Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., continuing efforts to lessen the huge U.S. trade gap with China, announced Wednesday he would make his third visit to the country next month since joining President George W. Bush's cabinet in July.

The Treasury Department said Paulson would meet in Beijing with government officials March 7 and deliver a major speech on Chinese capital markets in Shanghai on March 8.

The administration is trying to convince the Chinese to open their financial markets to greater participation by U.S. companies.(AP)

Russia is interested in acquiring a larger stake in European Aeronautic Defense & Space, the parent company of the airplane manufacturer Airbus, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said. Such "meaningful cooperation would be interesting and useful not only for Russian producers but for their European partners," Putin said during a meeting with the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, and the defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie. (AP)

Tishman Speyer Properties, the owner of Rockefeller Center in New York, and two Indian partners plan to build a $2 billion commercial and residential development outside of Hyderabad in south- central India. (Bloomberg)

Goldman Sachs Group's chairman and chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, received more than $54.3 million in cash, stock and options last year after leading the most profitable Wall Street investment bank for just six months. (Reuters)

Best Buy,the top U.S. consumer electronics retail chain, plans to open about 130 stores in the United States, Canada and China during its fiscal year beginning March 4, the company said.

(Reuters)

Renault has become the subject of an inquiry by a French prosecutor after three workers committed suicide since last October. Michel Desplan, the public prosecutor in Versailles, said he opened the inquiry into working conditions at a Renault technical design center. The CFDT workers union said that employees had been under increasing pressure since the company introduced a restructuring plan last year. (Reuters)

AT&T Inc., the largest U.S. telephone company, won a five-year contract worth almost $1 billion from General Motors to provide communications services and help integrate the automaker's networks.

(Bloomberg)

Thailand has held "unofficial" talks with Temasek Holdings of Singapore about buying satellite and mobile phone assets it acquired from investors, including the family of the deposed Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. (Bloomberg)

British Airways ordered four Boeing 777-200 extended range aircraft to bolster its fleet. (AP)

China Direct, Inc.
Roth Capital Conference
February 20, 2007 11:00 am ET

Marc Siegel - President

Presentation

Moderator

With that, I'll let Marc take it away

Marc Siegel

Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. My name is Marc Siegel, President of China Direct. At China Direct, we do two things. Number one, we take majority stakes in Chinese companies. And number two, we do full service consulting to help Chinese companies go public in the US.

Why China? Everybody in this room probably knows why China. But we have been on the ground since 2001. We did our first transaction in December of 2001. China is the fastest growing economy in the world, the fourth largest economy in the world, and that middle class is growing. Right now it’s over 100 million people.

We focus on small to medium-size companies in China. The reason we do that is there are 20 million small companies in China. Not only that, but they account for 75% of the 9.6% growth. Without the small companies, the Chinese economy would have only grown at about 2% to 3% rather than 9.6% they are growing at.

The last thing I want to say is they are ignored by mainstream institutions, not only US institutions but Chinese institutions. Quick stats, for who want to hear, of our fiscal year, calendar year, our stock is well at 3.9. I think the most important thing to show you here is that we have $17.8 million of total assets and we've raised a little under $5 million.

This is the most important slide, so try to memorize this one real quick. Again, our company does two things. One, we take majority stakes. In the majority stakes, we own at least 51% of the companies we consolidate the revenues of.

On this slide, on our Consulting Division, we take minority stakes. We help turnkey solutions to help Chinese companies go public in the US. We've done six transactions so far. These are our client companies. These are our portfolio companies. All right, take this picture of us.

At China Direct, we do not take any cash fees for our services. We take only stock fees. Once in a while when we help with a strategic acquisition, we do get a cash fee. But as far as our consulting work, we take only stock, put ourselves on the same side as the management team.

Some of our client companies you may have heard of. Companies that were very liquid; Sunwin Neutraceuticals was our first transaction under China Direct; Linkwell, a disinfectant company in Shanghai; Dragon International, it’s a specialty packaging company; Dragon Capital, it’s an incubator of small-cap Chinese companies, that should go up to the bigger exchanges; and SEHO is looking actively for a Chinese company to acquire.

At China Direct, the Management Division -- this is the key point. We take control of these companies. But not only do we take control, we actively manage them. We put in our own accounting systems. We speak to the management on a daily basis. We have an office not only in Boca Raton; we have an office in Shanghai.

In our Shanghai office, there are five people and they monitor what's going on with these Chinese companies. In our Boca Raton office, we have five bilingual people, so we are available to our clients 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

What we do at China Direct Investments in the US, we mirror in China. So, we again monitor exactly what's going on. Once we give them the money, we just don’t abandon them. We are there on a weekly basis reviewing what the company's operations are, how the company is growing with the capital we brought in and with our advice.

We, also in China, do a very effective marketing campaign. Most of our competitors do not go into outskirts. They work in Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou. We go to cities that a lot of people have never heard of before and I could be the only white guy who has ever been to those cities. But we help those companies in those cities and the politicians in that town to bring capital to that area.

Why is our model attractive? About two years ago, the rules have changed. The price of a [shale] used to be $185,000. Now it's about $600,000. The legal used to be about 70 grand. It's about 150 grand now. The accounting used to be about $50,000. Now it's about $85,000.

So for Chinese companies, if they want to go public in the US, they need to put up about $1 million of their own money to take the shot at raising money in the public arena. Most Chinese companies, in our experience, are not willing to do that. The China Direct model changes all of that.

One of the rules that changed, you need to have your audits done within four days on a reverse merger. It used to be 75 days. And under our model, as a company, we can take majority stake, we do the audit, we pay for the audit, we pay for the legal, and as soon as we are done with the accountings, we give them their money.

There is no risk for the Chinese company in that regard. They don't put up a penny until they get money from us, then we own majority of the company.

It makes much easier for the Chinese companies to get public awareness. And also, we provide what I would call "training wheels" to these Chinese companies. They don't go public just on their own. They go public under our umbrella and we teach them what it’s like to be public in the US. How to do a road show? How to talk to your translators? How to talk to your investors, et cetera?

All right, let me tell you about our acquisition structure, because it's very important to understand this. In the last six transactions we have done, we paid one-time net tangible assets to buy these Chinese companies. Usually, that translates to one and two times earnings.

When we program for the US, it’s a big arbitrage play, because the company should trade in line with their competitors here in the US. And therefore, our returns on our money have won approximately eight to ten times our investment dollars, which is why our assets are going up so dramatically.

The way we do our transactions, we do it in cash and stock. The cash portion is always for working capital. That's very important. We do not buy-out the management. Our formula is we have management buy-in, not buy-out. So, we put ourselves on the same side of the table as them. They have stock in our company, so that their incentive is the same as ours. It's a very important [chart].

The second thing we do is we infuse the cash in stages. In other words, we give the Chinese companies benchmarks to hit. And when they hit those benchmarks, whether they would be on a quarterly basis or a semi-annual basis, we then give them a second tranche of money. We then give them the third tranche of money. So, we incentivize them and we make sure that there are on path with us.

Again, our acquisition model, I think this is really important to understand, is based on management buy-in, not management buy-out.

Let me go over our subsidiaries. These are the majority of subsidiaries. We have Lang Chemical, Chang Magnesium, Big Tree Toy Group, Jinan Alternative Energy Group, and CDI Magnesium.

Lang Chemical, a picture of one of their distribution facilities. Let me tell you what they have done. We own 51% of the company. They have 18 employees. They were in Shanghai. They are one of the largest wholesalers in Eastern China. They have customers that include BASF, Celanese, and Lucite. This year, 2007, the benchmark for this company is $44 million this year, with our infusion of capital, about $880,000 of profit.

Chang Magnesium is our largest company. Chang Magnesium has 415 employees. Again, we own 51% of the company. They are in Taiyuan, China, which is about 100 miles south of Beijing. They are one of the top magnesium companies in China.

Does anybody know what magnesium is? I will give you one quick example. Take aluminum can. Aluminum can is 98.5% aluminum, 1.5% magnesium. Why? Because it makes it stronger than the aluminum can itself. The top that you pull, so that you can drink it, is 4% magnesium. Why? So the top doesn't cave in when you open the can.

These guys sell to Alcoa, Alcan, Black & Decker. We take $2.5 million for this company. We believe that in 2007, they’ll do $52 million in revenue, bring $3 million to the bottom-line, our percentage of that would be about $1.5 million.

This is what magnesium looks like in its pure form, kind of like gold, but silver.

Big Tree Toy Group. We’ve just taken this company. We own 50% of it. They were in town called Shantou. In Shantou, there are 20,000 toy companies, i.e. (inaudible) that was not made in China. This company has 18,000 square feet of warehouse space, where they have showrooms.

What's important about that is because these 20,000 companies do what they do. These guys are a one-stop shop. So you can go in their showroom if you are a buyer for Wal-Mart, you are buyer for Kmart, you are a buyer for Carrefour; you can go to their showroom and see 170,000 toys on display. You don't have to go shopping around to 20 different places. At one place, you will find everything you need.

The most important aspect of this company is their customer service. In many of the Chinese toy companies, you pick and give the order, they ship it to you. You don't speak to anybody to get it. We follow up with the people every two days, where we call them, and tell them what the shipping is, when it's going to arrive, the quality of the shipment, et cetera.

The company also is putting together an OEM base, where they have deals already with Mattel, Hasbro, and Disney. In this company, we’ve put in $1 million, two tranches, $500,000 loan, another $500,000 loan, and we paid 250,000 shares of China Direct stock for this company. We expect that in 2007, based on the benchmark, to do 20 million in revenue and make about $1 million. This is a sample of the showroom.

Jinan Alternative Energy, this is the most exciting company we have. Jinan, we own 51%, they have 32 employee. What these guys do is they manufacture a machine, a machine probably twice the size of this room. New tires go in one side, diesel fuel, [carbon wax], crude oil, depending on the catalyst, which by the way is proprietary to them. Oil comes out the other side. No pollution, oil recycling green companies.

We paid $1.25 million in cash. We put all those in stages. In four stages, we’re paying this company. 400,000 was the first, 350 the second, et cetera. We expect on a benchmark, revenues of 20 million this year, net about $1 million. They only have two competitors is China. This product, again, is patented in the alternative energy sector.

CDI Magnesium, we’ve created a joint venture here. We are using a facility of one of the companies that we know very well. Eight employees put up $500,000, 22,000 shares in China Direct stock. These guys manufacture and sell magnesium alloy, which is one step after magnesium. Magnesium alloy is a mixture of metals.

Magnesium alloy is used for mag wheels, the 24-inch spokes that Ludacris probably has in his cars, aluminum cans, cell phones. They are one of the leaders in the business and we expect them just from a start to do a minimum of $2 million to make about 10% bottom-line. That’s what magnesium alloy looks like.

We will not acquire a company unless we believe that we could add substantial value to that company. I want to give you a couple of examples of how we add value to these companies and why we actually acquire them.

In the case of Lang Chemical, which was our first acquisition, which I mentioned, did $31 million audited in 2005. We are expecting $44 million this year on a benchmark. We’re going to help them add a new manufacturing facility.

The reason we are doing that is because as a chemical wholesaler, they work on very low margins. By adding the manufacturing facility, we can increase their margins from 2 to 3% to roughly 10 to 12%. We also raised the line of credit so they can have better cash flow and turnover the chemicals faster. We are also looking to make them an exporter as opposed to an importer.

Traditionally, China has been a major importer of chemicals. We believe, over the next five years, they will become a major exporter of chemicals. It should make their profits go up as well.

In the case of Chang, how we add value?

By creating our capital structure that we did, which was a joint venture with the US, we reduced their taxes by 30%. That was our first value-add. In addition to that, in the US, it’s been airtight [dumping rolls] for magnesium, and that allowed us to bring magnesium into the US from China.

Because they are now a subsidiary of a US public company, we already are in place lobbying in Congress to try to get that exemption lifted for our company, because they are a US-based company.

We are also getting them money to build a new 20,000-ton facility. That facility will add $40 million in revenue for the company this year. Because they are the third-largest producer, not an exporter of magnesium in China, we are trying to now use our money and use the capitalization of the company because it’s the best capitalized company in its town.

And by the way, China produces about 70% of the world’s magnesium. We are trying now to try and monopolize that business.

How are we going to continue to grow?

As I have already mentioned, our company started formally in January of 2005. 2007 numbers, I'll get to in a minute, but I think that you will see that they've grown very, very rapidly.

We are going to grow by increasing the companies that we have already acquired internally, adding a manufacturing facility to our Toy Group for the OEM side, developing new markets for our products, helping them import to the US, increasing revenues from our consulting clients. That's how we'll grow internally.

Externally, we see significant growth. We've already acquired six companies. We have six more on the burner, and we are very, very careful the way we acquire these companies.

Don’t forget, we only use cash and stock. The one-time net tangible assets, the cash [isn’t] used slowly, but we don't take a lot of risk, and we look for certain things in our management team.

They have to have a proven track record. They have applied with competitive advantages over their competitors. And most importantly, we need to value-add. If we don't think that we could grow the company's business by minimally 50% over the next 18 months, we don't do the acquisition.

Our target candidates, anywhere from 20 to $50 million in revenue, strong management, at least 20% growth in revenues, and again, we could actively manage this company and we could add value. So with many companies we find that you can do more than the others, but it's very difficult to [climb above], as you can do both where the management is cooperative. So those are our criteria.

We just recently came back from China. We were there for three weeks. We have done a number of acquisitions that we believe will be very accretive to China Direct. We found an oil refinery, a logistics company, another alternative energy company, an ethanol company, a food processing company, and iron ore mining company. If we did three of these, we would add about $300 million in revenue to the company.

Management, I am not going to read these slides. My partner James Wang is born and raised in Shanghai. He is one of the smartest guys I know. He is a Ph.D. in Immunology. It’s for people that have got to combat viruses. He has been a CEO of a public company before. It was called GTEC. GTEC was the symbol. And he runs our China operations.

I am in charge of the US operations, been on Wall Street for 20 something years and I don't want to say how long I have been in the brokerage business. The most important thing I think I bring to China Direct is that I know how to buy companies. I know how to build them. I know how to sell them.

By the way, James and I have been together since 1998. So, it's not like we’ve got together yesterday, or we are getting divorced tomorrow.

David Stein, our Chief Operating Officer, he has been with me since 2000. He is a quarterback. What he does is to make sure that our company reports quality numbers on a timely basis. He quarterbacks between the Chinese companies, the accountants, and the auditors to make sure our Qs and Ks are on time and they are filed correctly. It's a very important function.

Jenny Liu is our CPA. Jenny runs a team of four different girls, all with accounting degrees. She goes and checks all the numbers in addition to our SEC approved auditor here in US to [ensure] the company. She goes over to China five times a year to make sure internally that we check these numbers.

Quick selected financial data. Our cash at the end of 2005 was $39,000, is $3.5 million. Most importantly, our shareholder equity has gone from $516,000 to $6 million in 2006, unaudited.

Okay, financial outlook. In looking at the first 6 weeks of the year, we believe that besides the two companies we didn’t take, the four other acquisitions we made, all these companies will add to our numbers in 2007. We believe, based on the benchmarks, that we have in place right now, that we will go out from 2005 audited of $1.4 million, we will do over a $100 million in revenue in 2007, and make at least $5 million.

Let me summarize. Why is that you want to buy China Direct? You have access to Chinese companies not at the start-up stage, but at the expansion stage. We have a very unique structure that allows these Chinese companies to get access to the US markets quickly and efficiently. We get value and growth in one investment. We do the due diligence for you.

Again, we have an office in Shanghai for six years. The management buy-in approach is not a buy-out approach, but a buy-in approach, so these guys want the same thing as us. There is no reason for them to have any conflicts with us.

Our team has done six transactions. So far, they’ve all worked. So, we are pretty experienced in doing this. Management team is native to Shanghai, they were born and raised there. And I have some experience on Wall Street.

Lastly, investment highlights. You have access to the most dynamic and fastest growing economy in the world. You have a proven team, strong growth in revenues and earnings, proven track record and our model is scalable.

Right now, we have six subsidiaries that we own 51 to 60% and then we have our consulting clients. Our model has been put in place (inaudible) with the infrastructure we have today.

The last thing I want to say is two or three times in your life you get the chance to be in the right place in the right time, and I think that we are there now.

So, I am finished. I will take questions if you have any.

Question-and-Answer Session

Unidentified Audience Member

[Question Inaudible]

Marc Siegel

Sure.

Unidentified Audience Member

By Deepak Gopinath

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- It was the moment they'd all been waiting for. Way up in a New York skyscraper, inside the Times Square headquarters of Morgan Stanley, bankers and brokers were about to learn how their boss, John Mack, would divvy up millions of dollars in bonuses for 2006, the richest year in Wall Street history.

Instead, he was an ocean away on that December day, congratulating his stars in London. In an office overlooking the River Thames, Chief Executive Officer Mack was anointing more than 70 new managing directors in Europe, where revenue has been growing by about 40 percent a year lately, more than double the rate in the U.S.

In this era of superlatives on Wall Street -- record profit, record pay, record mergers -- a chorus of alarm is rising over a tectonic shift within the global securities industry.

President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have warned that the U.S. risks losing its edge in the financial world as markets in Europe and Asia grow.

Two studies -- one conducted by McKinsey & Co. for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Senator Charles Schumer, and another done by a group of executives and academics -- have concluded that excessive regulation is making the U.S. an unattractive place to sell new stocks. (Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.)

In particular, the reports single out the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the antifraud law passed after the debacle at Enron Corp.

IPO Flight

Both studies point to figures that show initial public offerings are migrating to Hong Kong and London, where underwriters charge half of what they do in the U.S. If IPOs flee, the thinking goes, trading, investment and jobs will follow.

Unless the U.S. takes action -- including relaxing the way Sarbanes-Oxley regulations are followed -- New York will lose its spot as the world's financial capital, according to McKinsey. The resulting upheaval would jeopardize 30,000-60,000 U.S. jobs, the 134-page report says. A third study, this one from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is due out in March. Paulson, former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., will convene a conference in Washington in March to take up the issue.

``America's capital markets are the deepest, the broadest and most efficient in the world,'' Bush said in his Jan. 31 State of the Economy report, which he delivered at Federal Hall, across the street from the New York Stock Exchange. ``Yet excessive litigation and overregulation threaten to make our financial markets less attractive to investors, especially in the face of rising competition from capital markets abroad.''

`Gold Standard'

His warning echoed one that Paulson had issued to former Wall Street colleagues in November.

``Historically, the U.S. markets have represented the gold standard,'' Paulson said in a speech at the Economic Club of New York. ``Yet recently, in the wake of new, heightened regulatory and listing requirements for all public companies in the U.S., we have witnessed changes in IPO activity.''

With all of the hand-wringing, you'd think Wall Street was going down the tubes. On the contrary, U.S. financial firms have never been more profitable. Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. -- all based in New York -- collected more fees from underwriting securities and advising on mergers and acquisitions in 2006 than any other firms, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. These five firms made more than $60 billion in net income last year. Their employees around the globe pocketed an estimated $60 billion in bonuses. In all, investment banks worldwide collected $71 billion in fees from M&A and underwriting, the most since Bloomberg began keeping records.

Easing Rules

Amid such riches, calls to roll back rules designed to prevent another Enron ring hollow, says Amy Borrus, deputy director of the Washington-based Council of Institutional Investors. Strong regulation helps the U.S. by fostering confidence in its markets, she says.

``It is ironic that, in a year when Wall Street raked in mountains of profits and paid record bonuses, they would be complaining about competitiveness,'' says Borrus, whose organization represents 140 public, union and corporate pension funds with combined assets of more than $3 trillion.

The McKinsey report says the U.S. can't afford to wait. To help American markets compete, the U.S. government should ease immigration restrictions, so banks can attract more talent from overseas, and take steps to curb costly litigation, the study says.

$6 Billion

The New York-based consulting firm also recommends that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which oversees auditors, change guidelines for the Sarbanes-Oxley rules. Section 404 requires managers of companies that are publicly traded in the U.S. to evaluate their international financial controls and hire outside auditors to sign off on those assessments. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, executives also must personally certify the accuracy of financial results.

All of that takes money. Companies probably spent $6 billion in 2006 to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley law, according to a study by Boston-based AMR Research Inc. On average, a company spends about $4 million a year to comply with section 404, according to surveys by Financial Executives International, a Florham Park, New Jersey-based organization representing 15,000 corporate financial executives.

Accounting costs are only part of the equation, says David Chavern, senior vice president at the Washington-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ``The real worry is that if going public in the U.S. means you are subject to Sarbanes-Oxley and large securities class- action suits, then it makes it harder to raise capital,'' he says.

`Race to the Bottom'

Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum, a Washington-based Wall Street lobbying group, says he backs revising Sarbanes-Oxley implementation guidelines. Gutting the law would be a mistake, he says.

``We don't want a race to the bottom,'' Nichols says. ``IPO data doesn't tell the whole story. It would be disingenuous to link IPOs to Sarbanes-Oxley exclusively.'' In December, the SEC and PCAOB proposed new guidelines for Sarbanes-Oxley implementation.

There's no denying that the center of gravity has begun to shift in the world of finance.

Like America's factory workers, U.S. bankers, brokers and traders confront the challenge of globalization, says John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. This medley of economic, financial, trade and technological interrelationships is leveling the competitive playing field between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Since 1979, the U.S. has lost a net 3.5 million manufacturing jobs, or 34 percent of its factory workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Wall Street Threat

Wall Street isn't immune. In the past few decades, a confluence of powerful forces -- from the political and economic integration of Europe, to the triumph of capitalism in the former Soviet Bloc, to the emergence of China and India as economic powers, to cheap, ubiquitous telecommunications -- has heightened global rivalries for deals and trading.

``In the 1980s, the only place was the U.S.,'' says Robert Steel, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance. ``Now, there is much more competition.''

Large companies used to raise money in New York no matter where they were based. Many still do. These days, however, you don't have to come to the U.S. to tap global investor dollars.

When Industrial & Commercial Bank of China went public in a world- record $16.1 billion IPO in 2006, the Chinese bank listed its stock in Hong Kong and Shanghai. Russian oil giant Rosneft Oil Co. last year sold $10.7 billion of new shares in London, which is three hours behind Moscow, rather than in New York, which is eight hours behind.

Global Reach

Last year, more than 350 companies went public in Europe, selling $86 billion of stock, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In the U.S., 235 companies raised $48 billion in IPOs. In 1999, 507 companies went public in the U.S., selling a combined $63.93 billion of stock. Not one of the 10 largest stock issues of 2006 was listed in New York.

Wall Street firms win wherever the deals are made. The likes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs profit from underwriting stocks the world over. Although none of the 10 biggest stock offerings of 2006 were done in New York, New York-based firms played a role in all of them, sharing in the $1.7 billion in fees those sales generated.

Merrill Lynch had a hand in the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China IPO, which generated $401 million in fees. The second-largest IPO of 2006 -- an $11.2 billion sale by Bank of China Ltd. -- was arranged by the Chinese bank itself, Zurich-based UBS AG and Goldman Sachs. Banks earned $280 million in fees on that sale. The Rosneft IPO, which yielded $142 million in fees, was arranged by Amsterdam-based ABN Amro Holding NV, London-based Dresdner Kleinwort Group Ltd. and two New York-based firms, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.

Shrinking Share

The result is that global securities firms are generating a smaller share of revenue in the U.S. and a greater proportion elsewhere.

Since 2001, the U.S. share of worldwide securities industry revenue has fallen to about 58 percent from 62 percent, according to the New York-based Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Investment banks earned $41.7 billion in fees underwriting securities and advising on mergers in Europe and Asia last year, almost 40 percent more than the $29.9 billion they earned in the U.S., according to Bloomberg data.

The U.S. is no longer the market hyperpower it once was. Today, its equity market, the world's largest, accounts for about 37 percent of the combined value of public companies around the globe. In 2001, that figure was 50 percent.

Markets Grow

Europe is challenging the U.S. in the fast-growing market for derivatives, which are instruments whose value is based on another security or benchmark. Europe also has grabbed 56 percent of the $52 billion of global revenue from over-the-counter derivatives, which aren't traded on exchanges. London dominates the $2.7 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market, with 32.4 percent of all trades compared with 18.2 percent for New York, according to consulting firm International Financial Services London.

It's not that America's economy and markets are shrinking -- it's that other ones are growing. At $12.8 trillion, Europe's combined economic output is approaching the $13.3 trillion of the U.S. Emerging markets' share of the global stock market capitalization has doubled since 2000 to more than 16 percent. According to Goldman Sachs, the combined economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the so-called BRIC group, will dwarf those of today's six largest industrial economies -- the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., France and Italy -- within 40 years.

`Does it Matter?'

Wall Street profits from new markets and the waves of capital that now roll across oceans and time zones, says Glenn Hubbard, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2001 to '03.

Hubbard, now dean of Columbia Business School, is a member of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, which conducted one of the two studies on Wall Street competitiveness. Harvard Law School professor Hal Scott and John Thornton, former president of Goldman Sachs, led the private panel along with Hubbard. The study was funded in part by the $3.5 billion Starr Foundation, which is run by Maurice Greenberg, former CEO of American International Group Inc.

Does it matter where the deals get done? ``Wall Street really doesn't care,'' Hubbard says. ``They just want to make sure that the U.S. is on par with other markets.''

Treasury Undersecretary Steel agrees that U.S. firms stand to profit as new markets open and expand. Still, the U.S. can't afford to be complacent. ``Because the global market is growing doesn't mean that the U.S. shouldn't work hard to maintain its top position,'' he says.

High U.S. Fees

For all of the talk about keeping U.S. markets competitive and safeguarding jobs, the reality is that investment banks have helped price the U.S. out of the global IPO market. Firms charge more to underwrite stocks in the U.S. than they do elsewhere. In the U.S., investment banks charged fees averaging 4.4 percent of the value of stock sales in 2006, according to Bloomberg. In Europe, that average was 2.3 percent.

U.S. IPO fees, which can reach as much as 7 percent, are a holdover from the days when brokers charged fixed commissions. When the SEC abolished that practice in 1975, howls went up that Wall Street was doomed. And yet investment banks still charge roughly what they did three decades ago, when companies paid securities salesmen commissions amounting to 60 percent of the total fee and divided the rest between the sale's managers and underwriters.

In the past, companies paid this premium to gain access to U.S. markets, partly because they didn't have a choice, says Clay Corbus, co-CEO of San Francisco-based WR Hambrecht & Co., which has pioneered an auction-based IPO system that charges 4 percent for sales totaling less than $100 million. Now, companies can go where fees are lower, he says.

``We don't have a monopoly on smart people or capital,'' Corbus says. ``If we remain arrogant, somebody else will eat our lunch.''

European Choice

Peter Solomon, former vice chairman of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., agrees. ``Wall Street will have to lower IPO fees,'' says Solomon, who's now chairman of New York-based investment bank Peter J. Solomon Co.

More banks compete for IPOs in Europe than in the U.S. because the European market is more fragmented, says Klaus Diederichs, head of European investment banking at JPMorgan Chase in London. In the U.S., five banks -- Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley -- captured 54.3 percent of total IPO fees in 2006, according to Bloomberg data.

For companies based in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the choice of where to raise capital often comes down to geography and time zones. ``London is one of the most attractive and open markets in the world and, increasingly, a location of choice for businesses looking to access international capital markets,'' Diederichs says. ``European issuers are much less interested in tapping the U.S. market than they used to be.''

London Rising

If non-U.S. companies shun U.S. markets, New York may be headed for trouble. Unlike factories, global financial firms can - - and do -- make money everywhere. Bankers who live and work in New York can't. Jobs and pay follow the money.

During the early 1980s, Mack's firm, Morgan Stanley, employed about 3,000 people in the U.S. and fewer than 100 in London. Today, the firm has 6,000 people in London as part of a European workforce of 9,000, and about 42,000 in North America.

Jonathan Chenevix-Trench, chairman of Morgan Stanley International, says Mack's December visit underscores how important Europe and Asia have become to Morgan Stanley.

``Mack was recognizing the growing contribution to the performance of our group by businesses outside the U.S.,'' Chenevix- Trench says. In 2006, Morgan Stanley opened or approved new offices in Budapest, Dubai, Istanbul and Qatar. The firm has 15 U.S. and Canadian offices and more than 30 in other countries.

New York Jobs

Lately, London has been gaining financial services jobs, while New York has been losing them, according to McKinsey. In London, the total number of jobs in the securities, banking and insurance industries rose 4.3 percent to 318,000 in 2005 from '02. In New York, that figure fell 0.7 percent to 328,400 during that period.

``Would New York like to capture all the financial services jobs being created elsewhere? Sure,'' Wachovia's Silvia says. ``But you can't convince Wall Street to keep hiring in New York when they need more people in London, India or China.''

New York has been a hub of securities trading since the 1700s, when local merchants and traders began congregating around Wall Street. In May 1792, under a buttonwood tree at what's now 68 Wall Street, they agreed to establish the bourse that has grown into the New York Stock Exchange.

Today, in the world of the Web and the BlackBerry, ``Wall Street'' is less a place than a global network of people who make their living moving money around. You don't have to be in New York to trade. As the U.S. has gotten wired, the city's share of U.S. securities industry jobs has dwindled, falling to 21.5 percent in 2006 from 41 percent in 1973.

Balance of Power

It wouldn't be the first time the balance of power tipped in finance. The Dutch developed exchanges first, in about 1611, and for a while, Amsterdam ruled the financial world. Then, as the British Empire expanded in the 18th and 19th centuries, London came to dominate international trade and finance. In the 20th century, amid the ashes of two world wars, New York grabbed London's crown. That U.S. financial firms can today set sail for markets that didn't exist a few decades ago represents a triumph for American-style capitalism.

``In the last 20-25 years, a fundamental change has been the embrace of more market-based strategies for countries and economies around the world,'' Steel says. The likes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs will thrive from London to Shanghai, as they have at home. New York may just have to accept that even its masters of the universe can't hold back the tide.

To contact the reporter on this story: Deepak Gopinath in New York at dgopinath@bloomberg.net .

efore closing for the week-long Chinese New Year holiday, the composite index for the Shanghai Stock Exchange briefly broke through the 3,000-point mark for the first time in history. On February 16, the index closed slightly below the psychologically important mark, but the unprecedented rise in Shanghai's exchange is increasingly becoming a cause for concern for the Chinese government.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of enquiries@pinr.com. PINR reprints do not qualify under Fair-Use Statute Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All comments should be directed to comments@pinr.com.

http://www.sina.com.cn 2007年02月16日 10:55 北京商报

终审判决：

　　银广夏要赔7300万

　　昨日，ST银广夏(2.65,-0.12,-4.33%)(000557)董事局发布公告称，已收到法院下发的《民事判决书》，该公司与800余名中小股东持续6年之久的“虚假陈述民事诉讼案”终审判决。

　　公告显示，经宁夏高院终审判决的案件的上诉人共计447人。《民事判决书》的判决为维持原判，此判决为终审判决。银川中院出具的《民事调解书》共计4份，是经银川中院主持调解，26名原告与本公司及第三人培鑫公司自愿达成的协议，其诉讼请求金额共计444万元，由银广夏以被法院保全的房产进行部分赔偿，不足部分由第三人培鑫公司以银广夏股份进行赔偿。

　　公告显示，涉及银广夏的中小股民诉讼原告共计836人，该公司在2006年4月与332人达成和解，1人撤诉。其余503名原告中，达成和解27人，一审判决未上诉29人，一审判决后上诉并已终审判决447人。

　　银广夏称，目前，该公司已经没有尚未审结的中小股民诉讼案件。本次503名原告的诉讼请求金额共计7312万元(含部分利息)，根据法院做出的民事判决和民事调解结果，第三人培鑫公司共需向原告赔偿本公司股份1544万股。

　　另外，案件受理费合计90万元，由银广夏承担。截至公告发布之日，法院做出的法律文书均已生效。

　　节外生枝：

　　大成基金接诉讼“接力棒”

　　昨日与终审判决同时公告的还有一份新的《应诉通知书》。

　　银广夏公告称，银川市中院下发《应诉通知书》，通知公司该院已受理大成基金管理有限公司诉银广夏虚假陈述证券民事赔偿纠纷案。

　　据了解，大成基金管理有限公司在起诉中要求银广夏赔偿其作为基金管理人所管理的景福证券投资基金和景宏证券投资基金的损失合计人民币2.46亿元。

　　对于这个看似突如其来的新一轮民事诉讼，银广夏表示已委托律师研究相关案件，积极准备应诉。该公司还表示，这起诉讼案件的结果及其对该公司利润和经营的影响，现在还无法预料。

　　余音渐强：

　　律师表示“欲哭无泪”

　　按照银广夏公告，中小股东诉讼案件已画上休止符。但昨日代理中小股东起诉银广夏的著名证券维权律师严义明在接受本报记者采访时表示，作为原告代理律师，他还没有收到终审判决书，判决书上的内容更无从知晓。

　　严义明表示，银广夏能够刊登公告，就代表这件事是真实的。公告中提到503名原告获赔7312万元，在一般人看来赔得还不少。

　　“但面对这个判决结果，我感到很遗憾。原因是结果与原告期盼法院给予的公允结果相差太远，这完全是按照被告提出的调解方案赔付的。从这一点延伸说来，在整个案件受理过程中，法院都没能按照原告的诉讼请求，百分之百地替受害者主持正义。”

　　“这是一个让人感觉欲哭无泪的结果。”严义明在接受记者采访中情绪不时激动：“从原告角度来说，相关法院并未站在一个公正的角度上进行判决。法院在判决中，完全是按照被告的意愿进行判决的，这显然违背法律原则，是一个法制社会中很典型的反面教材。”

　　银广夏案：

　　开启证券民事诉讼大门

　　尽管案件的了结伴随着原告律师的一声叹息，但纵观整个案件的审理过程，银广夏案为中国证券市场中小股东维权做出了一个模板。

　　“这个案件的本身已经推动中国法制社会的进程，反过来，中国法制社会的进展也会推动案件得以公正地解决。就是这个案件，推动了证券民事赔偿大门的开启。2001年9月，银广夏起诉法院正式受理，2002月1月，最高人民法院出了司法解释说以后可以受理这方面的案件。”在被问及银广夏案对于上市公司意味着什么时，严义明这样表述。

　　在谈到银广夏又遭官司时，严义明称：“大成基金在2004年就进行诉讼了。之所以人们觉得是件新鲜事，是因为相关法院一直在附和被告的想法，而没有按照规定办事。”

　　“按照法律规定，对于起诉，法院应该在7天内决定是否受理。如果受理，应该在5天内向被告送达诉状副本，加起来只有12天的时间。而到现在都已经3年了，法院才宣布案件受理，这不是太离谱了吗？”

　　在采访的最后严义明表示，“我始终对中国的法制和公正有坚定的信念。我和许多律师一样，在证券维权的路上做着我们认为值得去做的事情，因为这是我们的理想，我也一直认为实现法制社会是所有学法律的人共同的理想。在银广夏案件中我们遇到了很多非法律因素，但我们不会屈服，就算是终审判决，我们还会再去争取”。

DING Ruopeng, former director of Heilongjiang Provincial Branch of China Securities Regulatory Commission, has been prosecuted for bribe-taking allegations.

Authorities alleged Ding took bribes totaling US$157,500 on three separate occasions during and after his tenure as chief of CSRC Heilongjiang Provincial Branch from 1997 to 2005, according to the office with the Heilongjiang Provincial Leading Group of Commercial Bribe Prevention and Control.

The acquisition of a business may be structured in a variety of ways, including, an asset sale, a stock sale, or a merger. The structure of the acquisition will be determined by a variety of accounting, business, legal, and tax considerations. Regardless of the structure of the transaction, acquisition agreements have the following four common and very important features which are examined in this article: (a) representations and warranties; (b) pre-closing covenants; (c) conditions precedent to closing; and (d) indemnification.
Representations and Warranties

The seller and the buyer will make representations and warranties to the other in the acquisition agreement. The seller’s representations and warranties typically make up the largest part of the acquisition agreement. Representations and warranties serve three important purposes. First, they are informational. The seller’s representations and warranties, coupled with the buyer’s due diligence, enable the buyer to learn as much as possible about the seller’s business prior to signing the definitive acquisition agreement. Second, they are protective. The seller’s representations and warranties provide a mechanism for the buyer to walk away from, or possibly to renegotiate the terms of, the acquisition, if the buyer discovers facts that are contrary to the representations and warranties between the signing and the closing. Third, they are supportive. The seller’s representations and warranties provide the framework for the seller’s indemnification obligations to the buyer after the closing.

Prior to signing the acquisition agreement, the buyer will want to learn as much as possible about the seller’s business. Therefore, the buyer will require the seller to make extensive representations and warranties about its business. Many of these representations and warranties will be specific to the seller’s industry. However, the most common representations and warranties include: (a) corporate organization, authority, and capitalization; (b) assets; (c) liabilities; (d) financial statements; (e) taxes; (f) contracts, leases, and other commitments; (g) employment matters; (h) compliance with laws and litigation; (i) product liability; and (j) environmental protection.

From the seller’s perspective, if the buyer is paying the purchase price in cash at the closing, the most important representations and warranties the seller can elicit from the buyer are those governing the buyer’s corporate authorization and financial condition (i.e., the buyer’s ability to pay the purchase price). If the buyer is paying the purchase price over time or by issuing stock, the seller will require more extensive representations and warranties from the buyer.

Pre-Closing Covenants

The second major feature of merger and acquisition agreements is the inclusion of various pre-closing covenants, or promises to do something, or not do something, during the period between the signing of the acquisition agreement and the closing. Generally, covenants are absolute; however, some may be subject to a "reasonable efforts" qualification. Other than covenants relating to corporate approvals and governmental filings and approvals, compliance with a particular covenant may be waived by the party that benefits from the covenant.

There are two types of pre-closing covenants: negative covenants and affirmative covenants. Negative covenants restrict the seller from taking certain actions prior to the closing without the buyer’s prior consent. Negative covenants protect the buyer from the seller taking actions prior to the closing that change the business that the buyer expects to buy at the closing. Typical negative covenants include: (a) not changing accounting methods or practices; (b) not entering into transactions or incurring liabilities outside the ordinary course of business or in excess of certain amounts; (c) not paying dividends or making other distributions to stockholders; (d) not amending or terminating contracts; (e) not making capital expenditures; (f) not transferring assets; (g) not releasing claims or waiving rights; and (h) not doing anything that would make the seller’s representations and warranties untrue.

Affirmative covenants obligate the seller or the buyer to take certain actions prior to the closing. Typical affirmative covenants include: (a) allowing the buyer full access to the seller’s books, records, and other properties; (b) obtaining the necessary board and stockholder approvals; (c) obtaining the necessary third party consents; and (d) making the required governmental filings and obtaining the required governmental approvals.

Conditions to Closing

Merger and acquisition agreements generally also contain several conditions to closing, which are certain obligations that must be fulfilled in order to legally require the other party to close the transaction. Other than conditions to closing relating to corporate approvals and governmental filings and approvals, compliance with a particular condition to closing may be waived by the party that benefits from the condition. The interplay between pre-closing covenants and conditions to closing is important. If a particular matter is addressed solely as a covenant, the buyer’s only remedy for the breach of the covenant will be monetary damages. However, if a particular matter also is addressed as a condition to closing, the buyer can walk away from the transaction if the condition is not fulfilled. In addition, and perhaps equally as important, the buyer may be able to use the threat of not closing as leverage to renegotiate the terms of the transaction.

All merger and acquisition agreements provide that, as a condition to closing, the representations and warranties of the parties must be true and correct at the closing, and that the pre-closing covenants have been performed or fulfilled prior to the closing. This is generally confirmed by each party delivering a written certificate to that effect to the other party.

Other typical conditions to closing include: (a) receipt of the necessary third party consents; (b) receipt of the necessary governmental approvals; (c) receipt of legal opinions and other closing documents; (d) receipt of certain financial statements or the achievement of certain financial milestones; (e) receipt of employment or non-competition agreements from key employees; and (f) satisfactory completion of the buyer’s due diligence of the seller’s business.

Indemnification

The last major feature of typical merger and acquisition agreements is indemnification. However, indemnification provisions are unusual in agreements for the acquisition of a public company. Indemnification provisions protect the parties from certain matters that occur after the closing and allocate the risks and responsibilities for these occurrences between the buyer and the seller. Indemnification provisions typically address breaches of covenants or representations and warranties that are discovered after the closing. In addition, indemnification provisions address items that are disclosed in the seller’s representations and warranties and for which the seller retains responsibility after the closing. An example is pending litigation, the outcome and amount of damages of which cannot be predicted and reflected in the purchase price. Therefore, the buyer may require the seller to remain responsible for the litigation after the closing. The buyer may also request separate indemnification for environmental and tax liabilities beyond the seller’s representations and warranties.

Generally, indemnification provisions are heavily negotiated, and the seller will seek to limit its post-closing indemnification obligations in several ways. First, the seller will try to limit the time period after the closing for which it has indemnification obligations. In theory, this time period should be based upon the reasonable period of time within which the buyer, through reasonable diligence, should have discovered the breach and misrepresentation or, if applicable, the time period within which a third party would make its claim. In practice, the parties generally agree on a period of one to three years after the closing. Exceptions may be made for environmental and tax liabilities, for which the time period may be the applicable statute of limitations.

Second, the seller will try to impose a cap on the total amount of its indemnification liability. Many sellers try to cap their liability at an amount less than the total purchase price. Many buyers will agree to a cap equal to the total purchase price. If the seller’s business is "clean," the risk to the buyer in agreeing to an indemnification cap may be small.

Third, the seller will try to negotiate a "basket" or a "deductible" on its indemnification obligations in order to eliminate small indemnification claims. A "basket" or "deductible" provides that the seller does not have liability to the buyer until the amount of the buyer’s losses exceed a certain amount. In the case of a "basket," when the buyer’s losses exceed the agreed upon "basket" amount, the seller is liable for the total amount of the losses. In the case of a "deductible," when the buyer’s losses exceed the agreed upon "deductible" amount, the seller is liable only for the excess amount of the losses above the "deductible."

In order to ensure that there are funds available to satisfy the seller’s indemnification obligations, the buyer may require that a portion of the purchase price be held in escrow by a third party for a period of time after the closing. Alternatively, the buyer may hold back a portion of the purchase price and give the seller a promissory note for that portion but retain the right to offset the promissory note to satisfy its indemnification claims.

This article was published in the November 2001 issue of the Triangle TechJournal.

☆公司报导☆   ◇港澳资讯000425   更新日期：2007-01-30◇   灵通V4.0
【2007-01-30】
徐工科技预计2006年将扭亏为盈

【2007-01-24】
徐工科技(000425)收到土地转让款3.9亿

　　徐工科技（000425）今日公告，接到徐州市国资委有关文件，确定通过现场竞价获得徐工科技拥有的徐州市矿山东路4号宗地使用权的江苏华夏融创置地集团有限公司，支付了土地价款为39327.82万元，其中，土地成本价格为15480.09万元，地面附着物和搬迁费用为23847.73万元。

【2007-01-16】
徐工科技(000425)大股东所持股权继续质押

　　徐工科技今日公告显示，公司第一大股东徐工集团工程机械有限公司（以下简称徐工机械）继续质押了所持公司11.92%的股权。
　　公告显示，徐工机械因质押贷款于2006年7月17日质押冻结了徐工科技限售流通股6500万股（占公司总股本的11.92%），2007年1月15日，该部分股权已办理完毕股份解除冻结手续。与此同时，经江苏省国资委核准，大股东又以该部分股权向中国工商银行徐州市分行营业部质押贷款，贷款期限为6个月。质押登记手续已于2007年1月15日在中国证券登记结算有限责任公司深圳分公司办理完毕。

【2007-01-10】
王民:集团重心转向徐工科技 并购尚未拿到批文

　　徐工集团董事长王民：集团重心转向徐工科技 并购尚未拿到批文
　　徐工集团在1月5日召开的董事会上调整了旗下上市公司徐工科技(000425.SZ)的总经理、副总经理(兼财务负责人)人选后，昨天，徐工集团董事长王民就此接受《第一财经日报》采访，称，徐工科技的业绩对于集团整体而言非常重要，徐工科技不仅在2006年将实现微利，此次人事调整也是徐工集团发力上市公司的举措之一。
　　就凯雷并购徐工集团工程机械有限公司(下称“徐工机械”)一案，王民表示，目前，徐工集团尚未拿到商务部的外资并购批文，一切工作都会按照既定方针，所以决策围绕着企业大发展去做。“徐工集团旗下的徐州重型机械有限公司得到了很好发展，我们同样也很关注徐工科技的前景。这是本次调整上市公司班底的目的之一。”
　　本报昨天报道了徐工集团原副总经理、徐工机械副总经理李锁云出任徐工科技总经理，徐工集团财务部部长袁鹏出任徐工科技副总经理、财务负责人的消息，两人都已辞去集团的相应职务。就新任的两位上市公司主要高层，王民告诉记者，李锁云为徐工集团很有业绩的领导人，他为人低调但很有魄力；而袁鹏同样年轻有为，“两个人将会对徐工科技的未来经营起到关键性作用。”
　　据徐工科技去年10月对外公布的消息，徐工集团将派出高层毫无悬念地出任被凯雷并购后的新徐工机械的董事长，而凯雷则对徐工机械的财务管理进行着力。
　　凯雷承诺，在投资徐工机械后，依靠现有的团队，用两到三年的时间建立健全的企业现代化管理机制和法人代表机制，增加管理和财务透明度，并且用此次投资的资金投入几个重大项目并使之初具规模。另外，凯雷也将协助徐工机械实现上市。这是因为徐工机械在国际化和产品升级换代后，需要更多的资本投入以保持竞争优势。
　　当记者询问“凯雷是否会派新的CFO前往新徐工机械”时，王民没有明确回答。“2006年徐工集团营业额突破200亿元，将会再次成为工程机械的头牌。随着徐工集团对国内外市场的大力开拓，我们2007年的销售额会有更大突破。”王民表示。
　　相关链接
　　去年10月24日，徐工、凯雷等相关各方共同签署的《股权买卖及股本认购协议》之修订协议和《合资合同》之修订协议中曾提到，合资公司(即徐工机械)董事会由10名董事组成，任期4年，其中5名董事应由徐工集团委派，5名董事应由凯雷徐工委派。董事会设董事长1名，由徐工集团委派的董事担任，副董事长1 名，由凯雷徐工委派的董事担任。

【2007-01-09】
为凯雷入主扫清道路 徐工集团副总调离徐工机械

　　为凯雷入主扫清道路徐工集团二把手调离徐工机械
　　出任徐工科技总经理
　　徐工集团昨天宣布，旗下上市公司徐州工程机械科技股份有限公司(000425.SZ，下称“徐工科技”)的两个重要岗位人事变动。徐工集团原副总经理、徐工集团工程机械有限公司(下称“徐工机械”)副总经理李锁云任徐工科技总经理。此前担任徐工集团财务部部长的袁鹏，则出任徐工科技副总经理、财务负责人。
　　随着凯雷收购徐工机械一案的逐渐明朗，业内认为，此次人事调整是为凯雷入主扫清道路。
　　徐工科技董事会目前已全票通过上述人事调整。此举对徐工科技意义重大，其前任总经理杨勇已担任该公司总经理职务长达6年。此次出任总经理一职的李锁云1999年被任命为徐工集团起重机械分公司(现名为“徐州重型机械有限公司”，下称“徐重公司”)总经理兼党委书记。而徐工集团是否会将徐重公司资产装入徐工科技一直是外界猜测的重点。李锁云昨天在接受《第一财经日报》采访时表示：“目前上市公司没有增发和纳入徐工集团其他子公司资产的计划。”
　　“在我到徐重公司的时候，恰好市场起来了，当时我们的销售额大约为3亿元。”李锁云称，去年全年徐重公司销售额预计为63亿元。而据徐工集团另一名高层给出的数字显示，徐工集团2006年营业额已突破200亿元。
　　2006年前10个月，徐重公司的出口量突破600台，基本为50吨级以上机型，出口交货值达6亿元，同比增长404%，占全国行业出口份额的95%，并在中国以外的起重机市场上首次占据了12%的市场份额。凯雷集团拟收购的徐工机械资产中包括了徐重公司、徐工科技等。凯雷收购的原因之一，就是对徐重公司前景看好。
　　李锁云昨天向记者明确表示，就外界传言“集团将会把徐重公司资产放入上市公司”一事，现在没有这个计划。同时，他称，公司的增发可能性现在并不存在。“徐工科技一直是徐工集团非常重要的组成部分，今年的主要工作是将经营搞上去。”
　　李锁云曾连续6年担任徐工集团副总经理，主抓企业管理。同时，他也是凯雷集团将要收购的目标——徐工机械前副总经理。他昨天告诉记者，目前他已辞去了这两个职务。
　　徐工科技(000425.SZ)去年1月至9月已实现扭亏为盈，净利润约950万元。前三季度扭亏的原因是：管理费用减少，主要影响因素为坏账准备计提、人工费用减少；营业费用减少，主要影响因素为市场建设费用减少；加强高利润产品的销售，加强产品的成本控制，加强产品的价格管理，毛利率有所提高。
　　未满37岁的袁鹏也与李锁云一样，从中国矿业大学财会专业毕业后直接到徐重公司报到。同时，他身兼数职，其中包括徐重公司监事。去年12月，他还是卡特彼勒徐州有限公司的董事。据李锁云介绍，袁鹏已向公司递交了徐工科技监事的辞呈。
　　昨日，徐工科技收盘价为6.79元/股，涨幅为7.1%，成交额9552万元，换手率5.11%。

【2007-01-08】
徐工科技(000425)聘解高管

    徐工科技０００４２５今日公告，解聘杨勇先生的公司总经理职务，聘任李锁云先生为公司总经理，聘期至本届董事任期结束。解聘邹国宝先生的公司财务负责人职务，聘任袁鹏先生为公司副总经理、财务负责人，聘期至本届董事任期结束。　

【2007-01-07】
徐工科技(000425)高级管理人员变更

    徐工科技第四届董事会第二十四次会议于2007年1月5日召开，审议通过关于聘解高级管理人员的议案：
    解聘杨勇先生的公司总经理职务，聘任李锁云先生为公司总经理，聘期至本届董事任期结束。
    解聘邹国宝先生的公司财务负责人职务，聘任袁鹏先生为公司副总经理、财务负责人，聘期至本届董事任期结束。

【2006-12-31】
王民：导演一个有争议的并购案

　　林凡 尹先凯/文
　　王民个子不高，曾经是个煤矿工人，现在是徐工集团董事长。作为中国头号工程机械制造商的当家人，他说自己“管理国有企业很有一套”。
　　出于这种自信，2002年徐工集团正式启动改制后，王民认定要找一个洋婆家。他事后在一次接受媒体专访、回应对此的质疑时说：“很多人问我，徐工改制是否只有这一种选择？肯定不是，但我相信这是最好的选择。”
　　经过三轮遴选，王民把绣球抛给了著名私募投资基金美国凯雷投资集团。2005年10月，徐工与凯雷亚洲投资基金签订协议，凯雷拟出资约30亿元人民币，收购徐工机械85%股权，方案随后上报国家。
　　然而，审批程序至今没有走完。这一交易长久地陷于争议中，并在2006年，从一个地方国有企业的引资演变成一场关乎外资并购和国家经济安全的全民大讨论。王民坦承大大出乎他的意料：“不再是一个简单的收购案了，已经事关面子问题。”
　　改制之争
　　1999年出任徐工集团党委书记、副董事长时，王民45岁。摆在他面前的，是一个千疮百孔的老国企。据一位集团人士说，当时公司账面上的负资产有5个亿，有2万多人需要养活。
　　从那时起，王民开始了大刀阔斧的改革。2002年，徐工集团着手进行改制，与四大资产管理公司以债转股的方式组成徐工机械。其后，徐工集团悉数将后者的股权回购，并于2003年启动引资计划。
　　王民说，改制之初，他们预计了两个主要困难，一是出让给谁，另一个是如何安置职工。
　　一如典型的国企转型，徐工改制的核心问题，是如何剥离历史遗留下来的政策性负担。王民表示，只有出让控股权，才能解决改制成本。因此，他认为选择凯雷理由充分，因为“他们有资金、有技术，也能够接受我们提出的一些条件”。比如，保留徐工的品牌，保证三年内不大幅裁员。尽管当时摩根基金的报价比凯雷高出3%，但是综合考评下来，凯雷最终胜出。
　　此后，围绕这桩交易的争议一直不断，焦点是凯雷持股的权重。当时，中央有关部委向王民透露了风声，希望凯雷可以降低持股比例。“尤其是2006年1月科技大会之后，自主创新的调子提得非常高，形势发生了明显变化。”王民说。
　　2006年6月，三一重工(32.23,0.06,0.19%)的执行总裁向文波在自己的博客上发文，指出这桩交易有贱卖国家资产之嫌，并危及国家经济安全。
　　据王民说，在向文波发难之前，他们已和凯雷方面着手调整持股比例，当时凯雷坚持要保留绝对控股权，仅仅愿意小幅下调持股比例至67%。
　　2006年8月，商务部等六部委联合下发《关于外国投资者并购境内企业的规定》，这一政策信号最终让凯雷作出让步。
　　10月16日，双方签订了修订协议，凯雷同意将持股比例下调到50%。王民说，谈判过程曲折艰辛，凯雷总部一度打算放弃该交易。
　　对于贱卖国家资产并延伸到对其职业操守的质问，王民十分坦然：“徐工是否被贱卖，需要国家产业部门说了才算，这是个标准问题。”
　　在战略投资者的选择上，他同样坚持自己的底线。实际上，三一重工一直是徐工机械最热心的潜在买家之一，但是在第一轮竞标中就被淘汰出局，原因是出价太低。王民和徐工集团认为，民营企业没有实力带大徐工。他们同样回绝了曾经红极一时的民营权贵德隆唐万里抛来的橄榄枝。
　　2006年，当王民因徐工案身陷是非漩涡中心时，仍然谢绝了找上门来表达投资意向的大型国企中海油集团和中集集团。因为他始终相信，只有像凯雷这样偏重于投资工程机械行业的国际财务型投资人，才能完成徐工改制、推动其走向国际化。
　　作为有着35年从业生涯的管理者，王民曾表态：“把徐工打造成全球著名的民族品牌，是我们义不容辞的责任，不是干不干的问题，而是必须干好的问题。”
　　在员工的眼中，王民敢做敢当，管理风格硬朗。2005年2月，王民的座车遭到枪击，司机当场死亡。对于该事件，一种流行的说法是与他上任后推行的改革措施有关。徐州市政府内部还流传着一个王如何强硬的段子。据说，在2003年时，他曾经公然违抗市领导的指示，坚决不同意和德隆签订框架协议，他在一次会议上当着领导的面说“真要签的话请派别人签，我不签”。
　　标杆的意味
　　2006年11月，王民和向文波分别入围“2006年度CCTV中国经济年度人物” 东部和中部代表提名。
　　央视年度经济人物评选方认为，徐工并购案是2006年的一个标志性事件，也是近20年来国企改制史中难得一见的高透明度的样本，改制过程中的每一步、谈判交易的每一处细节、协议文本上的每一个字，都被人们拿到“聚光灯下、解剖台前详细检查”。
　　事实上，徐工并购案的影响远远超出了行业本身。关于这个交易的大讨论发起之后，引发了2006年反外资并购浪潮，外资收购洛阳轴承、苏泊尔(19.3,0.30,1.58%)及广东发展银行等，均出现了不同程度的争论。
　　2006年国庆期间，王民难得休息了一下。新方案上报国家后，10月25日，他率徐工集团高层首次在媒体面前高调亮相，对之前的种种质疑一一做出回应。其时，恰逢和凯雷的第一份正式协议签订一周年。
　　王民说，在中国新的外资收购政策下，凯雷徐工收购案具有标杆意义。如果新方案获批，中国战略性产业或者重要产业龙头企业的政策底线亦已明晰，即保持中方控股和外方提供技术转让。在新协议中，凯雷承诺将协助徐工引进美国江迪尔、韩国大宇的发动机技术，这是徐工与国际竞争对手在零部件领域最核心的差距。
　　中国工程机械行业正在面临新一轮的产业结构调整和大洗牌，先行者注定备受关注。尽管王民迫切希望徐工机械摘掉国字号的帽子，尽管外界期许凯雷徐工并购案成为“外资并购新标杆”，但现在看来，即使改制完成，徐工机械仍像一个国有企业。因为按照新方案，董事长总经理均可由徐工集团任命，政府在高管任命上仍然拥有最终的决定权。
　　但有评论指出，这次并购中引发的对于规范国企产权交易和企业价值评估的讨论，其间包含的政治、产业、资本之间的多重博弈，对于程序公正的思考，却可以成为树立标杆的基础。
　　至于新方案能否最终获批，王民很是乐观。他说：“50∶50的股比，或许会成为今后竞争性行业龙头企业对外合资的底线。”
　　而今，并购风波暂时告一段落，王民依旧忙忙碌碌。不同的是，以前他行事低调，不好抛头露脸，现在也要“学着面对媒体”了。

【2006-12-26】
徐工科技股改完成 周四将复牌

　　昨天，有知情人士向《第一财经日报》透露，徐工集团下属子公司徐工科技(000425.SZ，下称“S徐工(6.79,0.00,0.00%)”)股权分置改革已经完成，将在本周四恢复交易。另外，凯雷并购徐工集团机械工程有限公司一案也在审批过程之中。
　　徐工的股改方案由此前的10送3.1，改为每10股送3.2股。公司董秘费广胜曾向《第一财经日报》表示，这是在征求了部分投资者意见之后进行的变动。“但该对价已经在机械股中算比较高的对价了。”
　　近期，在大盘的带动下，以三一重工(31.16,2.83,9.99%)(600031.SH)为首，机械股都有极好的表现。昨天，山河智能(002097.SZ)上涨10.01%，其次则是在近日猛涨的三一重工，涨幅达9.99%，收盘价31.16元。
　　另外，与徐工有类似业务的厦工股份(4.33,0.10,2.36%)(600815.SH)、中联重科(19.57,1.04,5.61%)(000157.SZ)、柳工(15.47,0.37,2.45%)(000528.SZ)和山推股份(7.59,0.45,6.30%)(000680.SZ)的上涨幅度分别是2.36%、5.61%、2.45%和6.3%。
　　12月20日，S徐工的股改方案获得了高票通过。在参与表决的股数上，同意方案的有310743066 股，占参与表决股东所持表决权的98.0544%;反对6144340 股，占参与表决股东所持表决权的1.9388%;弃权21300 股，占参与表决股东所持表决权的0.0067%。
　　申银万国分析师高先生表示，根据该公司预测，机械板块特别是工程机械公司的净利润将有50%以上的增长。一方面是行业复苏迹象明显，另外有些公司的竞争对手不多，其公司效益会很好。

【2006-12-26】
徐工风波背后:自主创新"多歧路"

　　WTO年终特刊(六)
　　徐工与三一之间的大论战，成为2006年度最惹人眼球的财经事件之一。而经历过这场论战后，自主创新主体以及掌握行业主导权路径的抉择，依然会是徐工和三一都无法逃避的问题。
　　5年时间，很多的事情都会改变。
　　2001年，王民走过了他就任徐工集团董事长的第一个年头。此时，徐工集团已经陆续与美国卡特彼勒公司、德国蒂森克鲁伯公司、德国利勃海尔公司以及日本、意大利、瑞典等建立了13个合资企业。
　　如何应对加入WTO以后的市场，“通过市场换来技术，最终让徐工做强做大”，是王民对徐工未来的一个美好希冀。
　　而此时的三一重工，正酝酿上马挖掘机项目。在这一年的全国工程机械行业企业经济效益综合指数排名中，三一重工已然位居首位；不过，此时的三一重工，无论是技术还是规模都不可与今日同日而语，对于徐工，更是抱着一种“仰望”的姿态。
　　2001年，在那个互联网尚不普及、“博客”亦不知为何物的时期，梁稳根和向文波对未来是这样描绘的：“三一要联手500强、冲出国门”。
　　但谁知5年后，伴随着实力的消长，这两家企业卷入一场大论战，并成为2006年度最惹人眼球的财经事件之一。而经历过这场论战后，自主创新主体以及掌握行业主导权路径的抉择，同上一个5年一样，依然会是徐工和三一都无法逃避的问题。
　　弃卡特重凯雷背后：“市场换技术”歧路
　　2001年底，徐工集团制定了“十五计划”，在这份计划中，面对加入WTO后的市场格局，王民希望在充分利用国内资源的同时，更多利用国际资源。
　　当时，徐工集团建立的13个合资企业，其年销售收入已占到全集团的20％。
　　显然，其时对于如何利用国际资源，徐工集团更倾向于与国外同行合作合资，寄望于“市场换技术”。不过5年之后，徐工集团选择凯雷这个财务投资者的姿态，实则表现出了对产业投资者的怀疑和失望。
　　在几个月前的一次会面中，王民对记者感慨：“徐工改制的过程中，很多人还是希望选择卡特彼勒为投资者，我告诉他们：‘要丢掉幻想’。”
　　与卡特彼勒的合资曾是徐工心头的痛。2005年，在合资整整13年之后，徐工才通过分红拿回了大约7000万人民币的本钱。尽管每年要向卡特彼勒支付高额的技术转让费，徐工在合资公司中得到的仍是落后卡特彼勒近20年的技术。更关键的是，卡特彼勒毫不掩饰“消灭”徐工品牌的意图。
　　由于当年与卡特彼勒签署的合资协议，徐工自身具有优势的部分工程机械产品也必须放在合资厂生产。市场换技术的“龙种”，收获的却是自身产品的技术乃至市场的被迫退守的“跳蚤”。
　　与此同时，徐工自身的节奏也开始紊乱。
　　在政府“做大做强”的思路安排下，包括徐州重型机械厂在内的“三厂一所”及几个周边企业被整合成徐工集团。这种状况却造成了徐工集团的“外大内空”，徐工集团一位高层回忆：“最困难的时候固定电话打着打着就断了———欠费”。
　　王民毫不客气地评价：“为求营业规模搞‘低成本扩张’，实际上就是把外地一些经营不好的国有小企业的全部债务、资产划拨过来，后来每剥离一个这样的企业我至少要掏6000万。”
　　这段时期并非没有转机，比如集团层面的MBO。
　　2002年，徐工集团上了江苏省82家改制企业的名单，重组自此发端。同年7月28日，通过债转股，徐工集团与华融、信达、长城和东方四家资产公司共同设立徐工机械，四家资产公司持股48.68%(2005年8月，徐工向银行贷款6.8亿元购回这部分股权)，徐工机械成为改制平台。
　　这个过程中，据说徐州市政府也考虑过管理层收购(MBO)，不过徐工盘子太大，没有人端得下来，于是设计了一个超过700人的MBO方案。可能是该方案对管理层缺乏足够吸引力，也可能是担心出现不稳定因素，MBO并没有实践。
　　“鲇鱼”三一
　　正当徐工挣扎在脱困泥沼的时候，偏隅湖南长沙的三一重工，正走在高速发展的路上。
　　在走过近乎白手起家的创业历程之后，2001年前后，三一集团的自主创新正面临最关键的时刻。
　　1999年8月，三一成为全国第一家通过ISO9001质量体系认证的民营企业；2000年，三一通过了德国RW-TUV的质量体系认证；2001年，三一通过了ISO14001环境管理体系认证；2001年10月，“三一”品牌的工程机械被中国质量检验协会定为“国家权威检测质量达标放心品牌”。
　　从2004年开始，三一集团投入巨额资金在工程机械行业第一家建立了知识产权战略平台———知识产权信息港。一方面，三一把实施专利战略、加强专利保护当作提高科技水平；另一方面，三一集团开始坚持把商标这一商战利器置于企业经营战略的中心地位，构筑商标保护的防御体系。
　　三一集团的狂飙，也引发了一些非议，比如针对国企的技术人才、市场骨干的高薪吸引，让三一集团背负了“挖墙脚”的名声。这也许并非单纯的企业行为所能解读，而更应该理解成为两种经营体制的优劣。
　　而三一集团此前的发展，尽管成绩瞩目，但短板同样明显。三一集团的技术集中在其输送泵技术上，而对于工程机械行业技术最尖端、利润更丰厚的大吨位汽车起重机市场，同底蕴深厚的徐工集团相比，三一集团追赶上前者尚需时日。
　　而多数工程机械行业人士认为，对大吨位汽车起重机市场的攻门乏术，正是三一叫板徐工的关键原因之一。
　　尽管三一集团并不同意上述推断，但向文波在言论中却并不掩饰对徐工市场地位和技术实力的艳羡。他说：“如果把徐工拱手转让给外资，中国工程机械行业几十年来积累的自主创新的阵地就几乎将全面失守。”
　　对于向文波的“叫板”，王民的第一反应是震惊，进而表示难以容忍。
　　16岁就参加工作，王民的烟龄比工龄还长，但他几乎不抽徐州本地的香烟，在接受记者采访时，他夹着“芙蓉王”烟卷说：“我很少抽本地烟，我喜欢湖南烟。”他否认这是有意而为，“早在向文波对我们发难前，我就一直抽他们湖南产的烟”。
　　他还说：“只要徐工改制成功，我们就会开始整合国内工程机械行业，第一站就是长沙。”说完这句话，他还特别强调：“你可以把这个写出来，我说这个话，绝不是意气用事。”
　　显然，在香烟品牌的偏好以及整合行业的步骤选择之后，是一个更为严肃的问题：如何选择保证中国机械行业主导权的路径。王民坚定地认为，徐工集团做了一个正确的决定；而作为反方的向文波，显然并不这样看，他对记者说：“拭目以待”。
　　对于这个答案的最终揭晓，可能无需再等一个5年。

【2006-12-20】
S徐工对价得到认可

　　S 徐工(000425)股改方案顺利通过。
　　该公司今日发布的公告显示，公司的股改方案获得了全体参与表决股东98.05％的赞成票，同时获得了参与表决的流通股股东87.08％的赞成票。公司的股改对价为非流通股东向流通股东每10股送3.2股。       

【2006-12-13】
S徐工(000425)股改方案获得批准

　　S徐工（000425）称，公司的股权分置改革方案已获得江苏省人民政府国有资产监督管理委员会批准。（李 坤）

【2006-12-12】
S徐工:股改方案获得江苏省国资委批准

(000425) S 徐  工：股权分置改革方案获得江苏省国资委批准
    S 徐  工于近日收到江苏省人民政府国有资产监督管理委员会《关于徐州工程机械科技股份有限公司股权分置改革国有股权管理有关问题的批复》，公司的股权分置改革方案已获得江苏省人民政府国有资产监督管理委员会批准。

【2006-12-11】
徐工集团董事长王民:国资是否应"贱卖"让竞争决定

    编者按：过去一段时间，徐工收购案让两个人名噪一时：一个是接连抛出46篇博客指出该并购案涉嫌“国资贱卖”的三一重工总裁向文波；另一个，就是处于漩涡之中的徐工集团董事长王民。而巧合的是，王民和向文波两人都入选了央视年度经济人物评选的50位候选人名单。
    “徐工是否被贱卖，需要国家产业部门说了才算，这是个标准问题。”徐工集团董事长王民对记者表示，国有企业为改制引入国际财务投资人，其价格最终“只有通过竞争才能解决问题”，而不了解交易过程的真实情况，轻易给一个主观判断是“非理性的”。
    在杭州举行的央视“东部之夜”评选晚会现场，王民对记者表示，在徐工并购案全民讨论过程中，他始终没见过向文波本人，而这次评选很可能为他们提供直接面对面的机会。
    徐工集团是中国最大的机械制造商、年销售收入200亿元的大型国企。为了实现“改制”和打入国际市场，徐工集团计划出让85%的股权给国际私募投资基金凯雷。这则并购曾被舆论描述为一场“黑盒子”里的交易。而作为业内竞争对手，民企三一重工的总裁向文波指责这桩交易是贱卖国有资产，并成为民族品牌沦陷的开端。
    王民回应称，中国工程机械行业是“2000家企业争抢1000亿规模的盘子”，典型的“小、散、乱”格局，大多数企业陷入低附加值、低科技含量的残酷竞争中。作为行业“排头兵”，徐工集团要从规模型走向质量效益型，“要让我的企业跨洋越海，走出程式化，走科技创新的路子”，引入国际投资者是一个迫不得已的选择。
    事实上，徐工改制过程中，早期也曾与国内民营资本洽谈过合作，但没谈拢。这家企业就是后来在股市上兵败如山倒的德隆集团。徐工由此对民营资本存有了戒心。2006年，向文波的博客引发了徐工改制的大讨论，期间也有两家大型央企向徐工伸出橄榄枝，但对于着力于“改变企业运行机制”的王民来说，他不太相信国企能带来多少新鲜血液。
    “我不能夜郎自大，我有忧患意识，我在工程机械行业工作35年，我要把徐工做长久，这是我的责任。”他说，因此，徐工改制伙伴选择的天平自然倾向外资。
    “怎么走出新路，循规蹈矩地走是走，创新式地走也是走，对于战略性改组和调整，一定是要开放式的。只要自己有控制力，这条路一定要走。”王民对记者说。
    几轮淘汰之后，凯雷胜出，获得“优先谈判者”机会。当时摩根的报价比凯雷高0.16亿美元。不过，在“保持核心团队的相对稳定、保持徐工品牌不变”等条款、以及徐工改制后的投资项目上，摩根与徐工没有达成共识，最终没被徐工选中。
    “告诉你一个真实的信息，一开始向文波曾要拿8亿元买我们85%的股份”。王民说，他和我们都是同行，他也没有恶意攻击过我，他是在讨论事，但他并不了解真实情况。当时凯雷与徐工签订的并购85%股份的价格是30亿元。
    不过，后来事情的发展也超过了王民的预料，“徐工并购案”的影响远远越过行业，几乎成为一个人人谈论的公共话题。
    今年10月中旬，最初的协议签订一年之后，徐工集团与凯雷修订了协议，凯雷放弃控股徐工机械的计划，将持股比例从85%下调到50%。
    有媒体认为，是向文波的46篇博客文章扭转了局面。而向文波在自己的博客中说：“徐工”交易调整了方案，一个是把股权比例降到了50%，另外价格提高了44%，所以，“我为国家赚了十个亿，尽管不算什么好交易，对我个人来讲已经满意了。”
    王民不同意这种说法。他表示，徐工并购这件事他早就知道不会简单，因为其时已经有了要自主创新、要自主品牌的气氛。“当时上报商务部，领导也说(出让的股份)太多了，能不能让凯雷让一点。”
    王民还表示，并购双方协商调整股比的真正动作发生在2006年5月，此前双方还补充了针对敌意并购的毒丸计划。而一个月后，向文波博客事件才引发讨论。“并不是向文波的炒作起了作用，我们其实一直在劝说凯雷要学会‘顺势而为’。”
    目前，对于新方案获批，王民虽然保持乐观，但仍很谨慎，“没有最后定论之前还不好说。”他对记者表示，一旦并购获得通过，徐工的下一步“肯定是启动上市计划”。
    如今，新方案可以保证徐工集团相对凯雷有比较强的控制力。“品牌是我们自己的，核心团队不变，经营上也由我们自己掌握。”王民说，尤其是经历过各方面的“拷问”后，自己学到了很多东西，比如，以前他做事很低调，不喜欢抛头露脸，而现在他也在“学着面对媒体”，很多事情只要沟通好了就容易解决。
    央视年度经济人物评选方认为，无论怎样，徐工并购案成为2006年的一个标志性事件，它也是近20年来国企改制史中难得一见的高透明度的样本，改制过程中的每一步、谈判交易的每一处细节、协议文本上的每一个字，都被人们拿到“聚光灯下、解剖台前详细检查”。

【2006-11-30】
徐工今复牌 否认中信泰富介入收购

　　S徐工(6.14,0.00,0.00%)(000425.SZ)昨日修改股改方案后，将于今天复牌。新方案包括：将原先的10送3.1改为10送3.2；同时徐工集团工程机械有限公司(下称“徐工机械”)还作出了24个月不上市交易的特别承诺。徐工集团副总经理王岩松昨天明确告诉《第一财经日报》，修改方案是跟投资者充分沟通后的结果，没有其他特别原因，也未与收购方凯雷沟通。
　　昨天在搜狐的论坛上，有网民发表言论称，“凯雷并购泡汤，中信泰富闪电出手；不日正式公告,利多利空,自己判断”，引起了市场的猜测。但昨天王岩松表示：“从来没有听说过这种事。”
　　就股改问题，此前徐工曾与凯雷进行过讨论，且达成了一致意见。双方的观点是，徐工集团作为全国瞩目的企业，能够给股民多一些利益。其后，S徐工几次修改股改方案，在11月17日正式对外公布了10送3.1的对价策略，而相隔12天后又再次修订，多送0.1股。
　　在原方案中，以S徐工目前流通股股本213622596股为基数，全体非流通股股东向全体流通股股东按每10股流通股获得3.1股的对价安排，共计安排对价66233005股。变更后，非流通股股东将多付2126226股。除对价水平调整外，大股东徐工机械也增加了延长上市流通锁定期和最低减持价格的承诺。以上调整方案已向江苏省人民政府国有资产管理委员会备案。针对两大特别承诺，王岩松表示，这是因为对S徐工未来有信心。
　　昨天S徐工发布的公告还称，徐工机械在二级市场通过证券交易所挂牌交易出售S徐工股份的价格不低于7元/股(因送股、资本公积金转增股本或配股等情况而导致S徐工股份或股东权益变化时进行相应除权)。王岩松说，对于现在徐工收购案的进展还没有进一步的消息可以披露。

【2006-11-30】
徐工多送0.1股:逗你玩?

    一般来说，上市公司在推出股改方案后都会提高一次对价比例，但也有像中石化那样说一不二的，但是昨天徐工的调高对价却让我感觉遭到一记闷锤。
    原先公布的方案是10股送3.1股，现在改为10股送3.2股，增加0.1股，每100股多得1股，让我想到一句话："逗你玩。"
    为什么这么说，3.1股和3.2股的区别有多大，谁都知道，多给这0.1股的意义就在于其提高了对价，可以联想到这么一句对话。买菜的大妈："你这个冬瓜太贵了，便宜点。"小贩："那再饶您1毛钱香菜。"
    在我看来，如果我是S徐工的流通股股东，我会有一种"嗟来食"的感觉。为了0.1股研究那么久，要增加就多增加点，大大方方的，要么就干脆不增加，也让人感到一种霸气。增加0.1股，有点小家子气。
    其实，如果真的想让流通股股东多得点实惠，干嘛非要玩命给对价？如果修改方案，10股送3.1股改为10股送3.1股再加送2份认沽权证，既不用多花钱，又实惠了流通股股东，多好。虽然最后认沽权证肯定会是废纸，但炒作的过程也会让流通股股东受益匪浅。
    怕股价跌了真要买回股票，不送认沽权证也行，多披露点重组进展的信息也可以增强流通股股东的持股信心，多半也能有利于股改投票，这个方案也比增加0.1股更好。讨好流通股股东的办法有很多，增加0.1股可能是最差强人意的？ （周科竞）      

【2006-11-29】
S徐工(000425)股改对价调至10送3.2

　　S徐工(6.14,0.00,0.00%)(000425.SH)近日公告称调高其股改对价至10送3.2。11月20日S徐工公布了10送3.1股改方案。S徐工今日公告称调高对价的同时，大股东徐工集团工程机械有限公司(下称“徐工集团”)将追加特别承诺。
　　对价调整后，S徐工共计安排对价则由66233005股增加为68359231股，执行对价安排的股份仍由全体非流通股股东按照股权比例分配。同时，在非流通股股东承诺履行法定义务外，徐工集团追加了以下两项特别承诺，为自己所持非流通股设置了24个月的禁售期，并在届满后的12个月内出售数量占S徐工股份总数的比例不超过10%，且在二级市场通过证券交易所挂牌交易出售S徐工股份的价格不低于7元/股(因送股、资本公积金转增股本或配股等情况而导致S徐工股份或股东权益变化时进行相应除权)。
　　根据公告，截至11月28日，尚有77家非流通股股东未明确表示同意本次股改方案，而表示同意该股改方案的153家非流通股股东中，有4家持有的S徐工股份已全部质押，无法执行对价安排；33家非流通股股东因各项原因而无法执行对价安排。S徐工控股股东徐工集团将对上述未明确表示同意股改方案，以及同意但权利受到限制的非流通股股东的执行对价安排先行代为垫付。
　　S 徐工最晚将于11月30日复牌。

【2006-11-28】
凯雷收购徐工案久拖未决 缘自部门意见不一?

    　　并购案的久拖未决，让徐工已“按耐不住”而提前股改；而据中国机械工业联合会相关人士表示，并购案迟迟得不到批复的主要原因是：在审批环节中的各部门“没有人承担得了批复后的责任”。
    一直强调“先改制、后股改”的S徐工意外出现在第58批股改名单之列。
    徐工并购案的连带公司——徐工科技（000425.SZ）11月19日正式对外宣布了股改方案，即每10股送3.1股。该公司为凯雷收购对象——徐工集团工程机械有限公司的子公司。
    之前，某媒体报道称“国资委已经批准了凯雷收购徐工的新方案”，“目前只在等待商务部的最终审批”。而国资委相关负责人随后否定了这一说法，指出新方案有关部委正在研究协商，之后国资委将进入审核程序。
    《中国经济周刊》从国家有关部委、行业协会相关人士获悉，目前几个部委对此并购有异意，在中央政府其它部委已大致认可后，商务部会出具审批是否通过的意见。
    在眼下凯雷并购徐工仍未得到国资委、商务部等管理部门最终批复的情况下，徐工率先启动股改程序，让这起久拖未决的并购案变得更加扑朔迷离。
    若收购顺利凯雷账面将增1.8亿
    据了解，徐工科技股改将在12月底结束。有业内人士分析，如果凯雷入股徐工获得批准、股改方案顺利通过，股权以二级市场价格计算，凯雷借徐工股改，其账面股权价值将增1.8亿。
    “徐工股改把非流通股10送3.1送给股东以后，看上去徐工手中的筹码是低了，但等股份可以流通之后，以二级市场价格计算，实际上徐工机械价值的含量应该是高了。”中国政法大学法与经济研究中心主任刘纪鹏教授向《中国经济周刊》分析。
    按照凯雷徐工机械实业有限公司（凯雷收购徐工成立的新公司）承诺，将在《股权买卖及股本认购协议》项下的交易完成及对公司股份的全面要约收购义务履行完成后，促使新公司开展对徐工科技的股权分置工作，而眼下凯雷入股徐工尚未得到国资委和商务部等管理层的最终批复，徐工却率先启动了股改程序。
    这是否意味着凯雷入股徐工无望？
    “从某种意义上说，这次股改对于凯雷收购徐工本身不会有什么影响，但对凯雷来说，中国资本市场搞了15、16年都没有解决的股份流通问题，现在让凯雷赶上了。如果并购成功，对凯雷只有好处没有坏处。从另一个角度看，如果凯雷进来，流通股的身份也就从丫鬟变成了小姐。”刘纪鹏教授告诉《中国经济周刊》。
    “凯雷作为投资公司是股权运作的高手，50%：50%是一个极易发生变化的数字，今后这个数字有可能变成49%：51%。”国家发改委宏观经济研究院外经所所长张燕生向《中国经济周刊》忧心忡忡地表示，如果一个核心行业的所有权都被外资拿走了，行业内没有了骨干企业，谁将是今后自主创新的主体？
    久拖未决缘自“没有人承担得了批复后的责任”？
    那么，影响这起并购的情况还会有哪些呢？
    据《中国经济周刊》了解，徐工是典型的国有上市企业，凯雷收购徐工股权，因涉及外资，需商务部外资司批准；因徐工是上市公司，股权性质变化，又需证监会备案；又因徐工是国有产权转让，需国资委审核，还涉及到徐工机械的主要产品是汽车起重机，需发改委审核。
    “凯雷并购徐工股权转让的程序，应该是先进行资产评估，然后双方签订转让协议，最后要经国资委、发改委各个部门审核，最终由商务部外资司批准，然后报证监会备案。”曾参与多起国有企业改制重组与产权转让案的脱明忠律师告诉《中国经济周刊》。
    国家发改委一位不愿意透露姓名的人士向《中国经济周刊》透露，这起并购案从一开始85%的股权方案的时候就没有正式报给过发改委，他们得到的信息都是有关领导人的批示和商务部的征求意见函。
    另据中国机械工业联合会相关人士告诉《中国经济周刊》，作为行业协调部门的中国机械工业联合会，也从没收到有关凯雷并购徐工的正式文件，徐工一直都是直接报到了商务部，商务部反过来征求中国机械工业联合会的意见。
    “我们给商务部的回复意见没有说同意，也没有说不同意。目前行业联合会的位置有点尴尬，因为不是政府部门，也没有资格说是否同意。”中国机械工业联合会市场部副主任冯宝珊告诉《中国经济周刊》，目前我国没有“问责制”，批与不批，“没有人承担得了批复后的责任”。
    “目前亟需建立一个国家一级政府组织，能站在全局的角度来处理外资并购事宜。”张燕生所长告诉记者。
    凯雷收购徐工一案双方能否如愿以偿，目前还是个未知数，商务部研究院外资研究部主任金伯生向《中国经济周刊》表示，“政府部门审批会很谨慎，尚无明确时间表。但审批也不会拖时间太长。”(王红茹)

【2006-11-28】
S徐工(000425)调整股改对价:每10股获得3.2股

    S 徐  工公司董事会于2006年11月20日公告股权分置改革方案后，徐工集团工程机械有限公司、公司及保荐机构通过走访投资者、热线电话等多种形式与流通股股东进行了充分沟通。根据沟通结果，公司股权分置改革方案内容作如下调整：
    1、对价安排数量的调整
    调整为：
    以S徐工目前流通股股本213,622,596股为基数，全体非流通股股东向方案实施股权登记日登记在册

提示:空格键到下一分类,退格键到上一分类,Ctrl+PageUp/PageDown到上/下股票

社会各界对温州市政府引进外资虽然争议重重，但扑面而来的外资并购潮似乎已经给出了这场争论的答案──不管争论结果如何，中国正在稳步成为世界重要并购市场，不论国资民资，内地资本都在争相扑入外资的怀抱。

　　如果不是戴着有色眼镜把企业家当“卖国贼”扫进垃圾堆，应该承认，并购烽烟不会无火而起，是一些客观因素让中国的企业家把外资并购当成了尚方宝剑，但这柄剑有可能让中国的市场经济头破血流。

　 　在国企著名并购案中，无论是花旗、兴业争夺广发行还是凯雷收购徐工案，之所以能够推进，有个无法忽视的原因就是企业遭遇经营困境。媒体此前曾详细报道徐 工与广发行政策性收购当地低效企业、被逼进行扶贫贷款、公司内部可疑交易频生等事件，充分说明目前的国企运行体制已经成为融化国资的大烤箱。在此情况下， 外资并购只不过是为国企体制性经营土壤缺失付出的高额代价。

　　按上述线索，国企急欲上嫁实力雄厚的外资不难理解，但民企尤其是经营状况良好的民企对外资趋之若鹜则令人费解。

　 　无数报道印证了民资的热情。2004年3月8日，《泉州晚报》报道，泉州鼓励民企承接外资并购；2004年7月9日，佛山日报》报道，“顺德外资并购民 企一年引来外资千万美元”，共有20多家内资企业、民营企业和合资企业通过股权变更设立为合资企业或外商独资企业，当地政府自豪地发布了这一消息； 2005年4月5日，《珠江时报》自豪宣称，外资并购民企成“流行色”，故事的发生地在佛山；同样自豪的还有南京市，《新华日报》10月24日报道，南京 民企成为外资并购的“香饽饽”。在南京市今年新批的26个外资并购项目中，参与主体是民营企业的达22个，注册合同外资达1.59亿美元，分别占同期并购 项目总量的84.6%和94%……而笔者的一个朋友最近在为手中效益极佳、负债为零的企业物色买主。

　　与其说是民资的热情，不如说是地 方政府的热情，民企不过是金蝉脱壳。通常而言，并购是为了使企业寻找到更合适的掌管者，在总体上促进社会经济效率的提高。如果相反，则为恶性收购。类似于 苏泊尔、五星电器这样的企业品牌、效益都处于上升阶段，企业掌门人却急于出手，那原因只能在效率之外寻找。

　　在企业家所提到的外资并购 原因中，包括外资与合资企业可以享受税收优惠、可以更方便地与国际资本市场“接驳”，以摆脱对民企并不友善效率相对较低的国内金融机构与资本市场的依赖， 原材料上涨过快企业无法承受压力，地方政府对于引资的浓厚兴趣等等现实考量。这些原因归结起来就是一句话，民企受到了上游资源垄断企业与歧视性政策的双重 压榨―――今年制造企业的成本上升了25%左右，近年来民企并购国企案60%都以失败告终―――本来就度日艰难，又遭遇原罪追讨，心中悽惶，只能一卖了 之。这种市场环境下的外资并购多数属于恶性并购。

　　以目前中国的市场架构，唯一能与纵横四海的垄断国企、热心指点经济的政府权力抗衡的大概只有外资。不管是外资并购还是民企变身的假洋鬼子，对于真正具有金融创新精神的企业家而言，相当于花费巨额赎身费换得一个大太太身份，在中国市场上登堂入室。

　 　民企靠外资赎身将导致毁灭性的后果：中国的本土民企成为次等公民，内生性的市场资源遭到根本性毁坏，只有靠外部资源来拯救；中国国民中存在的企业家精神 遭到扼杀，小富即安思想或者投机思想成为常态。真正有企业创新能力的中国人在迈阿密的海滩上晒太阳，这是中国最可怕的损失。