www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 18 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Buenos díasEsta vez ya sí que sí:Evergrande y sus filiales paran su cotización tras desplomarse por orden de liquidaciónhttps://es.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/evergrande-y-sus-filiales-paran-su-cotizacion-tras-desplomarse-por-orden-de-liquidacion-2550212O no....Citar...Se espera que este mismo lunes se nombre un administrador judicial provisional para Evergrande, aunque los analistas ponen en duda que sea reconocido en la China continental, donde el grupo tiene la mayoría de sus activos....
...Se espera que este mismo lunes se nombre un administrador judicial provisional para Evergrande, aunque los analistas ponen en duda que sea reconocido en la China continental, donde el grupo tiene la mayoría de sus activos....
Operation Garden Plot And Martial LawIn 1968 the US Department of Defense at the request of the government drafted a civil disturbance plan called ‘Operation Garden Plot’(1) which outlined what was essentially a martial law response to large scale social breakdown. One of the main factors listed in the plan as a trigger for martial law was the uncontrolled mass migration of minorities into the US, as well as riots by minorities in light of economic uncertainty.Garden Plot has provisions designed to install a long lasting domestic military presence in the US if deemed necessary, and was even tied to programs like REX 84 (2) which planned out the installation of “FEMA camps” or detention facilities meant to hold large numbers refugees during a mass migration crisis. These programs were accidentally exposed during the Iran/Contra hearings of 1987 and were kept secret from a majority of representatives in Congress.(1) https://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/DA-CivilDisturbPlanGardenPlot_1968.pdf(2) https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fema/2015-FEFO-00367-rex84.pdf
Lo de dejar caer o forzar caer el inmobiliario, o se hace a nivel de toda la UE, o en España no se hará nada, será poco a poco, desangrando la economía y el páis.Yo no veo que esté mal a nivel de turismo, ni de empleo, ni de nada... así que los palilleros no tienen razones para temer. Sí, mucho control de precios en Cataluña y el País Vasco... pero de momento no tienen de que preocuparse.Otra cosa es que se aproveche la caída de Evergrande (y China oficialmente pinche su burbuja inmobiliaria) para hacer algo en el resto del mundo occidental, dándole la culpa a los Chinos, eso sí.De momento, cicuta señores. Nos la tenemos que envainar.
Con políticas fiscales, todo lo que no sea primera vivienda a por ello, a degüello y sin prisioneros. El problema que eso en estas "democracias liberales" que tenemos sería tachado de "comunismo confiscatorio que atentaría contra la base del capitalismo (propiedad privada)". Y si no a construir 800000 viviendas al año como en la época de Aznar, pero no para sus amiguitos, para la gente.
Chinese developer Evergrande ordered to be wound up by Hong Kong courtIndebted property group fails to agree restructuring plan with creditorsA Hong Kong court has ordered China Evergrande to be wound up, opening a new and unpredictable phase in the collapse of the world’s most indebted property developer.The liquidation order comes just over two years after the company’s official default, which triggered a cash crunch for Chinese developers that is still hobbling the world’s second-largest economy.High Court Judge Linda Chan issued the order on Monday after the developer failed to come up with a restructuring plan to satisfy international creditors despite lengthy negotiations.“It would be a situation where the court says enough is enough,” Chan said. “I consider that it is appropriate for the court to make a winding-up order against the company, and I so order.”The decision is set to test the reach of Hong Kong courts in the Chinese mainland, where foreign claims are widely seen to hold little sway and the property slowdown has become one of Beijing’s biggest political challenges.While Evergrande is listed in Hong Kong, almost all of its assets and the vast majority of its more than $300bn in liabilities are in China. Authorities have so far prioritised the completion of unfinished projects by developers.The judge appointed Edward Middleton and Tiffany Wong, from the restructuring firm Alvarez & Marsal, as Evergrande’s liquidators. Speaking outside the court, Wong said they would begin by meeting management to understand the affairs of the company and discuss next steps.In her judgment, Chan said she had decided to order the winding up because Evergrande had “no restructuring proposal, let alone a viable proposal which has the support of the requisite majorities of the creditors”.Her decision could trigger further lawsuits stemming from the billions of dollars of losses related to the company’s collapse.Trading in the Hong Kong-listed shares of Evergrande and two of its subsidiaries was halted after the ruling.Speaking after the hearing Fergus Saurin, a partner at law firm Kirkland and Ellis, which represents a key group of Evergrande creditors, said: “We are not surprised by the outcome. It’s a product of the company failing to engage with [us].“There has been a history of last-minute engagement which has gone nowhere. And in the circumstances, the company only has itself to blame for being wound up.”In theory, the ruling could pave the way for liquidators to attempt to seize control of some Evergrande assets in mainland China, since Hong Kong has a mutual recognition agreement on insolvency and restructuring that applies in some parts of China.However, it is not clear how far mainland courts will accept the Hong Kong winding-up order. Asked about the issue, Saurin declined to comment.Shortly after the court order, Chinese media reported that Evergrande’s chief executive Shawn Siu responded that the company would “do everything possible” to ensure the continued delivery of property development projects in China, adding that the operational structure of its onshore and offshore subsidiaries was “unaffected” as the court order was based in Hong Kong.Siu was also cited saying the court decision was “regrettable”.Evergrande did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Financial Times.Brock Silvers, chief investment officer of Hong Kong private equity group Kaiyuan Capital, said: “Offshore creditors may lack good alternatives, but a wind-up order from the Hong Kong court today would be the beginning of a multiyear, very costly process ultimately unlikely to yield significant recoveries.”Before the trading halt and following the order, shares in Evergrande fell more than 20 per cent to HK$0.16, while outstanding dollar bonds issued by the developer traded at deeply distressed levels, with one bond maturing in 2025 trading at less than two cents on the dollar.A previous deal between Evergrande and international investors fell apart in September after Chinese authorities failed to grant some regulatory approvals. Evergrande’s chair Hui Ka Yan was placed under “mandatory measures” days later on suspicion of “illegal crimes”, authorities said at the time.The winding-up lawsuit was filed in 2022 by offshore creditor Top Shine Global, which said Evergrande had failed to honour HK$863mn (US$110mn) worth of claims.The decision could have implications for other developers still locked in protracted restructuring negotiations with offshore creditors. Jiayuan, another Chinese developer, received a winding-up order from the same judge last year.(...)
I find this explanation of the Chinese system by Prof Keyu Jin (in a recent lecture at Harvard’s Fairbank center) absolutely fascinating.Keyu Jin is a professor of economics at LSE (London School of Economics) and serves on the board of companies like Credit Suisse. She’s also the daughter of Jin Liqun, former Vice Minister of finance of China so she’s a rare West-based academic (maybe even the only one) who actually has insight into the Chinese system from the inside.Essentially what she’s explaining is that a key reason why China was so successful economically is because of its decentralized nature, which creates two mutually compounding loops of competition, as opposed to one loop in the West.What does that mean? Well, contrary to popular belief that imagines China as being this centrally planned economy where almost everything is decided in Beijing, the inverse is actually true: China is actually one of the most decentralized countries in the world. To illustrate this, a metric that’s always amazed me is the fact that in China local governments (provinces, cities, villages, etc.) control a crazy 85% of the country's expenditures. On average that same metric for OECD countries is 33% (as in 64% of the expenditures are controlled at the federal/national level to China’s 15%). In the US for instance, which is already more decentralized than most given it’s a federation with states, only 45% of the country’s expenditures happen at the state and local level: almost twice less than in China!The effect of this, as Keyu Jin explains, is that provinces and larger municipalities in China have an immense degree of autonomy over the way they run their respective economies and fiercely compete with each other. This is the first loop. And then of course the second loop is that you have companies competing with each other in the market.As a result what constantly evolves in China is not only companies themselves but the environment in which they evolve: you constantly have this or that province running a new policy that proves very effective, making them gain an advantage vs other localities, initiative which is then copied by other localities. This makes the economic environment incredibly dynamic as it allows the state to move in unison with the economy, as opposed to slowing it down as is often the case in other countries.So what’s the role of the central government in all this? The key role, Keyu Jin argues, is setting broad objectives as well as personal management and promotion. And this is what makes the whole system work as therein lies the incentive for localities to compete with each other: because local officials know that if they do a better job than their peers, they’re on track for promotion by the central government. In “China Inc”, the central government is the board of directors and HR, presiding over an army of local CEOs with immense degrees of autonomy over their own “companies”.Keyu Jin gives the example of the solar industry. There was at some point (around 2005) a directive by the central government to develop the solar industry. The graph she shares in her talk is incredible: within a few years you had solar companies as well as patents related to research on solar technology pop up literally everywhere in China. With the result we all know about today: China today completely dominates the solar industry and solar technology (according to the International Energy Agency China's share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80%).As she explains, this makes the Chinese system somewhat paradoxical as it is at the same time incredibly decentralized but also incredibly effective at mobilizing the country for centrally-decided objectives, in fact she goes as far as comparing this effectiveness to the country being in a constant state of “wartime mobilization”. An interesting comparison would be if you had all the countries in North America, the EU and North Africa (altogether roughly the population of China) all united under a common leadership deciding on common objectives and on the career path of all these countries’ officials, based on how well they achieve these objectives in their respective countries.We’re seeing this system being mobilized in its full strength today on leading edge semiconductors after US sanctions, and this is why these sanctions will undoubtedly ultimately prove so self-defeating: once the Chinese “wartime mobilization” machine is given an objective - and you can be sure this objective is prioritized very highly - the fight is essentially over, you can consider it done. Once you have hundreds of thousands of PhDs, companies and officials all at the same time competing and working within the same broad “China Inc” roof to make something happen, it will ultimately get done. If you want China NOT to develop a technology, the very last thing you want is to make them mobilize the full strength of the machine on it. With the sanctions the U.S. effectively told China: “please we beg you, do dedicate your formidable economic mobilization power to becoming a semiconductors powerhouse as fast as possible” 🤦Another particularity of the system that Keyu Jin highlights - and I’ll end on this - is that this system also allows China to “allocate losses to certain groups of people, interest groups and sectors” in order to “enact system-level changes'', something she says is “very difficult for other governments with more political constraints to do”. For instance we’re seeing this play out in real-time with the real-estate industry: China recognized there was a housing bubble and Xi issued its “houses are for living in, not for speculation” directive. We’re since witnessing an engineered deflating of the bubble, ensuring to the extent possible that the losses are borne out by real estate developers and speculators, and not too much by society as a whole. This is part of the reason why China has never suffered a recession in the modern era: it does controlled demolition when necessary but tries to ensure it doesn’t suffer massive crises like we’ve repeatedly witnessed in the U.S. for instance.Of course no system is perfect. Weaknesses of the Chinese system include for instance local protectionism: there’s a perverse incentive for local officials to protect their local companies in order to give them a leg up vs companies from other provinces, which ultimately comes at the detriment of everyone. Another weakness is corruption, a sempiternal problem in China, where local officials - who are extremely powerful due to the nature of the system - will decide that getting promoted isn’t incentive enough and will try to cash in on their position of power. Cracking down on this is also a key remit of the central government and of course one of the major initiatives of Xi since he came to power.Lastly, another clear weakness is obviously that everything ultimately relies on the wisdom of what the system gets mobilized for, on the wisdom of these broader objectives coming from the central government. If they’re ill-thought, you effectively have a whole country working towards the wrong objectives… On this we’re often told that this problem doesn’t happen in countries where what the economy works towards is set more organically by the “invisible hand of the market” but if you think about it, it actually happens just the same as the “invisible hand of the market” actually equates “what’s good for shareholders” and what’s good for shareholders isn’t exactly always a perfect proxy for what’s good for society, to say the least... For instance it’s absolutely insane that we’ve just had 2-3 generations in the West where the best and brightest went to work for the finance industry to engineer ever more convoluted schemes to make money out of nothing, simply because it’s insanely profitable to do so. Anyone looking at this rationally can see it’s not exactly the best use of our precious human resources as a society… So all things considered, if I had to choose I’d much rather have our broad societal objectives set by human beings rather than by the theoretical concept of “what makes the most money deserves the most focus”. And as it turns out the Chinese system actually fares decently well against capitalism: human beings aren’t evidently too bad at deciding what human beings should work on if they’re being thoughtful and strategic about it.
Cita de: senslev en Enero 29, 2024, 15:37:25 pmCon políticas fiscales, todo lo que no sea primera vivienda a por ello, a degüello y sin prisioneros. El problema que eso en estas "democracias liberales" que tenemos sería tachado de "comunismo confiscatorio que atentaría contra la base del capitalismo (propiedad privada)". Y si no a construir 800000 viviendas al año como en la época de Aznar, pero no para sus amiguitos, para la gente.Ninguna de las dos cosas se va a hacer. Ahora resulta que tampoco se puede construir porque antes hay que reprimir el R-A-R …El caso es que siga pasando el tiempo sin que realmente se haga nada. Al final esto va a ser como la “lucha” contra la dictadura de Franco. Resulta que España estaba llena de “luchadores” pero la dictadura solo se acabó cuando el protagonista, viejo y enfermo, concedió morirse.
Cita de: neutron_mortgages en Enero 29, 2024, 16:07:47 pmCita de: senslev en Enero 29, 2024, 15:37:25 pmCon políticas fiscales, todo lo que no sea primera vivienda a por ello, a degüello y sin prisioneros. El problema que eso en estas "democracias liberales" que tenemos sería tachado de "comunismo confiscatorio que atentaría contra la base del capitalismo (propiedad privada)". Y si no a construir 800000 viviendas al año como en la época de Aznar, pero no para sus amiguitos, para la gente.Ninguna de las dos cosas se va a hacer. Ahora resulta que tampoco se puede construir porque antes hay que reprimir el R-A-R …El caso es que siga pasando el tiempo sin que realmente se haga nada. Al final esto va a ser como la “lucha” contra la dictadura de Franco. Resulta que España estaba llena de “luchadores” pero la dictadura solo se acabó cuando el protagonista, viejo y enfermo, concedió morirse.Tal cual. Mi impresión, es que esto empezará en serio en 10 años. Cuando parte de los rentistas empiecen a morir y/o a necesitar cash para costearse gastos médicos. El proceso, una vez comenzado, puede durar otros 10 años más. 20 años de agonía.La otra posibilidad es que en 2030, cuando entre en vigor la nueva ley de eficiencia energética no se podrá vender y o alquilar sin reformar antes. En cualquier caso, todo queda demasiado lejos. Pedirle a álguie que tiene 30 años ahra que espere 10 años, es joderle sus espectativas vitales. Al final contaremos las generaciones quemadas de 5 en 5 :-(
German KaDeWe Files for Insolvency to Escape Signa RentsOwner Central Group ‘remains committed’ to KaDeWe chainLuxury Berlin department store’s rent up 37% since 2018-2019The collapse of Rene Benko’s real estate empire is spreading to his luxury retail assets, with department store operator KaDeWe Group filing for insolvency in Berlin.KaDeWe, which runs the eponymous department store in Berlin as well as high-end outlets in Munich and Hamburg, was “forced” to apply for a self-administered insolvency to uncouple from the high rents it has to pay, the company said in a statement on Monday.KaDeWe pays rents to a unit of Benko’s Signa organization, which handles its stakes in the operating company and its underlying property separately.While the stores are operationally healthy, the rental burdens are harming profitability, Chief Executive Officer Michael Peterseim said. “Numerous discussions with the landlord have not changed this, nor, unfortunately, have the insolvencies at Signa.”The group posted sales of almost €728 million ($786 million) in the 2022-2023 financial year, the highest in its history and almost 24% higher than in the pre-Covid period, it said. Rents have risen by almost 37% compared to the 2018-2019 financial year, the company said.“This means that the business is clearly profitable ‘before rent’— but clearly not ‘after rent’,” it said.KaDeWe Group is majority owned by Thailand’s Central Group, which bought a 50.1% stake in the three department stores from Signa in 2015.Central Group was unable to reach an agreement on store rents due to the “intransigent position of KaDeWe’s landlord,” the Thai conglomerate said in a statement.The group, which also partnered up with Signa to acquire Swiss retailer Globus in 2020 and UK Selfridges department stores in 2021, said KaDeWe’s insolvency would not affect the rest of its portfolio, according to a separate statement. “Central Group remains committed to providing full support to KaDeWe and its other European luxury stores,” it said.