Three causes and effects of corporate controllers

  In 2021, some private entrepreneurs are in trouble. I won’t tell you who they are. They’re just swiping their names on the Moments of Friends all day, so you can check them out by yourself.
  The “trouble” is mainly caused by internal reasons. In recent years, some private enterprises have been blindly expanding. Some people are desperately making big assets, hitting the world’s top 500, and trying to become “big to fail” giants. For example, HNA has been in “trouble” for several years. In the words of the founder of HNA Group, other companies have bought condoms except for condoms. Obviously, Cyclonus’s rapid diversification is not a big surprise.
  Some critics pointed out very rudely that the subtext of this development logic of enterprises is: “You (regulatory departments and local governments) cannot let me fall, otherwise, what about the people’s employment, so I must be rescued.” In the past, some private enterprises I was right. When I encountered a problem, I was indeed rescued, and the control of the company was still in the hands of my family.
  However, the current environment is different from the past, and some people are beginning to pay the price.
  HNA is not the only company, and many well-known companies have encountered the same problem. In the past ten years, these entrepreneurs have been the darlings of the news media’s financial page, but now they appear in another way.
  In this round of private enterprise development “turning out chaos”, if the “price” paid by entrepreneurs is classified according to size, then there are three levels from small to large.
  The first level is that companies reluctantly cut their meat and quickly sell their non-main business, especially overseas assets, to return to the country and return to their main business. Enterprises have overcome the difficulties and regained the support of state-owned financial institutions. After the company is back on track, the founder himself is still the actual controller of the company, and his power in the corporate empire has not diminished at all.
  This type of entrepreneurs tend to act decisively. Even if overseas assets are still at low valuations, they still sell decisively. Entrepreneurs also ushered in applause again.
Someone who engages in P2P is likely to provide financing for their own companies, using it as another financing channel for companies when credit policies are tightened. This “self-financing” is illegal.

  The second level is that companies hesitate a little when they act. Some non-main business or overseas assets are reluctant to sell. In other words, the boss hopes to wait and wait until the financial market environment is better and assets appreciate a little before selling. , You can’t buy or sell, and you didn’t make any money.
  The results of this category of founders are not as lucky as the first category. Due to the pressure of creditors, such as state-owned banks, some of them could only resell the equity of core companies at a low price, and their control over the enterprise was severely weakened. The enterprises actually controlled by the family have almost become public companies with dispersed equity.
  Among the second type of entrepreneurs, there are also some who have completely lost their equity. Their equity will either be transferred to other prosperous bosses to catch up with the prevailing boss, or they will be cleared during the process of bankruptcy and recovery. In other words, the results of decades of entrepreneurship are gone. But they are not the worst, because there is a third level that pays the price.
  The third level is that in addition to losing equity, entrepreneurs may also face legal sanctions. This type of entrepreneurs, like the second type of entrepreneurs, “reluctant to sell” or “sell slowly”, basically have one thing in common-keen on a special financial tool, P2P.
  P2P means peer to peer lending. According to the law, if you do P2P only to provide a platform for individual investors (peers) to choose their trading partners, and the platform collects commissions, then it is not necessarily illegal. But the actual situation is that someone who engages in P2P is likely to provide financing for their own companies, using it as another financing channel for companies when credit policies are tightened. This “self-financing” is illegal, and its essence is an illegal fundraising.
  You know, in the 1990s, several well-known private fundraising masters were eventually sentenced to death. Illegal fundraising involves the hard-earned money of the common people (wage income) and may also affect social stability.
  Of course, the times are different, and the law will definitely give everyone a fair judgment. But one thing is clear, some things are really untouchable.

error: Content is protected !!