Connect with us
Wise usd campaign
ADVERTISEMENT

China

China’s new tech board is a rising STAR

Published

on

A sign for STAR Market, China

Author: Qian Han, Xiamen University

On 13 June 2019, as part of its capital market reform, China officially launched the Science and Technology Innovation Board (STAR). Trading in the STAR market has been quite active since its debut on 22 July 2019. The first batch of 25 stocks listed on the board — mostly from the telecommunication, media and technology sector and equipment manufacturing industries — saw their prices on average more than double with a price-to-earnings (PE) ratio of around 136, compared with the industry average level of just 33. The daily average stock turnover also reached 40 per cent, much higher than that for the Chinese A-share market.

The new board is attracting a lot of investor attention because it is designed to boost the development of China’s sci-tech industry and serve as a test field for future capital market innovations. This dual strategic function is being highlighted amid an ongoing US–China trade war, heightened tensions over Huawei and a recent determination that the Chinese government will gradually open up its domestic financial market to the rest of the world. On 9 August 2019, the 27 STAR-listed companies achieved a total market cap of 660 billion RMB (approximately US$93 billion) and together raised over 37 billion RMB (US$5.2 billion) in net funding from the initial public offering (IPO) after fees and expenses.

The seemingly high PE ratio and turnover could perhaps be explained by the uniqueness of the sci-tech industry. A typical sci-tech start-up company needs years of research and development before it can generate steady income and profits, so investors are encouraged to put more weight on growth potential in valuing STAR stocks instead of the traditional PE valuation model.

On the other hand, statistics from the Shanghai Security Exchange show that on the first day of trading, over 70 per cent of the sell transactions were from institutional investors and over 95 per cent of the buy transactions were from retail investors. This indicates that institutions were eager to pocket early gains, suggesting the possibility of a price reversal in the following trading days. In fact, trading in the third week cooled down — just 3 out of 27 stocks saw their prices rise and on average the market went down by 11.55 per cent.

One of the key innovations of the STAR market is replacing the current approval-based IPO system with a registration-based IPO system. Under this new system, as long as information is guaranteed to be accurate and fully disclosed, the market (rather than the regulatory body) decides whether a firm is capable of issuing stocks and how much a firm is valued.

This holds issuers and investment banks responsible for ensuring the completeness, consistency and validity of the IPO information. On 4 July 2019, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) issued a warning letter to China International Capital Corporation, an elite investment bank in China, and put two employees on record for their unauthorised changes of client’s IPO application files.

The STAR board also has the most stringent delisting policies in history. Once a firm meets certain criteria, such as a market cap lower than 300 million RMB (US$41.8 million) for 20 consecutive trading days, it will be immediately delisted. In the main board it is possible for a problem firm to first be suspended, then resume the IPO process after resolving related issues. But firms with severe compliance violations can never be relisted on the STAR board. Regulators hope that these harsh delisting policies will ensure a high quality of listed firms and enhance the efficiency of resource allocation.

STAR market investors also need to get accustomed to a series of new trading rules. Compared with the current 10 per cent price limit for stocks traded on the main board, the STAR market sees no daily price limits imposed in the first five trading days immediately after the IPO, after which it switches to a 20 per cent daily price limit. The wider range of intraday price fluctuations will likely generate higher volatility in the STAR market.

As a countermeasure to curb volatility, the Shanghai Stock Exchange stipulates that when investors place limit orders, the bid price cannot exceed 102 per cent of the base price (usually the best bid) and the ask price cannot be lower than 98 per cent of the base price (usually the best ask). Otherwise these orders are automatically considered invalid. There are also several circuit breakers in place during the trading period to cool down the market.

Further…

Read the rest of this article on East Asia Forum

Continue Reading

Business

Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill

Published

on

A Democrat claims Elon Musk influenced the reduction of a spending bill due to its restrictions on China, suggesting his actions impacted the legislation’s progress and funding allocation.


Allegations Against Musk

A prominent Democrat has accused Elon Musk of deliberately sabotaging a significant spending bill in response to China-related restrictions. This accusation comes amid ongoing tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly regarding technology and trade policies. The claims suggest that Musk’s influence is affecting critical legislative processes, raising concerns among lawmakers about foreign influence in American politics.

Implications for Legislation

The potential ramifications of Musk’s alleged actions could be significant. As a major player in the tech industry, his decisions can sway public opinion and impact the economy. Lawmakers fear that if influential figures like Musk oppose necessary legislation, it might hinder efforts to address vital issues such as national security and economic stability.

Political Reactions

The controversy has sparked debates among both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the intersection of technology and politics. Many are demanding greater transparency and accountability from tech giants. As the situation unfolds, lawmakers may need to reassess their strategies to ensure that essential legislation moves forward uninterrupted.

Source : Democrat accuses Musk of tanking spending bill over China restrictions – The Hill

Continue Reading

China

Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration

Published

on

China promotes simplified deregistration to enhance its business environment, offering a faster process requiring fewer documents than general deregistration. Companies must meet eligibility criteria, resolve issues, and can choose procedures based on their situation, ensuring compliance for both options.


In addition to the general deregistration procedures, China has been promoting simplified deregistration as one of the key measures to enhance its business environment. This article highlights the differences between the general and simplified procedures, explains the eligibility criteria, and clarifies common misunderstandings about these processes.

Foreign investors may decide to close their business for multiple reasons. To legally wind up a business, investors must complete a series of procedures involving multiple government agencies, such as market regulatory bureaus, foreign exchange administrations, customs, tax authorities, banking regulators, and others. In this article, we outline the company deregistration process overseen by the local Administration for Market Regulation (AMR), comparing the general and simplified procedures.

Before 2016, companies could only deregister through the general procedure. However, on December 26, 2016, the Guidance on Fully Promoting the Reform of Simplified Company Deregistration Procedures was released. Effective March 1, 2017, simplified deregistration procedures were implemented nationwide. Since then, there have been two options: general procedures and simplified procedures.

Companies must follow the general deregistration process if any of the following conditions apply (hereinafter referred to as “existing issues”):

Companies not facing the above issues may choose either the general or simplified deregistration process.  

In summary, simplified deregistration is a faster process and requires fewer documents compared to general deregistration. Companies that meet the criteria typically would typically opt for simplified deregistration. Those that do not meet the criteria may choose this route after resolving outstanding issues. For companies with unresolved issues but seeking urgent closure, they can first publish a deregistration announcement. Once the announcement period ends and all issues are addressed, they can proceed with general deregistration. Some companies may question the legitimacy and compliance of simplified deregistration. This is a misconception. “Simplified” does not mean non-compliant, just as “general” does not imply greater legitimacy. Both processes are lawful and compliant. The AMR provides these options to enable companies ready for closure to complete the process efficiently while granting those with unsolved issues the necessary time to address them after publishing the deregistration announcement. Companies can select the most suitable process based on their specific circumstances.

 


This article was first published by China Briefing , which is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia from offices across the world, including in in ChinaHong KongVietnamSingapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support.

Read the rest of the original article.

Continue Reading

China

China’s influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades

Published

on

The 2024 U.N. climate talks in Baku yielded mixed results, agreeing to increase funding for developing nations. However, challenges remained in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving sustainable progress.

The 2024 U.N. climate talks ended in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 24 after two weeks of arguments, agreements and side deals involving 106 heads of states and over 50,000 business leaders, activists and government representatives of almost every country.

Few say the conference was a resounding success. But neither was it a failure.

The central task of the conference, known as COP29, was to come up with funding to help developing countries become more resilient to the effects of climate change and to transition to more sustainable economic growth.

The biggest challenge was agreeing on who should pay, and the results say a lot about the shifting international dynamics and offer some insight into China’s role. As a political science professor who has worked on clean tech policy involving Asia, I followed the talks with interest.

Slow global progress

Over three decades of global climate talks, the world’s countries have agreed to cut their emissions, phase out fossil fuels, end inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies and stop deforestation, among many other landmark deals.

They have acknowledged since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, when they agreed to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, that greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, would harm the climate and ecosystems, and that the governments of the world must work together to solve the crisis.

But progress has been slow.

Greenhouse gas emissions were at record highs in 2024. Governments are still subsidizing fossil fuels, encouraging their use. And the world is failing to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial times – a target established under the 2015 Paris Agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Extreme weather, from lethal heat waves to devastating tropical cyclones and floods, has become more intense as temperatures have risen. And the poorest countries have faced some of the worst damage from climate change, while doing the least cause it.

Money for the poorest countries

Developing countries argue that they need US$1.3 trillion a year in financial support and investment by 2035 from the wealthiest nations – historically the largest greenhouse gas emitters – to adapt to climate change and develop sustainably as they grow.

That matters to countries everywhere because how these fast-growing populations build out energy systems and transportation in the coming decades will affect the future for the entire planet.

Negotiators at the COP29 climate talks. Less developed countries were unhappy with the outcome.
Kiara Worth/UN Climate Change via Flickr

At the Baku conference, member nations agreed to triple their existing pledge of $100 billion a year to at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries. But that was far short of what economists have estimated those countries will need to develop clean energy economies.

The money can also come from a variety of sources. Developing countries wanted grants, rather than loans that would increase what for many is already crushing debt. Under the new agreement, countries can count funding that comes from private investments and loans from the World Bank and other development banks, as well as public funds.

Groups have proposed raising some of those funds with additional taxes on international shipping and aviation. A U.N. study projects that if levies were set somewhere between $150 and $300 for each ton of carbon pollution, the fund could generate as much as $127 billion per year. Other proposals have included taxing fossil fuels, cryptocurrencies and plastics, which all contribute to climate change, as well as financial transactions and carbon trading.

China’s expanding role

How much of a leadership role China takes in global climate efforts is an important question going forward, particularly with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump expected to throttle back U.S. support for climate policies and international funding.

China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the second-largest economy.

China also stands to gain as provider of the market majority of green technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.

Whether or not China should be expected to contribute funding at a level comparable to the other major emitters was so hotly contested at COP29 that it almost shut down the entire conference.

Previously, only those countries listed by the U.N. as “developed countries” – a list that doesn’t include China – were expected to provide funds. The COP29 agreement expands that by calling on “all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing.”

In the end, a compromise was reached. The final agreement “encourages developing countries to make contributions on a voluntary basis,” excluding China from the heavier expectations placed on richer nations.

Side deals offer signs of progress

In a conference fraught with deep division and threatened with collapse, some bright spots of climate progress emerged from the side events.

In one declaration, 25 nations plus the European Union agreed to no new coal power developments. There were also agreements on ocean protection and deforestation. Other declarations marked efforts to reenergize hydrogen energy production and expanded ambitious plans to reduce methane emissions.

Future of UN climate talks

However, after two weeks of bickering and a final resolution that doesn’t go far enough, the U.N. climate talks process itself is in question.

In a letter on Nov. 15, 2024, former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and a group of global climate leaders called for “a fundamental overhaul to the COP” and a “shift from negotiation to implementation.”

After back-to-back climate conferences hosted by oil-producing states, where fossil-fuel companies used the gathering to make deals for more fossil fuels on the side, the letter also calls for strict eligibility requirements for conference hosts “to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy.”

With Trump promising to again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, it is possible the climate leadership will fall to China, which may bring a new style of climate solutions to the table.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading