George Chen

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

It could be the perfect story to show how China Inc and its American partner can work together for a win-win result, but Chinese consumers are having second thoughts on this.

Earlier this year, upscale U.S. handbag and accessory maker Coach said it planned to list in Hong Kong to reflect the growing importance of China’s luxury market. Coach didn’t give a timeframe for the IPO plan, but one thing is fairly certain – before Coach launches its IPO, its local partner in the small city of Dongguan, near Hong Kong, will aim to rise $200 million first.

The company, Sitoy (Dongguan) Leather Products has hired Bank of America-Merrill Lynch for a Hong Kong listing by the end of November. In IPO marketing materials distributed to potential investors, Sitoy described itself as the largest handbag OEM (original equipment manufacturer) in China, although it didn’t name any of its clients.

However, Chinese netizens quickly found out from the company’s website (www.sitoy.hk) that one of Sitoy’s OEM clients is Coach, a  New York-based brand popular among China’s fast-growing middle-class. In China, Coach prices are far lower than those for top-tier brands such as Louis Vuitton and Gucci, although it is still considered a luxury brand among consumers in the world’s No.2 economy.

“Why not buy expensive Caoch bags directly from the Dongguan factory? I believe the cost must be very cheap,” said one Sina Weibo user in response to the news. Foreign brands — not only luxury fashion brands but also consumer electronic makers — have many OEM partners in China, although they are often reluctant to identify them to avoid such unsatisfaction from local customers.

In a company newsletter dated May 31, published on Sitoy’s website, the top headline is about senior executives of Coach visiting the factory and expressing satisfaction with Sitoy’s products for Coach. It’s now seems likely that at least some of Coach’s handbags are designed in New York but manufactured in Dongguan.

Coach was already in trouble after Chinese media pointed out that Coach handbags are much more expensive in China than they are in the United States, sometimes with a difference of hundreds of U.S. dollars. When the news about the OEM factory in Dongguan started circulating on China’s Twitter-like micro-blogging service Sina Weibo, some consumers felt they had been cheated after spending thousands of yuan on a bag that was probably made in Dongguan, a city whose reputation is usually linked with cheap labor costs.

On Sitoy’s website, the company expresses pride in being an example of the small city’s success as the world’s factory for shoes, garments and so on. Sitoy is in a position to list in Hong Kong, largely thanks to cheap labor costs and strong OEM demand from global clients such as Coach. But the case of Sitoy and Coach that is causing such frustration among Chinese consumers also raises the question of how luxury brands can keep selling at high prices while reducing costs.

Other fashion and leather brands including Salvatore Ferragamo and Burberry have said they do not plan to manufacture products in China, although Burberry has chosen other countries such as Turkey to make some low-end products such as T-shirts.

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

Photo: A Coach store in Hong Kong’s Central financial and business district, seen on Dec. 6, 2008. REUTERS/George Chen

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

Two Chinese dotcom companies have apparently become the latest victims of the growing market concern about China “concept” stocks in the wake a series of accounting scandals.

Online video firm Xunlei Ltd and Chinese e-book firm Cloudary Corp have postponed their U.S. fundraising plans. They both blamed volatile global markets. Volatile markets? Really? Aren’t the markets always volatile?

More or less, to some extent. We still see other companies lining up to list in the U.S. although the near-term outlook for China IPOs to land in the U.S. market doesn’t look too bright. In return, such concerns — warranted or not — are growing about Chinese companies listing in Hong Kong and Singapore.

There were some early signs about Xunlei’s difficulties to go public. It failed to win direct investment from News Corp. And some analysts say Xunlei could face challenges from some Hollywood movie makers over copyright issues.

For Cloudary, it’s a different story. The company changed its name from Shanda Literature before the IPO plan, as the firm seeks to brand itself as an e-book maker and seller — trying to convince U.S. investors it could become “China’s Kindle maker”. In the end, the rebranding campaign didn’t make headway.

Maybe what the two companies should really blame is not the volatile market but the investment bankers they hired who should have gotten them to list faster and earlier. Remember the match-making site called Jiayuan.com? It may be a good idea to revisit my previous column “Is China exporting a dotcom bubble?“.

The reason I mention in particular the two Chinese dotcom companies today is to reflect the growing difficulties of selling so-called China concept stocks. China is not just a concept any more. Investors are getting more cautious and are asking more questions.

That should send a message to other Chinese companies considering public listings. For investors in Hong Kong, isn’t it time to review the China concept and related stocks that you hold in hand?

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao once said there’s something even more important and precious than gold — people’s confidence.

In recent weeks, I’m afraid global investors have been losing confidence in Chinese stocks from the New York to Shanghai markets. Sino-Forest Corp became the latest victim of a slump in overseas-listed Chinese companies. The company earlier this week accused short-seller and research firm Muddy Waters of defamation for alleging in a report that it had fraudulently exaggerated its Chinese forestry assets.

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning of the hit to confidence over Chinese stocks, especially small caps listed at home or abroad, for example in Hong Kong, Singapore, New York and even on the second-tier board of the London Stock Exchange.

If you look at yesterday’s trading carefully, you may find investors suddenly became more cautious on small-cap Chinese stocks after the Sino-Forest case. There were already signs with the growing dotcom bubble exported by some Chinese Internet companies to Wall Street.

Remember matchmaking website Jiayuan.com, which recently listed on the Nasdaq? These days it’s in trouble with investors and users, who say its service may not be as good as its claim to be China’s No.1 online matchmaking site suggested. Read my previous column “Is China exporting a dotcom bubble?” here.

In China, the capital market doesn’t lack for bad news — fast-growing inflation, maybe 5.5 percent year on year in May to reach a 34-month high (official data to be released on June 14), slower economic growth amid tightening monetary policy and worsening liquidity in the banking system, and escalating property prices. There’s plenty of bad news, for sure.

Now we get the latest bad news (or even worse). Is China Inc still credible?

A friend at one of the Big Four auditing firms is saying the Big Four are becoming more picky about choosing Chinese corporate clients for IPO audit reports. In the past, clients were arrogant enough to be selective about the Big Four firms. Now it’s apparently the other way around.

One of the Big Four has put all ongoing China IPO audits on review. What does that mean for the public market and private equity business? It’s summer, which is to say holiday season. When you can’t see clearly, why not scale back and take time to think things through?

Take it easy. Confidence is gold!

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

Photo: A worker cleans the exterior of a CRH 380A bullet train serving the newly built high-speed railway between Shanghai and Beijing during its debut test at the Hongqiao Railway Station in Shanghai May 11, 2011. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

I remember a veteran trader once told me of the three scenarios under which one should sell stocks.

First, sell when you start to sense the government is beginning to tighten market liquidity, indicated for example by a sudden influx of IPOs or a tougher monetary policy. Second, sell when you see almost everyone, from monks to neighborhood grandmothers, is buying. Third, when you see big banks such as Goldman Sachs downgrade their economic forecasts, which basically means they know they misunderstand something and have to fix the misunderstanding, sell.

So, this week Goldman Sachs trimmed its economic growth forecasts for China to 9.4 percent this year, from 10 percent previously, citing a recent run of surprisingly weak data, high oil prices and supply constraints. Goldman’s report created a buzz in the market, pushing some investors to sell further amid already weak sentiment. More banks are expected to follow Goldman’s move to trim their China forecasts in coming days and weeks.

Will Beijing be happy to see economic growth finally slow a little amid concerns of possible overheating in some sectors, for example, real estate? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, Beijing expects to see some cooling of the economy, but if it extends too far it could lead to massive money outflows, which would be an even bigger headache for the government than high property prices, in my view.

If you don’t trust Goldman Sachs’ forecast, you should trust gold prices — some traders shared a trick with me to forecast the timing of a market rebound. When you see gold (and other commodities) prices start to cool, then it may be an opportunity to buy stocks.

In the secondary public market, the most common question you can hear in China these days is: “where is the bottom?” Apparently, there’s little confidence of a reliable answer. Some say 2,700 points and others expect 2,600 or even 2,000 points if Beijing doesn’t do anything to improve market liquidity.

To tell you the truth, I’m more worried about the IPO market. According to IFR China, a Thomson Reuters service, Beijing-based online clothing retailer Vancl was looking to raise $1 billion from a U.S. listing in the fourth quarter, possibly the largest Chinese Internet listing this year.

One of my friends, who used to be a customer of Vancl only to give up in the end, was amused by the news. He bought some shirts from Vancl that were cheaper than what you might pay at a store, but the quality was also cheap.

These are details that investors and fund managers on Wall Street may not be fully aware of. What they learn about China is just a vague so-called “China story”. But what is the China story?

The growing question about the “China story” is the same as asking what the “China model” is. My political science professor tried to convince me there was no such thing as a “China model” — or “Beijing consensus” in other words — but just a China experience for the reference of others. And I say there is no “China story” in general.

China is so big that nothing can be simply translated into a uniform system. Even in the garment industry, every company has its own circumstances and problems and investors should do a better job of investigating before putting in real money.

Businessmen always say the IPO is not the end, but a new beginning for a company. But when you feel the global market environment is not so healthy, why struggle to list? You may say you want a bigger challenge.

Well, it’s true the market is undergoing a very challenging time. Do you know what my veteran trader friend plans to do this season? He just told me he has decided to take a holiday in June. “I’ll be back when I can get a clearer view of the market,” he said.

Does this make more sense to you than just a vague “China story” that your wealth manager is still trying to sell to you?

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

Photo: A man walks past an advertisement by HSBC promoting China’s renminbi or yuan related products and services, in Hong Kong May 17, 2011 REUTERS/Bobby Yip

By George Chen
The opinions expressed are the author’s own.

“Will you marry me, Nasdaq?” that may be the message Jiayuan.com is keen to send to the Nasdaq and potential investors.

Jiayuan.com, an online dating service founded by a student of the Journalism School of Fudan University in 2003 and whose name means “a good destiny of love” in Chinese, today applied for an initial public offering in the United States. It’s the latest in a series of Chinese Internet technology and social networking companies to apply for a U.S. listing in recent months.

Now, I’m not a chartered financial analyst or Internet industry expert, so I just want to look at this wave of IPOs from a more personal perspective. First of all, I do believe there’s a reason behind the current rush of listing applications; it’s not mere coincidence!

The financial crisis changed the global landscape for many sectors, not only the financial industry but also many consumer-driven services. Wall Street investors have long been worried about the performance of traditional media companies such as the New York Times Co, while Google and Apple are already too expensive for some.

Youku.com and Renren.com, clones of YouTube and Facebook in China, naturally sound like a more comfortable investment solution to many Western investors who may have missed the previous gold rush for Google and Apple and are looking for something similar with a cheaper price tag.

Thanks to public relations agencies and global media outlets, once you give Renren.com a nickname like “the Facebook of China”, investors have a tendency to be wowed no matter how much they know of the differences in business models between Renren.com and Facebook, or about the way Renren.com really works and its impact on Chinese users.

Let me suggest, dear investor, that before you subscribe to the Renren.com IPO, you register an account and post a message – by the way, be careful you don’t  post anything politically sensitive or your post will likely disappear rather quickly  – or set up an event and upload some photos to share. User experience is important before deciding to pour big money into the “Facebook of China”.

If you don’t speak or write Chinese, such a test could be challenging. How about asking a friend in China how they feel about Renren.com. Don’t just ask the banker or asset manager trying to sell you the IPO, you need your friend’s personal feedback. In my not so financially professional view, that could be more important than reading through hundreds of pages of IPO prospectus.

Of course, I’m not just picking on Renren.com. You should do the same for any of the upcoming China IPOs , including Jiayuan.com. There are many stories of successful love and marriage on Jiayuan.com, however, none of them involved anyone I know of.

Jiayuan.com says it operates the largest online dating platform in China and had more than 40 million registered users at the end of March. However, only 4.74 million of those user accounts were active, on average, during the first quarter of 2011 and less than 1 million of them were paying accounts. This dating site is seeking up to $100 million from a Nasdaq IPO.

“Don’t be fooled by the apparent prosperity of the industry. What is important is how much you can achieve … and whether your products are attractive. So don’t be dazzled by sudden changes in the market, which is on fire,” said Robin Li, founder and head of China’s largest search engine Baidu, which has a much bigger market share than Google in the world’s No.2 economy.

When Renren.com announced its IPO plans, Chinese media were overjoyed. Numerous newspapers carried similar headlines proclaiming that Renren.com, from China, would become the world’s first big social network IPO. It does make me feel that Renren.com is now more powerful than Facebook, at least for Chinese media.

As my editors often warn me when I report breaking news, “First be right, and then be first.” The same should also apply to the likes of Renren.com.

George Chen is a Reuters editor and columnist based in Hong Kong.

Photo: An employee is seen through a glass wall as she walks past the logo of Youku.com above the reception desk at the company’s headquarters in Beijing, December 9, 2010 REUTERS/Soo Hoo Zheyang