GM is getting its 1% back, and it won't be cheap

Back in January, GM announced it wanted to buy back the 1% it had sold to its partner, Shanghai Auto (SAIC). In the post I wrote at that time, here was my prediction:

The only way I can see this happening is if GM were to agree to set up the sales organization that SAIC had first proposed, which may be possible now that the US government is no longer a majority owner in GM (though still technically the controlling owner).

As it turns out, this is exactly what is happening.  According to an article (free registration required) from Automotive News China:

Company CEO Dan Akerson told the Journal that the partners plan to split Shanghai GM into two units: sales and operations.

General Motors would have a 50 percent share of the operations unit, which would make product decisions. SAIC would retain a 51 percent share of the sales unit, which would allow the Chinese automaker to book the joint venture's revenue.

The remaining question, which the partners have not yet answered, is what consideration is changing hands. How much is GM paying to SAIC for the 1% of the manufacturing operation?

As for the ongoing implications, GM once again presumably has an equal say in SAIC-GM board meetings.  This is good for GM because they will have leverage in charting the direction of the firm, appointing executives, and planning production.

However, this new sales organization, of which SAIC will now own 51%, will funnel a bit more cash toward SAIC for the foreseeable future.  What's that worth?  According to my very rough, back-of-the-envelope math, possibly as much as $150 million a year in sales -- that's every year in perpetuity.*

If my math is even close to correct -- cut my figure in half and assume $75 million a year in sales -- that will very quickly add up to a lot more than the $85 million or so GM originally got for selling that 1% to SAIC in 2009.

Of course, SAIC and GM could just tell us what this will cost and people like me wouldn't have to do voodoo math. I'm sure GM's shareholders would like to know.

___________________________

* My back-of-the-envelope math.  According to the WSJ, GM gets about $30 billion in revenue a year from China.  Last year, SAIC-GM sold 1.2 million vehicles and SAIC-GM-Wuling sold 1.3 million (data here).  Again, very roughly, taking GM's 49% of SAIC-GM and GM's 44% of SAIC-GM-Wuling reveals that about 52% of GM's China revenue came from SAIC-GM.  Even more roughly, 52% of GM's $30 billion is $15.6 billion and 1% of that is $156 million.

Is GM handing China another win?

General Motors announced today that it has signed a memorandum of understanding with the China Automotive Technology and Research Center (CATARC) in which CATARC will reportedly...

...manage GM’s fleet of demonstration Volts and will assist GM China in meeting certain objectives.

These [objectives] will include gaining the support of key decision makers crafting vehicle electrification policy in China.

Who is CATARC?  From their English website:

China Automotive Technology and Research Center (CATARC) was established in 1985 response to the need of the state for the management of auto industry and upon the approval of the China National Science and Technology Commission. It is now affiliated to SASAC.

As a technical administration body in the auto industry and a technical support organization to the governmental authorities, CATARC assists the government in such activities as auto standard and technical regulation formulating, product certification testing, quality system certification, industry planning and policy research, information service and common technology research.

CATARC is "affiliated to SASAC" (State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission) which is essentially the organization that holds the shares of central state-owned enterprises.  CATARC is also a major regulatory organization in that all automobiles need to be tested by CATARC before they may be certified for the road in China.

Since part of GM's purpose is to gain influence over policymakers, this relationship with an organization that is part of the central government cannot hurt.  But there is more to CATARC than meets the eye.

Not only is CATARC an auto industry regulator that is essentially owned by the central government, but it is also a competitor of GM's through its ownership in the Tianjin Qingyuan Electric Vehicle Company (Qingyuan).  According to Qingyuan's website, the company both develops and produces clean energy vehicles and components, which sounds remarkably like something that GM does.

Qingyuan's "principal shareholder" is CATARC, and another of Qingyuan's shareholders is the Tianjin Lishen Battery Company, a producer of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles, which is, of course a competitor of LG Chem, the manufacturer of the battery in the Chevrolet Volt.  (Lishen, incidentally, makes the li-ion battery for the Coda electric car.)

So what does all of this mean?  Am I saying that GM has handed its intellectual property over to CATARC so they may copy at will?  Not exactly.  CATARC, after all, also has a reputation to protect, so I am doubtful that they would so blatantly copy GM's Volt technology.  But how certain can GM be that its technology will not find its way, through CATARC, into the hands of Qingyuan, or Lishen, or any of the dozens of Chinese automakers who bring their cars to CATARC for testing?

GM is no stranger to having its IP copied in China.  Back in 2003, GM discovered that Chery had somehow obtained the plans to the Chevrolet Spark, and used them to develop the QQ which Chery got to market several months ahead of the Spark.  And when GM went to its partner, Shanghai Auto, to complain about this miscreant that had been copying its technology, only then did GM learn that Shanghai Auto was also a part owner of Chery.  (Long story short, GM sued, then settled out of court with Chery, which admitted no wrongdoing, and Shanghai Auto got rid of its shares in Chery.)

In all honesty, I find it hard to blame Chinese automakers for copying foreign technology and designs.  After all, this is what all developing countries do when they are trying to catch up.  All developed countries -- including the US -- at one time or another, copied other countries' technologies with reckless abandon.

I do, however, blame foreign automakers (and manufacturers in pretty much any industry) for sometimes naively risking their shareholders' valuable IP for a share of the Chinese market.  The goal of the Chinese automakers is to win -- as it should be.  But foreign automakers need to understand that the ultimate goal of China's automakers is to no longer need them.  When Chinese partners say their aim is for a "win-win," this means they get to win twice.*

___________________
* I don't know for certain whether I was the first person to say this about the concept of "win-win", but I had not heard it before I tweeted it from my hotel room in Shanghai in January of 2010 (as documented by @rudenoon on his blog).  :)

Book Talk at USC

Several weeks ago I gave a talk related to my forthcoming book at the University of Southern California.  Watch as I attempt to summarize four years of research and a 300-page book in less than an hour.  :)

Volvo is Geely, and Geely is Volvo

It was only a matter of time.

The privately-held Chinese automaker Geely has announced that it will be forming a joint venture with its subsidiary Volvo.  As you may remember, Geely’s owner, Li Shufu conducted a high-profile purchase of the Swedish automaker Volvo from Ford in 2010.

The concern at the time had been that Geely simply wanted to strip away Volvo’s intellectual property for itself, but Li Shufu assured observers that the two entities would remain separate: “Volvo is Volvo, and Geely is Geely.”  And indeed, the purchase was structured so that both the Hong Kong-listed Geely Motors and Volvo are both subsidiaries of a holding company controlled by Li Shufu.  (In other words, Geely doesn’t own Volvo, technically, Li Shufu does.)

So why is Geely now forming a JV with Volvo?  Because it has to in order to build cars in China.  China’s rules require that any “foreign” automaker that wants to assemble cars in China may only do so through a joint venture with a Chinese automaker, and the foreign entity may hold no more than 50 percent of the JV.  Since Volvo is still headquartered in Sweden, it is considered foreign.

The icing on the cake for China here is that, like all other foreign automakers who have sought permission from Beijing for expansion or establishment of a new venture anytime during the past two years, Volvo is also being required to “assist” Geely in building a Chinese-branded car.

Until now, this has only applied to state-owned enterprises because only state-owned enterprises had joint ventures with foreign automakers (with the exception of a small JV between BYD and Daimler to develop electric vehicles).  The assumption had been that the SOEs, which had been dragging their feet in terms of developing their own brands, would be “given” slightly out-of-date technology by their foreign partners.  They would then produce cars under a Chinese brand name using the foreign technology and designs.  (I have previously written about this phenomenon, which I refer to as "sub-brands" or “JV Brands.”)

What is interesting here is that Geely, unlike the SOEs cannot be accused of “dragging its feet” in developing Chinese brands.  Indeed, Chinese brands are all Geely has ever made!

So what does this mean for Volvo?  What it means is that Volvo will simply be handing over technology onto which will be slapped a Geely-owned Chinese brand name.

Perhaps Li Shufu would now like to change his quote to, “Volvo is Geely, and Geely is Volvo.”

GM's Kevin Wale on Innovation in China

The consulting firm McKinsey published on its website an interview with Kevin Wale, president and managing director of General Motors China.  The whole interview is worth a read if you are interested in the state of innovation in China, but here are a few of the more revealing excerpts with a little of my own commentary.

Kevin Wale: When the Chinese get an idea, they test it in the marketplace. They’re happy to do three to four rounds of commercialization to get an idea right, whereas in the West companies spend the same amount of time on research, testing, and validation before trying to take products to market.

This is both scary and admirable.  Scary, because the Chinese are, at least according to Mr Wale, willing to put products into the market before they are fully tested as a means of development.  When you think about it, this is pretty much what Apple does with its products.  The first iPhone wasn't fully ready, but it was ready enough.  Feedback from customers helped them to improve on subsequent iterations.

What's scary about this is that driving a car that has been put into the market on an experimental basis doesn't sound like something I would want to do.  If my iPhone blows up, I would probably survive.  I'm not sure I could survive my car blowing up.  While I would hope that GM is able to prevent its partner, Shanghai Auto, from putting dangerous vehicles on the market, I wonder whether other Chinese auto companies are quite as careful.

The Buick LaCrosse, partially designed in Shanghai

The Chinese system supports the idea that it’s OK to fail if you fail in a government-sponsored direction. It’s OK to make mistakes as long as you’re moving forward. They’re quite OK to get out there, do something, find out it’s not perfect, but quickly adapt it and move forward. There’s no recrimination internally for doing that if that’s the direction the country wants to move in.

It's a great thing that people feel comfortable to experiment within the boundaries set by the state, but the opposite of Mr. Wale's statement is that they do not feel comfortable experimenting outside the boundaries set by the state.  But what if a worker has an idea that's not in “the direction the country wants to move in.”?  Too bad.

This, in my view, is precisely why China will always be a step behind.  Governments have historically been quite bad at charting an unknown course in terms of picking winners and losers.  In China, true technical innovation will always have to come from outside until people feel free to make mistakes in all areas of business, not just those approved by the geniuses in Beijing.

McKinsey Quarterly: Do you source innovation from outside GM China?  Kevin Wale: The answer depends on whether you’re talking about joint ventures or GM. In our joint ventures, we’re happy to take innovation from suppliers any day of the week.

This is more interesting for what Mr Wale doesn't say.  When asked whether GM gets innovation from outside, Mr. Wale assumes the question is about whether GM sources innovation from its joint ventures in China.  From his answer, it seems pretty clear that they don't.

Let's be honest here, the technology is still only flowing in one direction, and that's from GM to its Chinese partners.  At what point will GM's partner have enough technology that it doesn't need GM anymore?

Chinese-branded cars lost market share in 2011

In early 2009 China's government released a fairly comprehensive policy for the auto industry called the "Automobile Industry Adjustment and Stimulus Plan (汽车产业调整和振兴规划)." 

Among the major targets included in this plan was for an increase in market share of China's home-grown auto brands (also known as 自主品牌). One of the targets was for Chinese-branded  passenger cars (轿车, aka, sedans) to increase domestic market share to 30 percent in three years' time (by the end of 2011).  (Up from about 26 percent at the end of 2008.)

China's auto industry enjoyed robust sales growth of 48 percent in that very year, giving the Chinese brands a 29.7 percent market share by the end of 2009.  And just in case the leaders weren't satisfied with rounding up to 30, Chinese brands achieved a 30.9 percent market share by the end of 2010.

Unfortunately, the tide turned against manufacturers of Chinese-branded cars in 2011, causing them to lose market share for the first time. Though the absolute number of Chinese-branded cars sold increased, foreign-branded car sales grew at a faster rate, dropping the domestic brands to a 29.1 percent market share -- just in time to miss the target that had been set out for them three years earlier.

And this came in a year during which luxury automakers enjoyed enviable sales growth in China: Audi-37%, BMW-37%, JaguarLandRover 61%, Cadillac-73%.

Why did Chinese cars suddenly lose market share to the foreign brands?

Did quality decline? Not at all!  In fact, Chinese brands have been closing the quality perception gap with the foreign automakers.

What happened was that another provision in the "Adjustment and Stimulus Plan" of 2009 distorted sales growth in 2009 and 2010.  The plan included a 50 percent cut in auto sales taxes for vehicles with engine sizes of 1.6 liters or less -- in other words, small cars.

The stimulus really worked! In 2009 sales of cars in the 1.6 liter and below segment grew 71 percent while sales in all other passenger car segments grew by "only" 23 percent. And the beauty of this stimulus plan was that, at the time of its introduction, fully 85 percent of the market for 1.6 liter and under cars was occupied by Chinese brands.  This was none other than a plan to stimulate sales of Chinese brands.

The stimulus also worked in 2010, but it was later halved to only a 25 percent sales tax cut, and then, by the end of 2010, the stimulus was lifted completely -- resulting in disappointing performance in 2011.

Of course, we can't blame it all on lifting of the stimulus because, once the stimulus was enacted in 2009, foreign automakers scrambled to enter the 1.6 liter and below segment as quickly as possible.

Still, this does illustrate well the distorting effects of government schemes on markets. And it is somewhat ironic that the same plan that brought such growth in 2009, took it away once the stimulus provision was allowed to expire.

GM Wants its 1% back. Good luck.

GM announced yesterday (again) that it wants to repurchase a one percent stake in its joint venture with Shanghai Auto (SAIC) that it sold for a handful of magic beans a few years ago.

Back in December of 2009, GM and SAIC announced a major change to their partnership which involved GM selling one percent of the SAIC-GM joint venture (JV) to SAIC for $85 million.  This announcement also included details on a new Hong Kong-registered joint venture through which GM and SAIC would partner to conduct business in other countries, primarily India.

The net result was that GM and SAIC were no longer 50:50 owners in the main China JV.  With the one percent transfer, SAIC became the majority owner with a 51 percent stake.  On paper at least, GM had been reduced to the role of junior partner.

At the time, GM management explained that the purpose of the one percent transfer was in consideration of some future help from SAIC.  And though it wasn't explicitly stated, GM statements sort of hinted that SAIC's help may come in the form of help with future funding.

Early speculation was that GM needed the money.  And since GM had emerged from bankruptcy only a few months earlier, that seemed to make sense, except that, in the whole scheme of things, $85 million didn't really seem like a lot of money.  At year-end 2009, the company had over $14 billion in cash on its balance sheet, so it wasn't cash poor.  And with a current ratio (current assets/current liabilities) of 1.13, it wasn't facing an impending liquidity crisis.

Since I happened to be in Shanghai only a few weeks after this announcement was made, and since I was fortunate enough to land an interview with a senior SAIC executive who was integral to the negotiations with GM, I asked the SAIC executive to explain why GM would give up any leverage it had over the JV for a measly $85 million.  His explanation made a little more sense.

In short, SAIC wanted to be able to consolidate the top-line revenues of the JV into its parent company income statement, and under accounting rules, it could only do this if it owned more than 50 percent of the company.  Chinese companies were (and are) under a great deal of pressure from Beijing to move up in the rankings of the Global Fortune 500, and since the Fortune list looks at sales, not profits, SAIC needed to make its sales number bigger.

Does this sound ridiculous?  It did to me too.  But it's also the truth, as this particular executive, on two different occasions, emphasized to me the importance of moving up the list of the Fortune 500.

So what did GM get for handing over control?  According to the SAIC executive, GM wanted desperately to continue expanding its global footprint, but was facing two hurdles.  First, as GM had recently exited bankruptcy, the terms it could receive on bank lending were highly unfavorable.  Second, still being majority owned by the taxpayers of the US, GM was restricted in its ability to fund any activity that didn't somehow create American jobs or shore up the US-side of its business.

And this is where SAIC came in.  Through this partnership, SAIC, with its stellar credit rating, not to mention being a major state-owned corporation with access to favorable loan terms from both state-owned mainland banks as well as Hong Kong banks, would be able to help GM out with its funding needs overseas.

The SAIC executive did suggest that GM and SAIC could have entered into an agreement whereby the two companies would create an entirely separate sales JV to which all vehicles manufactured would be sold.  Then SAIC would own 51 percent of the sales JV, also allowing it to consolidate revenue into the parent company's income statement.  (SAIC and its other major partner, Volkswagen have a similar arrangement.)

However, this particular arrangement didn't work for GM either as, once again, GM's government minders in Washington were not interested in entering into any arrangements that didn't serve the interests of the US.

Fast-forward a couple of years, and now GM wants its one percent back.  The only way I can see this happening is if GM were to agree to set up the sales organization that SAIC had first proposed, which may be possible now that the US government is no longer a majority owner in GM (though still technically the controlling owner).

Of course, since the time of that transaction, GM has been very vocal about the importance of the China market to the company's future.  In fact, GM now sells more vehicles in China than in the US (2.6 million vehicles in China vs 2.5 million in US in 2011.)

One wonders how eager SAIC will be to give up the majority control it has enjoyed for more than two years.  Furthermore, given the importance of its China JV, GM can probably expect to pay considerably more than $85 million for the return of its one percent.

End of the Road for Foreign Automakers in China?

Last week a story emerged that China's industrial planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), has announced that it will stop supporting foreign investment in its auto industry. (News stories may be found here, here and here.)


This bit from a China Daily article explains a little about why these restrictions were being put in place:

China...has removed industries from the list of those it encourages foreign companies to invest in. No longer part of that group are automakers, large coal-to-chemical operations and manufacturers of polycrystalline silicon.

"The restrictions generally apply to industries that have excessively large capacities and that pollute the environment," said Zhang Xiaoji, senior researcher at State Council's development research center. (emphasis added)

My take on this story is that the NDRC actually has no real intention of restricting foreign investment in its auto industry. To understand why this is so, one needs only a limited understanding of the history of foreign involvement in China's auto sector, which I lay out in an op-ed in today's Asian Wall Street Journal.

In short, I make the claim that:

... the NDRC's announcement is more about improving Chinese leverage in negotiations with foreign automakers so Chinese automakers can more quickly overcome their innovation deficit.

For the rest of the op-ed at the WSJ site, click here.

And for all of the stories behind the main story of business-government relations in China's auto sector, my book, Designated Drivers: How China Plans to Dominate the Global Auto Industry, will be published by Wiley and Sons this year.

Coming to a bookstore, mailbox or e-reader near you in Spring 2012. Stay tuned!

_________________
EDIT:
I was just notified that my article was also picked up by WSJ's US op-ed page. It will run in Thursday's edition. (January 5)

Hold on to your lugnuts! It's time for a Trade War!

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that China is preparing to levy duties on certain autos imported from the US. This would be on top of the 25 percent duties that China is still allowed to levy under its WTO commitments.

China's Ministry of Commerce said in a statement late Wednesday that it will levy antidumping and antisubsidy duties on imports from the U.S. of some vehicles with engine capacities above 2.5 liters beginning on Thursday and lasting through the next two years. ...

The ministry said several U.S. companies, including General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and the U.S. arm of Honda Motor Co., engage in dumping and subsidizing. The statement said the move would also affect cars made by the U.S. arms of Mercedes-Benz and BMW AG, though it said their level of dumping was smaller.

Note that China's Commerce Ministry singled out not only the traditional US automakers GM and Chrysler, but also the US arms of Honda, Mercedes and BMW.

While China could have plausibly argued that GM and Chrysler benefit from government subsidies due to the bailouts these two companies received, they instead chose to make this about all cars with engines larger than 2.5 liters made in the US (but not in Japan or Germany!).

Does anyone think the US Congress will choose to view this as any less than an attack on the livelihoods of American workers -- and in an election year no less? Of course, Congress cannot portray themselves as innocents in all of this as Congress has already singled out China's solar panel industry for US-imposed tariffs. Then again, Congress can point to China's currency...

And on and on it goes. One thing I learned in grad school about wars (the kind in which people shoot at each other) is that it is nearly impossible to identify who started it. No matter which incident one side points to, the other side can go further back in history to identify another.

If we look at this incident only with regard to China's auto industry, it is also easy to see a kind of pattern here. Back in 2009, when China launched the stimulus heard round the world, they chose to subsidize consumer purchases of vehicles with engines smaller than 1.6 liters.

Why 1.6 liters? Because the foreign automakers that were dominating China's auto market had very little to offer in the small car segment. That subsidy was intended to boost sales of Chinese-branded cars.

Of course, the foreign automakers didn't stand still. Many of them already had small cars in the pipeline, so they got them to market faster -- just in time for China to cancel the subsidy toward the end of 2010.

Why are the import duties now focused on 2.5 liters? Because this is an area in which the foreign automakers pretty much own the market. This effort to make these imports more expensive may ideally (from China's point-of-view) accomplish two things: 1) make Chinese consumers more likely to consider a less expensive Chinese-branded car, and 2) make foreign automakers consider moving more assembly of their larger models to China.

In reality China's new tariff may not accomplish either purpose. For one, the Chinese consumers who are more interested in these larger cars (as the WSJ article points out) are less price sensitive anyway. They are already interested in these large foreign brands because they perceive them to have higher quality. In addition, because the volume of these larger cars in China is still comparatively small, it is highly doubtful that much, if any, of their production would be moved to China. (Perhaps that second one is a straw man argument.)

So what does China really stand to gain? Not much, really. In the end, China will get the trade war that it has been warning us about for years, and its home-grown automakers will still face a quality gap with their foreign partners/competitors.

____________________________
In case you're wondering where the picture at the top came from:

A legitimate beef with China

A leader in this week's Economist, concerning the US Senate's passage of a bill intended to punish China for currency manipulation, warns that, however right the Senate may be about currency manipulation, passage of the bill would risk an unnecessary trade war.

The Economist goes on to say that America does have "legitimate beefs with China, but this bill is the wrong way to address them. It is legally flawed, economically dangerous and unnecessary." If passed, China would surely have a legitimate claim against the US through the WTO, and would almost certainly retaliate with its own trade-limiting measures.

While I understand the value of this measure as a political tactic for Senators who are part of the most hated US Congress in history, the fact is that there are better ways for America to get what it wants (not that Congress even cares).

While the WTO mechanisms designed to facilitate open trade are slow to work, China recognizes them as legitimate and has generally adhered to their judgments in the past. Although, as The Economist admits, currency manipulation is not addressed in WTO rules, America indeed has "legitimate beefs" with China that could be addressed under the WTO. Yet, for some reason, the US Congress chooses to focus on currency, and the Obama administration apparently chooses to look the other way when it comes to some of China's real WTO violations.

While I haven't cataloged all of China's violations, I know that there are several going on in the auto industry that no one seems to think are worth calling China on. For example, a couple of key measures in China's WTO accession agreement forbid China from conditioning investment in China on technology transfer and local content requirement. (This agreement dates back to 2001, by the way, so it's nothing new.)

As for the tech transfer part of the rules, China's ability to apply pressure to foreign automakers to transfer technology in exchange for permission to expand in the country has been well-documented. (A couple of example articles are here and here.)

The latest attempt by the Chinese to adhere to the letter of the law while blatantly violating its spirit includes holding off on investment approval until the foreign company "voluntarily" offers to contribute technology toward establishing a Chinese brand with its (state-owned) Chinese partner. Peugeot's CEO was quoted by the Financial Times as saying that, cooperating on building a Chinese brand is now "part of the deal."

And the automakers involved in this attempted extortion have no incentive to complain about it for fear of losing their access, all the while knowing that their competitors are all doing the same thing.

Okay, you may say, perhaps China's violations in this case would be too difficult to prove under the WTO's mechanisms. After all, the foreign automakers all appear to be "voluntarily" contributing technology in these cases, and anyway, none of them is complaining. Perhaps.

Then how about a more obvious violation of the rules? In this case, it involves the imposition of illegal local content requirements.

This actually surfaced a few weeks ago, and I commented about it on twitter, but only my friend @alexwoods5 seemed to think it was an issue worth being concerned about. The issue in question arose from a recent Wikileaks cable in which an employee of Ford in China revealed to US diplomatic personnel that Ford's operation in China is subject to a 40 percent local content requirement. This is the relevant section:

¶9. (SBU) All of Ford's parts suppliers must meet the Chinese Government's rules of minimum 40 percent local content by value, Chuang explained.

Does that not sound like a local content requirement? Could this have been a condition for Ford's recent investment in new factories in China?

I even emailed an acquaintance of mine at Ford, twice, seeking some sort of explanation or confirmation. The fact that he has yet even to respond with a "no comment" tells me that this may be worth investigating.

But is the Obama administration investigating it? If not, why not?

I know that the administration, or at least certain individuals in it, understand that the currency bill passed by the Senate would do great harm to both global trade and to America's relationship with China. But if they want to avoid such unpleasantness, why not at least make an effort to make China follow the agreements it has signed?

American Wheels, Chinese Roads: a review

For several months I have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of Michael J. Dunne's new book, American Wheels, Chinese Roads: The Story of General Motors in China (Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Asia, 2011).


If you have read any news stories covering China's auto industry over the past decade, you have almost certainly read quotes from Mike Dunne. Until recently he was in charge of J.D. Power's China unit, and now he runs his own consulting company.

There are few people more qualified than Mike Dunne to write about China's auto industry. He grew up in Detroit, worked at GM, and earned his MBA from the University of Michigan. He has also spent over two decades of his life living and working in China.

American Wheels, Chinese Roads is a more-or-less chronological telling of the experience of General Motors in China, but at appropriate points, Dunne interjects relevant stories about other auto companies and their experiences in China. And it is a pretty quick read because the story is so entertainingly told.

The stories are all fascinating because many reveal lessons that GM learned along the way and often contain fly-on-the-wall details about negotiations between Chinese and foreign automakers. Dunne makes these stories even more interesting (and demonstrates his China credentials) by weaving in little Chinese language lessons and references to Chinese philosophers and historical figures. He doesn't just lay the lessons on us; he often delves deeper into why things are the way they are in China.

At a few points, GM is portrayed almost as a naive victim, caught off guard by the machinations of the government or GM's competitors. For example, when GM inked its deal with Shanghai Auto (SAIC), it was promised a monopoly in the luxury vehicle segment only to be surprised a few months later that Shanghai Auto's other partner, Volkswagen was being allowed to introduce a competing vehicle.

Dunne also retells the story about how Chery Auto managed to beat GM to market with the QQ, a copy of the Chevrolet Spark, adding new details that I had not seen elsewhere.

GM's curious sale of one percent of its joint venture to Shanghai Auto in 2009 is also covered here, though little is said about the possible motivation of SAIC. (But you will be able to find SAIC's side of the story in my forthcoming book on China's auto industry.)

In the penultimate chapter, Dunne sums up the experiences, not only of GM, but most foreign companies attempting to succeed in China:

While placing their bets, companies must never forget that to be dealt a hand in the game of electric cars -- or almost any business in China -- you will need to get approval for a license.

And get a partner.

Once those are secured, you will begin to compete with both the house and the player. The ones making the rules are also playing the game -- and they're determined to triumph.

This nicely sums up much of my own research on China's auto industry. Getting into China is hard, and once there, you will only be there as long as the Chinese find you useful.

In terms of the details, I was very pleased to find that Dunne's take on China's auto industry largely agrees with my own -- not that it has to, but having spent several years researching this industry in which Dunne is an expert, I am happy to note that my own research was not off-base. This is not always the case when two writers tackle the same topic in relation to China: it often depends on which part of the elephant one is touching.

As enjoyable as this book was to read (it is truly a page-turner!), as a researcher, I often wished to see footnotes to support certain quotes, figures or other claims. For some reason, the non-academic world has an aversion to footnotes. From the point-of-view of a researcher, footnotes make a particular work more attractive as a documentary source, and ensures that the book is cited more frequently. More citations will very likely translate into more sales. (And if you're the kind of reader who hates footnotes, you may also be happy that the book comes in a Kindle edition.)

My sense in this case is that many of the quotes come from Dunne's first-hand experience, although I would not have minded his saying so in the text. There seems to be a trend toward increasing acceptable use of the first person in non-fiction nowadays, a trend that I fully support: if you did the work, conducted the interview, etc., I think you should feel free to say so.

But this minimal criticism only reflects my personal preference, and in no way does it detract from this book as both an entertaining work of non-fiction and a source of wise advice on the pleasures and pitfalls of doing business in China.

In the conclusion, Dunne leaves no doubt as to where he stands in his own assessment of the business environment for foreigners in China. His parting shot takes the form of a fictitious memo from a foreign auto executive in China to the US Auto Task Force. His final recommendations aren't delivered in anger; they are a matter-of-fact assessment of a playing field on which foreign businesses have been forced to face down the entire Chinese government all on their own for far too long.

Creating 'Chinese' brands now 'part of the deal' for foreign automakers

Last December I wrote about a trend among Chinese-foreign automotive joint ventures in which the foreign partner gives technology to the JV to sell under a Chinese brand. Some of the English language China auto blogs refer to these as "sub-brands."

For example, Honda contributed the design of an outdated City vehicle it no longer makes to its JV with Guangzhou Auto. The JV now sells it under the Chinese brand Linian.

At the time I noticed this trend among several automakers (Guangzhou Honda, Dongfeng Nissan, Shanghai-GM), my assumption was that this was an attempt on the part of the Chinese automakers to wean Chinese consumers away from foreign brands. Chinese consumers still overwhelmingly prefer foreign brands (if they can afford them), because they perceive them to have higher quality.

Now several other foreign automakers including Volkswagen and PSA Peugeot-Citroen are discussing similar arrangements with their Chinese partners. PSA Peugeot-Citroen's CEO told the Financial Times that helping their partner to develop a local brand is now "part of the deal".

Last December I speculated that this may have been under central government coordination, but I had no evidence of that. Today, evidence seems to have surfaced in this report from the Financial Times.

The story quotes Mike Dunne, formerly of JD Power in China, who now has his own consulting company:

Nothing is written down, but when automakers go to apply for capacity expansion, in their application it’s clear that they should have a plan for an indigenous brand with jointly owned product rights and some provision for new energy vehicles. Foreigners want more capacity; China is saying: ‘We want more own brands’.

Back in 2001, when China joined the WTO, they gave up the right to demand technology transfer as a condition for approval of foreign investment. Of course, this new rule did nothing to change China's appetite for foreign technology.

The new demand, rather than for "technology transfer", appears to be: if you want to expand capacity, then X% needs to be devoted to Chinese-branded cars.

The foreign automakers now have a choice. They can pour precious R&D money into joint development of cars that compete directly with their own, or they can just hand over technology they already have.

The technology the foreigners are now handing over may be slightly outdated, so the foreigners aren't being forced to hand over their latest and greatest innovations. But again, it seems to me that these foreign-designed, Chinese-branded cars that the central government is now forcing the JVs to sell will fill the perceived quality gap between Chinese- and foreign-branded cars.

China's central government fully intends that its largest state-owned automakers will be global contenders, and they are patiently finding ways to make that happen. The WTO will not stand in the way. Wherever there's a rule, there's a way around it.

The missing link in China's auto development?

An interesting article in today’s WSJ by ace China auto reporter Nori Shirouzu summarizes an interesting trend in China’s auto development. China’s state-owned automakers, along with their foreign joint-venture partners, are beginning to develop China-only brands.

Battleground in the small car segment

At least part of the impetus behind this trend, I believe, is the popularity of small economy cars in China. Beginning in early 2009, when China halved the sales tax on cars with engines 1.6 liters or smaller, sales of these small cars have really blossomed. (The number of cars sold in the less than 1.6 liter category rose by 71 percent over 2008 while sales of larger cars rose by only 23 percent.) The tax on smaller cars was increased slightly at the beginning of 2010, but small cars have nevertheless remained hot sellers in China.

The good news for makers of Chinese-branded autos was that the foreigners had almost nothing to offer in the less than 1.6 liter space, so Chinese brands dominated. The bad news for Beijing, however, was that the SOEs also had very little to offer in this space. It was the private automakers (along with independent SOEs such as Chery) that benefited most.

New Strategy: Joint development

Enter this new strategy of jointly-developed, Chinese-branded cars that, nearly as I can tell, is a win-win for the big SOEs and their foreign partners – at least in the short-run.

This strategy appears to have two variations. One is for the Chinese and foreign partner to develop a car together, combining the intellectual property of both sides. SAIC-GM-Wuling have taken this route with the Baojun (pictured below). According to the authoritative China Car Times, “The platform was designed in Korea, whilst the body design was done in China with GM’s help, the brand was developed in China and also the engine was developed by [Shanghai Auto] in the UK technical center.”

The SAIC-GM-Wuling Baojun

Shirouzu’s article today reveals that Volkswagen and PSA Peugeot Citroen are considering a similar strategy.

The other variation is simply to re-badge an older model from the foreign partner. Honda and Nissan are doing this with their respective partners in China, Guangzhou Auto and Dongfeng Auto. Guangzhou-Honda is a new Linian model which is a re-badged Honda City from a few years back, and Dongfeng Nissan are building the Qichen from old Nissan technology.

What's driving this trend?

There are a couple of factors at work behind this trend. First, although China’s central government has been pushing hard for development of Chinese brands since China joined the WTO, only China’s independent automakers (both private and local SOEs without JV partners) have made significant headway in introducing Chinese brands. Yes, the big SOEs have also introduced their own brands, but they have been “developed” mostly through purchased technology. That is, the big SOEs have yet to demonstrate any real engineering prowess.

Second, there is a big gap between the foreign-branded, mid-sized cars sold in China and the small, Chinese-branded cars. It’s a gap in terms of both price and quality, and Chinese consumers understand this very well. This is why, despite the growth of Chinese brands (they now make up over 30 percent of passenger cars sold in China), Chinese consumers would still prefer a foreign brand if they can afford it.

The Missing Link

These new, jointly-developed, Chinese-branded cars are, I believe, the missing link between foreign- and Chinese-branded cars. And the fact that this kind of development is happening in almost all of China’s big SOEs at the same time tells me there is some kind of central coordination going on – either that, or it’s just a big coincidence. Regardless, I think the strategy here is to provide Chinese consumers with a new product intended to wean them away from foreign cars and make them more accepting of Chinese brands.

And, if I am right, this should call into question the future role of foreign automakers in China’s market.

Another interesting wrinkle to this story is of whether Chinese automakers are learning any better how to design their own cars.

What some of these SOEs are doing is simply buying (or being given) old designs by their foreign partners, and then slapping on a Chinese badge. On the other hand, China’s private automakers have essentially been doing that for years ... only, they don’t have foreign partners ... and, um, they don’t pay for the stuff they copy. But in the process, the private automakers have probably gotten better at auto design. Even the process of copying must have imparted to the private firms some useful engineering skills that the SOEs have yet really to develop.

Perhaps this new method of (legally) copying what their foreign partners have already done will impart to SOE engineers some of those same skills.

Let's have more competition!...Just kidding!

An interesting bit of news came across the teletype today. The annual China-Europe Auto Manufacturers' Forum took place toward the end of last month (October 2010). Sometime during the discussion, the Assistant Director of the State Council's think tank, the Development Research Council, made a provocative statement that apparently freaked out a lot of people.

Let the foreigners have more than 50 percent?

The Assistant Director, Professor Liu Shijin, someone whose views on the auto industry are highly respected and influential, suggested that it was about time for China to end its 50 percent ownership restriction on foreign auto companies that invest in China. Currently, China's policy limits foreign auto assembly joint-venture (JV) partners to an ownership stake of 50 percent or less. (This only applies to whole vehicle assembly operations; parts companies may be wholly foreign-owned.)

(A Chinese source for Liu's statement and the controversy that followed may be found here.)

According to a writer for China's "First Finance" website, "the audience members with blonde hair and blue eyes applauded and nodded in agreement, while those with dark hair and dark eyes shook their heads [in disagreement]." I think what the writer intended to convey was that the foreigners in the audience agreed with Liu and the Chinese did not.

No! We're still not ready!

The Chinese arguments against Liu echoed those made prior to China’s joining the WTO: the Chinese auto industry is not yet mature enough to take on the foreigners head-on. If restrictions were lifted, foreigners would completely occupy China’s market to the exclusion of the Chinese manufacturers.

However, there was at least one Chinese auto executive who fully agreed with Liu: Li Shufu, Chairman of Geely. Li was later quoted:

Only complete lifting of the restrictions [on foreign investment] will help the development of the Chinese auto industry. The current policy of the 50 percent limit on foreign investment is disadvantageous; it does not protect the Chinese auto industry at all. On the contrary, it restricts foreign car companies from entering China.

Reflecting a refrain that Li has been preaching for years, he continues to be so confident in his company’s ability to compete with foreign producers (especially now that Geely owns Volvo) that he welcomes increased competition. (Here's a post on this blog from March of 2009 where Li lays out his argument that the private firms will eventually triumph over the SOEs.)

What Li most likely expects is that increased foreign competition within China would more quickly drive out the weaker competitors. That, of course, is anathema to the central government.

Since an overwhelming majority of China’s automakers are state-owned, it logically follows that an overwhelming majority of the weaker players are state-owned. And because the auto industry has been designated as a "pillar" industry since the mid-80s, it just wouldn't do to have an auto industry dominated by foreign and/or private enterprises.

Well, ... nevermind

The interesting news that came across the wires today is that Liu Shijin has now completely backed away from his earlier suggestion: "I never said I support opening up the restrictions on foreign investment."

Setting aside the fact that he clearly said exactly that at the conference, we have to ask why he's now backing down. Either he said something he shouldn't have, and was threatened with punishment if he didn't go to the media and retract what he said, or he was deliberately floating a trial balloon to gauge the reaction.

Knowing that Chinese planners at the NDRC and MIIT are hard at work on the next version of China's auto policy right now, I am leaning toward the latter explanation. And since he's backing away, it seems reasonable to assume that the 50 percent ownership restriction will remain in the next iteration of the auto policy.

Let the flowers bloom!

From an objective point of view (i.e. from someone who has no vested interest in which auto companies succeed) I think this is a mistake, and here's why.

Joint-ventures are notoriously inefficient -- particularly those that attempt to meld vastly different business cultures. Having worked for a 50/50 US-Japanese JV, I have experienced this first hand. When no single owner dominates, everything -- and I mean everything -- has to be negotiated, from corporate strategy to the temperature of the office.

I am not saying that all JVs are, by definition, contentious -- there are exceptions that prove the rule -- but the exceptions are extremely rare.

The original intent of forcing all foreign auto companies into joint-ventures was technology transfer, but over time, it became clear that the foreigners were withholding their best stuff from their Chinese partners. So why didn't the Chinese decide to dispense with the foreigners altogether and just import their cars to reverse-engineer?

Because Chinese consumers love foreign brands. And they love them so much that Chinese-foreign JVs have become cash-cows. National pride runs pretty deep in China, but if there's anything that runs deeper, it's a love of money, and the huge SOEs have become drunk off of cash generated by their partners' foreign-branded cars.

And here's why I think Liu's suggestion was a trial balloon. If the true goal of having foreign partners is no longer tech transfer (though I recognize the ostensible reason is still tech transfer), then why not be willing to take a smaller share of what could become a much larger pie?

Rather than take 50% of the profits of an inherently inefficient JV, why not take 49% of a much more efficient, foreigner dominated JV? And if there are certain things you don't want the foreigners to do with their increased economic control, then just circumscribe those behaviors by law.

If Li Shufu and the handful of China's planners who believe increased competition would more quickly lead to a shaking out and consolidation of China's auto industry are correct, then the quickest way would be to remove the 50 percent restriction. Entering the WTO did not devastate China's auto industry in the way that everyone feared it would. Indeed, it has become even larger and stronger.

No matter how much the SOEs are urged and ordered to be innovative, they will never do anything more than copy what others have already done. The problem is that SOE incentives are political, not economic. SOE leaders are only interested in their next assignment, but private sector leaders don't have a next assignment. They have no choice but to succeed.

If China truly wants a dominant auto industry, it needs to get over its obsession with state ownership and unleash the creativity of its hungry private sector. One way to do that is to open up competition.

UK platform + US battery = Chinese EV?

A123 Systems announced that its lithium-ion batteries will be used in Shanghai Auto's (SAIC) Roewe branded electric vehicles.

The Roewe brand (荣威 - rong wei -- yes, it sounds like "wrong-way" -- go figure) was created by Shanghai Auto prior to its merger with Nanjing Auto, after which the two combined the intellectual property and auto platforms purchased from the UK's MG-Rover several years ago.

The first electric Roewe will be the 750 (pictured above) which is derived from the British Rover 75. The battery supplier (and IP-owner), A123 Systems, is a purely American company, headquartered in Massachusetts. Though SAIC does own the IP of the Roewe, it was not originally designed in China.

Since the introduction of China's 2004 Auto Industry Development Policy, the constant refrain from Beijing has been a wish for Chinese automakers to develop Chinese-branded "new energy vehicles" using Chinese intellectual property.

While it is a good thing that SAIC is on board with the new energy vehicle trend, I'm not sure this is exactly what Beijing had in mind when it urged Chinese automakers to develop their own hybrid and electric vehicles. The battery, after all, is the heart of the EV -- its most expensive component.

It also calls into question the viability of BYD's battery technology (or that of any other Chinese battery company) when a fellow Chinese automaker would rather pay royalties to an American battery company.

It seems a reasonable assumption that a Chinese-designed battery would be less expensive than an American-designed one. Perhaps the fact that SAIC's partner, GM, which is putting an A123 battery in the Chevy Volt was able to get SAIC a good deal on batteries?

IP issues aside, SAIC's Roewe 550 (below) which was designed in China, will eventually be electrified as well. (And it's a very nice-looking car, in my opinion.)

Chevy's Volt in China: Why not call it the Volt?

China Car Times reports that the new Chevrolet Volt was unveiled at an event in Shanghai today, though it won't be going on sale until sometime in 2011.

I'm always curious to know how the names of foreign products are Sinicized for sale in the Chinese market. In this case, GM has picked the Chinese name 沃蓝达 (wo lan da), a name apparently intended to sound somewhat like "volt". (Incidentally that's the same 沃 used in Wal-Mart in China: 沃尔玛.)

I wondered why they didn't simply call it "volt" in Chinese. I mean, they do have electricity there, and it's also measured in volts. So I looked it up.

The word "volt", meaning a measurement of electricity, is translated as 伏特 (fu te), which sounds exactly like the Chinese translation of Ford Motors, "福特" (fu te).

UPDATED-Still Lost in Translation: 垄断 ≠ Monopoly

UPDATE: I have added some comments from Don Clarke of China Law Prof Blog at the bottom of this article.

Preface: My Twitter acquaintances sometimes accuse me of being pedantic, an inconvenient malady to suffer when one is restricted to 140-character soundbites. While most of this article may indeed sound overly pedantic, it has a real-world application concerning the role of foreign automakers in the Chinese market. If you read to the end, I promise it will all make sense. What you see here is the scaffolding surrounding an intellectual edifice that is still under construction. If you find this sort of thing boring, you may want to skip grad school. :-)

A few months ago, I wrote a series of posts (the first of which is here) in which I attempted to get a handle on the terms guo jin min tui and guo tui min jin. Part of the upshot was that many English speakers wrongly translated the latter term as “privatization” when in fact that was not the intention of the Chinese speakers who introduced the term. Furthermore, since the former term is the exact opposite of the latter, we translated it as “nationalization”, which was also incorrect.

Whether my dissertation will ultimately provide a better understanding of business-government relations and industrial planning in China remains to be seen. But one of the unexpected by-products of research in Chinese language documents is a discovery that, in many cases, Chinese and English speakers, even when relying on dictionaries and professional interpreters, often have very different concepts in mind for what they think is a common term.

Doesn't 垄断 mean monopoly?

The latest example is 垄断 (longduan) which is always translated as “monopoly.”

Google Translate, Babelfish and my Concise English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary all give the English word “monopoly” as the translation of "longduan". And, with the exception of Babelfish, they give “longduan” as the Chinese translation of of the English word "monopoly". (Babelfish, gives 独占 (duzhan) as the translation of monopoly.)

The context in which this discrepancy came up was my search for documentation of how China’s government and auto industry bureaucracy views the presence of foreign automakers in China’s market.

The first comes from a collection of essays on the auto industry written by a former Policy Research Director in China’s auto industry bureaucracy, published in 2009. This particular essay, written in 1998, was regarding the role of foreign automakers in China:

[跨国公司]最终是想在合资企业中取得资本、技术、产品、市场的控制权和垄断，已达到长期占据中国汽车大市场的战略目的。

My translation (again, assuming 垄断 means “monopoly”):

The ultimate aim of the multinational corporations (MNC) is to use joint ventures to gain capital, technology, products, market control and monopoly so as to achieve the longer term strategic purpose of occupying China’s big auto market.

This next one comes from a book published by the Ministry of Science and Technology intended to be used by government and auto industry officials and academics as a companion reference to the eleventh five-year plan. The series editor is one of the Vice Ministers of Science and Technology. It was written in 2009.

跨国公司的这一策略对我国经济发展的影响较之于单纯的股权控制更为隐藏、深入，严 重削弱了国有经济的主导作用和制力，增强了跨国公司在中国市场的垄断地位。

My translation:

The impact of MNC strategy on China's economic development is hidden and much deeper than just equity control. It seriously undermines the state-owned economy and manufacturing power and enhances the MNCs' monopoly position in the Chinese market.

My first thought was, well, they simply don’t know what a monopoly is. In English, the word “monopoly” is pretty easy to understand. It comes from the Latin monopolium, mono meaning “one” and polium meaning “to sell”. It defines a situation in which a single company controls all, or nearly all, of the market for a particular product or service. In other words, the absence of competition.

But in the case of China’s auto market, there’s simply no way that any foreign company has a monopoly. First of all, the foreign automakers in China are not a unified group. There are dozens of foreign companies trying to sell cars in the China market, and competition among them is quite fierce. Second, even if the foreigners did have a unified group, foreign brands only comprised about 70 percent of passenger cars sold in 2009, down from about 80 percent in 2004.

What does it mean in Chinese?

Thinking the problem may lie, not with the word longduan, but with its translation into the word “monopoly”, I took a closer look at the Chinese word:

垄断

垄 (long) is defined as a ridge of earth dividing plots of farmland, and you can see that in the parts of the character. The top part 龙 is “dragon” and the bottom part 土 is “earth or soil”, so a 垄 is like a dragon lying in the fields dividing different plots of land. If my knowledge of Chinese history is correct, this refers to earthen walls or ridges made of stones separating one family’s plot of land from another, meaning that each family was responsible for its own plot. (In feudal China, the economic benefits derived, not to the family, of course, but to a landlord.)

断 (duan) means to break off, to sever or to judge.

Together, these two characters seem to indicate something that separates one part of something from another. What I don’t see is any meaning indicating that one party gets everything and all others get nothing. Nor do I see any indication that one party even gets most of something while others are left to share a small portion, though that could be implied -- and it might certainly describe the current situation in which foreign brands (collectively) occupy about 70 percent of China's passenger car market.

So the problem here isn’t that the Chinese don’t know what “monopoly” means; the problem is that I didn’t know what longduan means. Now that I do (and assuming my analysis isn’t way off base), I am able to read the above passages with a better understanding.

Now for the application

What these passages are lamenting is not the exclusive right to the Chinese market by a unified group of foreigners, but the fact that the foreigners have any market share at all!

The common refrain that surfaces repeatedly in official and semi-official documents is the fact that Chinese joint venture partners have learned very little from their foreign partners aside from how to assemble and sell cars. The all-important design element continues to exceed their grasp. There exists an almost palpable resentment of the fact that China has handed over market share to these foreigners without getting the technology they were expecting in return.

What’s even more amazing to me is that this complaint has been consistently aired throughout the past two-plus decades – which leads to a much more interesting question: If the lack of technology sharing has been a problem for so long, why does China continue to welcome new joint venture partners?

For the answer to that question, you’ll have to read my dissertation, but please feel free to venture a guess in the comment section below. :-)

________________________
UPDATE: I consulted with Don Clarke of the Chinese Law Prof Blog on how the term 垄断 is defined in China's anti-monopoly law.

Don says: "It is understood in Chinese legal discourse to be the Chinese equivalent of the English term "monopoly". The economic tests used in China to measure the degree of longduan in a market are similar in principle to the tests used in US antimonopoly law."

He adds further that, when we see officials using the term 垄断 as I excerpted above, they are just "misusing the Chinese word the way an American politician might misuse an American word".

In other words, don't confuse discourse for policy.

Thanks, Don, for your insight!

Shenzhen Subsidies, US-China Acquisition, EV Policy

Three important stories in the China electric vehicle world. The first one is a Local BizGov story...

Shenzhen's new EV subsidies

A little over a month ago, Beijing announced a pilot plan for new energy vehicle subsidies in five Chinese cities, one of which is Shenzhen. In short, the plan calls for subsidies of up to 50,000 yuan for plug-in hybrids and up to 60,000 yuan for pure electric vehicles.

Shenzhen, home of battery and auto manufacturer BYD, has also announced its own subsidies to be added to those from Beijing. Shenzhen will provided subsidies of up to 30,000 yuan for plug-in hybrids and up to 60,000 yuan for pure electrics.

With total subsidies of up to 80,000 yuan ($11,800) for a plug-in hybrid or 120,000 yuan ($17,700) for a pure electric vehicle, these still experimental cars are reaching a price point where early adopters in China would be willing to consider them.

And Shenzhen wins brownie points: from Beijing for supporting low- or zero-emission vehicles, and from BYD who will, it is hoped, build more cars, employ more people and pay more taxes.

If there is another city in the world where new energy vehicles are more affordable than they are in Shenzhen, I am not aware of it.

US-China Acquisition

Santa Rosa, California based ZAP Motors (a company you've probably never heard of) has just signed an agreement to acquire 51 percent of Taizhou based Zhejiang Jonway Automobile for about $28 million in cash.

Yes, you read that right. This is not a joint venture; it's an acquisition.

ZAP, which has been in operation since 1994, has, until recently made electric vehicles designed for off-road use in such places as airports, military bases, large factories, etc. It gained some recognition by showing this futuristic electric car, the Alias at Beijing's Auto Show a few months ago.


And this is no mere concept car. Apparently ZAP had already (pre-acquisition) contracted with Jonway Auto to build the Alias with current plans to introduce it in the US later in 2010.

Jonway Auto is (or will be until this acquisition takes place) owned by Jonway Group which manufactures cars and motorcycles. I am unable to determine who owns Jonway Group, but due to its location in Taizhou, I think it is a pretty good bet that the company is private. And the fact that a foreign company is about to buy a majority stake in one of its subsidiaries is also a good indication that Jonway is most likely not state-owned. (Then again, the difference between public and private is still quite blurry in China.)

Even more interesting is the fact that Jonway has been quite profitable while ZAP, which reportedly hasn't earned a profit since 2002, has only recently emerged from bankruptcy.

On second thought, I'm quite certain Jonway isn't state-owned.

China's new energy vehicle policy is on the way

And finally, Dong Yang, secretary general of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers announced that a policy on new energy vehicles is in the works and will probably be released in September or October.

About those subsidies I mentioned above, well, China is apparently just getting started. We can expect to see a more comprehensive plan laid out this fall with details on how China intends to dominate this space -- globally. Among other things we can probably expect to see further incentives for auto companies to conduct R&D in this area and further plans for rollout of charging stations.

The lines are being drawn In the global battle to dominate alternative energy vehicle manufacturing. We could not ask for a better real-life experiment to compare the results of state-led vs market-led capitalism.

China Auto Subsidies: Who's on the List? Who's Not?

A month ago, China announced subsidies to support sales of "new energy vehicles" and energy-saving vehicles. Yesterday, the government released a list of cars approved for subsidies under the "energy-saving" category. The list is interesting, not because of whose cars are on the list, but because of whose cars are not on the list.

"New energy vehicles", in this case, include both plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles. The former are eligible for a subsidy of up to 50,000 yuan and the latter of up to 60,000 yuan. Note that traditional hybrids of the non-plug-in variety are not included here.

"Energy-saving" vehicles have traditional internal combustion engines, but the engines must have a displacement of 1.6 liters or less. Readers may remember that early in 2009, China's government announced a 50 percent tax break to be applied to all cars with engines 1.6 liters or less.

The sales tax on these cars was decreased from 10 percent to five percent, and it led to a significant increase in sales of small cars, which further drove China's annual sales to eclipse those of the US for the first time ever. (Though, admittedly, this was helped by a steep drop-off in US sales due to the recession.) The biggest selling car in China last year was BYD's F3, a gasoline powered Toyota Corolla lookalike with a small engine.

Toward the end of 2010, the small car tax break was cut in half (tax increased from 5% to 7.5%), and extended for a few more months as part of China's stimulus plan. Now that the tax break has ended, the government has resorted to a one-time subsidy of 3,000 yuan that basically accomplishes the same task of encouraging sales of fuel-efficient cars.

Detailed List of 71 Models

Yesterday, the NDRC released a list of cars eligible for the 3K subsidy. There are 71 specific models from 16 companies, all with engines of 1.6 liters or less. (I won't list all of the cars here; the complete list can be found in this Chinese pdf.)

Before seeing the list, my expectation would have been that the number of Chinese-branded models would exceed those of foreign-branded models, but that is not the case. Among the 71 listed models, 32 are Chinese and 39 are foreign.

Why does this surprise me? Because when the tax break was enacted over a year ago, the government's intention was to pick a cutoff point (1.6 liters) at which Chinese brands would most benefit. According to research shown to me by an auto industry executive in Shanghai, cutoffs of 1.5 liters or 1.7 liters would not have benefited independent Chinese brands as much as the 1.6 liter cutoff. The executive's research estimated that, at the 1.6 liter cutoff, approximately 85 percent of sales were of Chinese brands.

And indeed, as the tax break was announced last year, many commentators pointed out that the foreign manufacturers had been caught flat-footed because they offered few cars that qualified for the tax break.

Well, apparently that has changed. The list now has 17 different model variations made by Shanghai GM (SAIC-GM) alone.

Because there has apparently been a crackdown in reporting on actual monthly sales numbers from China, I now have difficulty getting my hands on sales data. (Apparently someone figured out they could charge money for the data.) If I could, it would be easy to determine just how many of each of these 71 models has been sold in recent months to see who would be benefiting the most. Perhaps the numbers of Chinese vs foreign models would matter less than the absolute numbers of vehicles being sold.

Who's Not on the List

And one would assume that China's hottest selling sedan, the BYD F3 would ensure that most of this subsidy money would flow to Chinese brands. There's just one problem with that reasoning: the F3 is not on the list!

I'm not sure whether this was an oversight, but the only BYD model on the list is the F0, a car small enough to pick up and put in your pocket.

Who else isn't on the list? Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Mazda. Each of these companies makes cars in the 1.6 liter and below segment, but none of these is on the list.

And poor Toyota, the company that brought the world the first production hybrid, the Prius, doesn't appear to offer any car in China that is eligible for any kind of subsidy. Its small cars like the Yaris didn't make the 3K subsidy list, and its Prius won't qualify for the 50K hybrid subsidy because it isn't of the plug-in variety. Its next generation Prius, which will be a plug-in hybrid, won't qualify either because its gasoline engine is being upgraded from 1.5 liters to 1.8. Can these guys not catch a break in China?

I would suspect an anti-Japanese sentiment here, but the 3K subsidy list does have other Japanese-branded cars from Guangzhou Honda and Chang'an Suzuki.

There's another surprising wrinkle in China's new energy vehicle policy, and it concerns BYD. More on that tomorrow...

__________________
Edit: The guys at China Car Times have put up an English list of models eligible for the 3K subsidy here.