注册 登录  
 加关注
查看详情
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

吴老师的个人主页

Where there is a will, there is a way.

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

年过半百,经历坎坷.少年遇"文革",下乡八载,虽历经磨难,唯斗志不减,农耕间隙自学不辍,终守得云开日出,考进大学.大学毕业后先后经历了中学执教,国企管理,外企高管,最后回归重执教鞭.目前在家精心培养有志掌握英语的中小学生. 我最大的愿望就是看到孩子学有所成,桃李天下.

我新发表的文章《“阿狗阿猫”做银行不是好事》  

2013-10-14 10:06:33|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

前言:中国人做事喜欢一窝蜂。上世纪5、60年代,妇女以身穿“列宁装”为美,“文革”里,人人喜欢穿军装。改革开放后,一窝蜂赶时髦的浪潮更是令人应接不暇,到了现在,世界上出现任何一个新玩意儿,在中国立马成了人手一个的点缀。这种一窝蜂的做法在消费上还无伤大雅,但到了经济领域,麻烦就不小了。这些年来,中国商人像群狼一样,哪样赚钱就扑向哪样,一顿撕咬,连肉带骨头舔个精光,然后再寻找下一个目标。身后留下过剩的产能和严重破坏的环境。被他们横扫的领域包括房地产、钢铁、造船、煤矿、酿酒、电子等等。现在,他们的新目标是银行业。国家准备向社会资金开放银行业的消息一传出,”阿狗阿猫“都蠢蠢欲动,递交了申请书,准备一尝银行业暴利的美餐。银行业长期高度垄断,暴利之高,让任何行业望其项背。难怪人人都垂涎三尺。

引进竞争,可以降低国营大银行不合理的高额利润,改善服务,增加中小企业获得资金的机会,这有百利而无一害。但一窝蜂的做法值得警惕。凡事过犹不及,这种教训已经不少。


Rush for banking licenses risky

Wu Guangqiang

 JUMPING on the bandwagon seems to be a universal human trait, with enthusiastic trend-followers often mimicking and hoping to own everything they regard as fashionable or profitable. But for decades, nowhere has this trait been more manifest than in China.

 Chinese do everything en masse. In the 1950s, women took pride in wearing a Lenin coat, an outfit from the Soviet Union representing a revolutionary image. In the 1960s and ’70s, PLA army uniforms, usually baggy and sloppy, dominated almost everyone’s wardrobe. Since the 1980s, the Chinese, after doing away with ultra-left ideological shackles, have been delighting in catching up with every global consumption trend at an alarming rate.

 If mass aspirations for a better life spur hard work and innovation, then flocking to chase lucrative targets bodes ill for our economy.

China abounds with legendary stories of private capital sweeping through highly profitable sectors such as real estate, mining, steelmaking, shipbuilding and appliance manufacturing. Investors swiftly pounce on such sectors like wolves on pieces of meat, devouring every bit and looking for the next target.

 But they leave behind significant overcapacity in those fields.

 Encouraged by the government’s go-ahead for the establishment of private banking institutions, many private firms can hardly sit still and are itching to have a go. But, again, there seem to be too many cooks to make good soup.

 Look at the lengthy list of enterprises mulling a new banking business: Tencent, Alibaba, Midea, New Hope, Juneyao Airlines, Suning, Aokang, and more. It’s estimated at least 20 applicants are competing for a ticket to the “gold mine.”

 How attractive is the piece of meat that has lured so many competitors?

 China’s top three oil giants — CNPC, Sinopec and CNOOC — make hefty profits through their de facto monopoly, with daily profits of 315 million yuan (US$51.5 million), 174 million yuan and 74 million yuan, respectively. But those whopping profits are dwarfed by those of behemoth State-run banks.

 The combined profits of the three oil giants merely exceed that of ICBC, China’s largest commercial bank, which retained in 2012 the title of the world’s most profitable bank and China’s most profitable listed company. Comparisons may be more telling.

 ICBC’s annual profit in 2012, 238.7 billion yuan, equals the profits of two China Mobiles, 16 China Telecoms, 33 China Unicoms, 15 Huaweis, 20 Tencents, 23 Baidus, 80 Lenovos, 477 Sohus, and 1,200 Sinas.

 Other major State-run banks’ earnings in 2012 also were stunning: 193.6 billion yuan for China Construction Bank, 145.1 billion for Agricultural Bank of China and 145.5 billion for Bank of China.

Another indicator also points to the excess profits of the Chinese banking sector. China’s banking ROE (return on equity) is significantly higher than other industries’. The average ROE of China’s listed banks was 21.33 percent in 2011, much higher than the highly profitable real estate industry’s 12.15 percent.

 The colossal profits have been reaped chiefly by way of a monopoly rather than by excellent service or keen competition, which makes the opening of the market to private investment significant. It’s predictable that more competition in the banking sector will not only facilitate the real economy’s access to financial support, but help rationalize banking profit levels. In the end, China’s banking system will be healthier and more sustainable.

 However, will this mass zeal for admission to the banking business end up as another disastrous “Great Leap Forward,” China’s failed attempt in 1959–60 to modernize the country by rapid industrialization?

 China has witnessed a dangerous trend in recent years: enterprises deserting the real economy for bubbly industries such as housing development and wine-making. If the banking sector’s liberalization results in the further shrinking of the real economy, that will be a real fiasco.

 The authorities should be alert to possible adverse results of any reform.

 

(The author is an English tutor and a freelance writer.)

  评论这张
 
阅读(126)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2018