Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Anshan's proposed investment in US: are we OK with this?

A couple of days ago, news surfaced that Anshan Iron and Steel, one of the largest steel manufacturers in China intends to purchase a 20 percent stake in a near-bankrupt Mississippi steel mill. I say "surfaced" because the actual decision to pursue this investment apparently came in May, but for whatever reason never made the news in the US.

As would be expected, the Congressional Steel Caucus, a group of about 50 US lawmakers who are advocates of the US steel industry, raised objections to the proposed investment. These objections are similar to those raised by CNOOC's proposed takeover of Unocal back in 2005, so there is really nothing new here. The requisite "national security" implications are raised. And there is little doubt that the Steel Caucus's "investigation" will recommend against allowing this investment to happen.

Of course, the Steel Caucus can only make a recommendation; it does not have the final word, so it is not inconceivable that the investment could happen anyway. After all, a 20 percent stake is not a controlling stake, right? And even if it were, Anshan is just like any other profit-seeking business, right?

To address the first question, the answer is that we cannot always be certain whether 20 percent is a controlling stake. That really depends on who the other shareholders are and how large their stakes are. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Mississippi plant in question is owned by a private company, the Steel Development Co., which, according to its website is owned by "institutional investment firms headquartered in the United States, as well as [its] management group." So I think it is reasonable to assume that Anshan's proposed 20 percent stake would not be a controlling stake.

As for the question of whether Anshan is a profit-seeking business, the short answer is, yes, except for when it is not.

Beijing-based lawyer and blogger, Stan Abrams, posted a funny, and partially tongue-in-cheek, article today essentially making fun of the Congressional Steel Caucus's knee-jerk commie baiting (my term, not Stan's). While I largely agree with Stan's conclusion, I have to wonder whether the fact that Anshan is a state-owned enterprise is a significant factor that deserves further scrutiny.

Stan says (again, tongue-in-cheek):
Everyone knows that the company is controlled by China’s Assets Supervision Commission of the State Council (SASAC), which means that the company is merely a tool of the Communist Party. With all of those subsidies, Anshan is definitely up to no good.
Well, let's take this apart. First of all, I think we can be sure that not "everyone knows" this. Whether they should remains to be seen. Second, yes, Anshan is indeed owned by SASAC, the arm of the State Council that holds the shares of China's largest state-owned enterprises.

Third, while Anshan isn't "merely" a tool of the Communist Party (it is also other things), it is nevertheless a tool of the Communist Party. Anshan is 67 percent owned by SASAC, which doesn't necessarily make it a tool of the Communist Party -- until you take a closer look. The senior management of SASAC-owned companies, including Anshan, are appointed, not by their Boards of Directors, not by SASAC, not by the State Council, but by the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party. (Richard McGregor's new book documents much of this. It's also a great read. McGregor explains some of this in an interview here on the China Beat.)

I also found it interesting that Qi Xiangdong, Deputy Secretary General of the Chinese Iron and Steel Association seemed to bend over backward to try to redefine what "state-owned" means:
"A market-economy country like the U.S. shouldn't make administrative intervention to corporate behavior," Mr. Qi said. "Western countries still have a stereotype of [Chinese] state-owned enterprises. ...Anshan Iron is a listed company, and not a Chinese state-owned enterprise in the traditional sense." (WSJ, 5 July 2010)
Setting aside the irony that the king of state interventionist governments would lecture the US about what a market economy is, it is extremely disingenuous of Mr. Qi to suggest that a company that is 67 percent owned by the government is not state-owned. If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not, I might begin to suspect that there is a Chinese plot to redefine English language words such as state-owned, democracy, rule-of-law, etc., so as to confuse their foreign detractors.

What about "all of those subsidies"? Well, since Anshan is indeed a state-owned enterprise, we can be certain that, at some point in the past, and probably at some point in the future, Anshan will benefit from government subsidies. Part of the reason for continued government control of major enterprises in China is fear of instability that would be caused by massive layoffs if these giant firms were to go bankrupt. As long as any company is in state hands, that's not a problem. Anshan is "blessed" with a soft budget constraint, and they know it.

Is Anshan "up to no good"? Probably not, though when it comes to the murky world of Chinese state-owned enterprises, nothing can be said with all certainty. Anshan's external shareholders, a diffuse group of individuals and institutions who collectively own only 33 percent of Anshan's shares, have no say in what the company does. Anshan is part of a large group company, and there is absolutely zero visibility into the operations or financial statements of the unlisted entities. It may also give us pause that a Chinese official stretches reason in order to declare Anshan not to be a state-owned enterprise when it clearly is.

So while Anshan is probably just looking for a good investment in a business that it already knows, without visibility into the rest of Anshan's dealings, its leadership, its true controlling owners (i.e. the Politburo), we cannot be absolutely certain.

So are we OK with this investment?

Yeah, why not? Let the folks in Mississippi take Anshan's money. When it comes to the power of the Chinese state, it pretty much stops at the borders of the United States. Once Chinese money and people enter the US, they are subject to rule-of-law. And while the Chinese may wish to redefine what that term means within their own borders, they will find US courts quite unsympathetic to any attempts to do so elsewhere.


  1. A good read.

    Too many people give credence to Chinese claims that companies like Huawei are not ultimately controlled by the CCP. The network described by McGregor makes it quite clear to me that there is no such thing as a Chinese company free from government influence, especially the big players.

  2. Thanks, Stuart.

    I agree. Whether private or public, if an enterprise is big enough to present a potential threat, the Party will spare no effort to pull the company into its orbit.

    I suppose that's better than destroying the threat -- which was pretty much Mao's strategy. :)

  3. While I agree with the fundamentals of this article concerning Chinese government control of state-owned enterprises and also state champions, the notion that this is a problem that stops on our borders is not entirely accurate. From a microeconomic perspective, the Anshan Steel investment may be good for Mississippi, but what does it say about the larger global economy when state capitalists like Mr. Qi in Beijing can create national champions for competitive advantage both at home and abroad, primarily for political purposes?

  4. Thanks, Paul. You raise an important point.

    I think it says the US and other countries had better figure out how to compete. Among other things, that means adopting a reciprocal trade strategy with China: tit for tat. It also means adopting an industrial policy that nurtures important manufacturing industries and maintains employment for unskilled workers.

    At the moment, China is playing this game to win. The US is not.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.