brought the infighting over editorial and financial control of Caijing to a boil.

Ms. Hu did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Known for enforcing a rigid code of conduct, she has been characteristically guarded during the crisis.

“I am still working on a good result,” she wrote in an e-mail message to The New York Times late last month.

Under her current plan, her new publishing sponsor would be the province-level Zhejiang Daily Press, said the Caijing employees and a Zhejiang Daily editor.

She has been talking with well-known Chinese investors. Her proposed new publication’s title has a familiar ring: “Caixin,” short for “Caijing Newsweek.”

The split reflects the divergence of interests in a media market still governed by party cadres, said Zhan Jiang, a journalism professor at Beijing Foreign Languages University.

“Some people still stick to their ideals,” he said. “But management has become increasingly concerned with profits, and increasingly conservative.”

Moreover, as the central authorities lavish official Chinese media giants with support to grow and compete globally, they also have made moves to tighten their chain of command over muckrakers like Ms. Hu.

Not that Ms. Hu is like any other. She has become an unrivaled celebrity, and counts senior economic officials friends from her reporting days at state-owned newspapers.

At S.E.E.C., she was uniquely insulated. The chairman of the S.E.E.C., Wang Boming, a former New York Stock Exchange economist, is the son of a former deputy foreign minister.

When Mr. Wang and Ms. Hu started Caijing, in 1998, he met her demands to finance the newsroom and not interfere.

But their ambitions clashed as the influence of Caijing grew. Caijing now generates about half of the group’s revenue, but the S.E.E.C. has reinvested a considerably smaller percentage.

Mr. Wang has diversified into less daring titles, most of which have struggled.

Members of Ms. Hu’s team, in turn, went their own way, expanding Caijing online. They also tapped outside partners, like the Hong Kong tycoon Richard Li, with whom Ms. Hu has been developing a financial news service.

Behind the scenes, a conservative official named Quan Zhezhu had taken over Communist Party affairs at the organization that sponsors Caijing’s publishing license, the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, in 2007. The Federation ramped up pressure on Mr. Wang to curb coverage by Ms. Hu.

“They say she’s ungrateful, that without them the magazine would have been closed a long time ago,” a friend of Mr. Wang’s said.

An S.E.E.C. executive did not answer requests for comment in recent days.

Ms. Hu was able to elude serious trouble through the spring. After Caijing revealed a corruption investigation into China Central Television earlier this year, government media officials demanded that the story be recalled, the employees said.

But within a couple days, Caijing reposted the piece online and handed out hundreds of undistributed magazines to delegates at the annual legislative sessions.

When the ethnic riots broke out in July, Ms. Hu promptly dispatched three journalists to Urumqi. But not all of them were able to obtain a permit to be there.

One day, at the official press center, a veteran reporter named Yang Binbin was caught carrying a credential borrowed from a former coworker. When an official tried to search his laptop, he resisted, and he and a guard scuffled. The police carted off the reporter for questioning.

“Our pressures and conflicts had accumulated over a long time, but this incident was the fuse,” said a Caijing colleague of Mr. Yang, who himself declined to comment.

By mid-July, journalists said, the party’s powerful Central Commission on Politics and Law discussed the need to “rectify” Caijing. The authorities have reprimanded the magazine for at least eight articles this year, including the China Central Television inquiry, and directed it to “return to positive reporting on finance and economics.”

Under orders from the All-China Federation, the S.E.E.C. demanded the right to prescreen the magazine before it went to print.

Ms. Hu resisted the order. But the magazine was still required to cut at least three investigative features, including one from Urumqi, and the Web site scrapped two new columns and left the “Politics and Law” section without new posts for three days in September, to avoid riling officials.

At a gathering with Mr. Wang in August, according to a friend of his in attendance, Mr. Wang said that officials had pressured him to fire Ms. Hu. Mr. Wang said that he would not go so far as to dismiss the acclaimed newswoman and that, he told friends, the move would cause an international scandal.

But his perceived failure to stand up to editorial pressures exacerbated the financial infighting about ownership shares and budgets, to the point that Ms. Hu and Mr. Wang, as another journalist put it, “couldn’t stand each other.”

In late September, Caijing’s general manager and other executives led a walkout of more than 60 business staff members. As of last month, dozens of those who resigned had already started working at what several said were Caixin’s new offices.

For weeks, many journalists have been planning to follow Ms. Hu to the new venture. But Ms. Hu could have to wait months for new publishing licenses, if the authorities approve them, the journalist and others said.

“She hopes that by having this new academic position will make it easier for her to negotiate” to start the new outlet, said the journalist, who was among those preparing to rejoin Ms. Hu.

Comments:
http://blogs.cn.reuters.com/blog/2009/11/10/一位《财经》杂志记者的辞职信/

(本文由作者本人授权转载,路透中文网编辑经作者同意,隐去作者名字,对文章略有删改。本文不代表路透观点。)

尊敬的有关领导:

我申请解除在《财经》杂志的劳动合同。作为《财经》工作近四年的普通一员,我自己对此感到遗憾。

《财经》是我在大学时就倾慕的一份杂志,其品牌的打造和价值观的树立,来之不易。虽对其母公司所知甚少,我仍相信,公司在过去十年中,为《财经》独特品牌与价值观的形成,提供了必要的孵化条件和极其重要的支持。在中国的媒体环境中,这些条件和支持更是难能可贵。正因如此,今天我仍愿意提笔之初写下“尊敬”两字。

《财经》对中国社会尤其新闻界的价值,已远远超乎其每年所赚取的可见收入。从《财经》九月底出现人事动荡以来,社会各界尤其新闻圈热烈的关注度,可见一斑。这远非其他同类媒体所能比拟。同时,那麽多人选择离开也表明,舒立在《财经》的作用毋庸置疑。

作为学新闻、做新闻十年有余的年轻人,我难以想象:这块中国罕见的能做真正新闻的净地,这面独树的新闻专业主义的旗帜,这张难得的讨论中国制度改革的课桌,不是因为强权的压制、不是因为竞争对手的攻击,而竟因自残而受损,以致可能丧失。

《财经》员工的薪酬水平的相对低廉,这是业界不争的事实。即便如此,每年都有一些的条件优秀的年轻人愿意申请加入,他们中不少甚至是降薪来就。同时,每年也有一些成熟的骨干离开《财经》,谋求更高薪酬的工作。

若是出於对中国新闻和改革事业的真正呵护,我想在《财经》盈利状况允许和发展形势尚好的情况下,调整薪酬水平和拓展《财经》发展空间的谈判之门应该敞开而不应关闭。

中国新闻史上,历史份量巨重的中文报纸《大公报》的经验和教训至今可鉴。1926年9月,吴鼎昌、张季鸾、胡政之合组新记公司,接办英敛之创办的《大公报》,三人拟定五项原则:

1,资金由银行家吴鼎昌一人筹措,不向任何方面募款。

2,三人专心办报,三年内不得担任任何有奉给的公职。

3,胡政之、张季鸾二人以劳力入股,每届年终,由报馆送于相当股额之股票。

4,吴鼎昌任社长,胡政之任经理兼副总编辑,张季鸾任总编辑兼副经理。

5,由三人共组社评委员会,研究时事,商榷意见,决定主张,轮流执笔。最後张季鸾负责修正,三人意见不同时,以多数决定,三人意见各不同时,以张季鸾为准。

解放前,《大公报》无论是在新闻上还是在经营上都是极其成功的,其最终陨落的主因在於难以抗拒的历史政治因素,但其独立报人的传统一直影响到如今的香港《明报》和《信报》。

《财经》十年来的成功,能给中国留下什麽?真的超过先贤了吗?1926年9月1日,《大公报》在复刊号发表的《本社同人之旨趣》中,提出了着名的“四不”社训:“不党、不私、不卖、不盲”。

作为普通员工,我不能尽悉目前《财经》动荡的局面究竟如何一步步酿就,但从零星的网上信息和坊间传言来看,曾经似乎已朝着“四不”原则的先贤之路迈步的《财经》,如今毫无疑问地在“不私”两字面前滑倒了,正如《大公报》的一些先贤在“不党”两字面前摔跤一样。

媒体若不能成为真正的“公器”,也不应该成为一部仅仅赚钱的“私器”!我相信,那些愿意降薪降职来到《财经》的人,并不期望自己在这里发大财,也许是为了“成名的想象”,而也许,就是那样简单,不过是为了在这块黄土地上找到半寸新闻净土以“立锥”。

历史选择了你们,你们没有选择历史。这两个月中发生种种不堪的景象,已经极大的消解了《财经》十载垒积的半寸高台。我无意在这里做任何道德指责,我所信仰的上帝每天都提醒我,我同你们一样是罪人,一样软弱,一样难担重负。但也许你们能像我一样,正如我能像我所跟随的耶稣那样,试着先拿走那颗坚硬冰冷自傲的心吧。

尽管我没有亲耳听到你们关於眼前这件事的描述和解释,但我愿意相信,你们做出关闭谈判之门的决定时,有着与《财经》采编团队离职同样充足的理由。祝愿《财经》走好,毕竟它的读者是无辜的。

在这最後,我只是希望(哪怕是奢望)无论结果如何,分手的双方不要再互相谩骂和攻击,尤其以暗昧的方式,无论是传播谎言还是网上删贴。为中国的新闻人留下几条不那麽干净但仍努力保持洁净的小路吧,毕竟,还有那麽多稚气学子的清澈的眼睛在看着你们,他们正如当年的我一样。
《财经》记者 XX

2009年11月10日
 
There has to be a position available in those Beijing schools in the first place, which there may not be. Opportunity structure matters.
 
Hu Shuli is famous enough enough that any school would make a position for her. Let's think through the factional elements here. Assuming that Wang Yang is behind her, this creates a new media outlet that would seem to identify with tuanpai interests. This contrasts with the more princeling oriented People's Daily. Where does the Economic Observer fit in? It makes sense to assume that a faction would need its own semi-captive media outlet, otherwise, why would Wang Yang's comments appear ahead of Wen Jiabao's in the Guangdong dailies when the Premier visits? Let's see how far the new Caijing takes their investigations into Chongqing in the future, as Wang Yang's gang of appointees and business ties are at the heart of the whole thing.
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?