April 25, 2024

Brazil, Fortune and Fate Turn on Billionaire

Brazil’s economy, driven by a worldwide commodity boom, grew a blistering 7.5 percent that year. And Mr. Batista’s prodigious holdings — spanning oil, mining, shipping and real estate — were soaring in value. In the interview, Mr. Batista was asked how rich he would become over the next decade.

“A hundred billion dollars,” he said, an amount that would most likely have made him the wealthiest person in the world.

Today, with the Brazilian stock market and the value of its currency falling as mass demonstrations hobble the country, Mr. Batista’s billions are evaporating. From a peak of $34.5 billion in March 2012, his wealth has dropped to an estimated $4.8 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His lenders are growing anxious, and there are concerns that he might have to reorganize — and possibly lose control of — his dwindling empire.

The rise and fall of the charismatic industrialist mirrors Brazil’s sudden reversal of fortune. After years of economic expansion, the South American nation has begun to sputter. Inflation has become a major concern. Brazil’s stock market index has declined about 23 percent this year, the most of any large country. This month, Standard Poor’s cut its outlook on Brazil’s credit rating to negative, citing slowing growth and weakening finances.

And then there are the street protests spreading across Brazil, stunning the country’s political and business establishment. With outbursts of violence, the protests, initially caused by an increase in bus fares, have grown into a broad questioning of the government’s priorities. The protests shook an array of cities over the weekend, with somewhat less intensity than in previous days, and organizers promised a new round of demonstrations in the days ahead.

Mr. Batista’s conglomerate, as an emblem of the nation’s industrial mettle, ranked among the government priorities now being questioned, receiving more than $4 billion in loans and investments from the national development bank. While protesters have not focused much ire on Brazil’s economic elite, there has been a building resentment toward the fact that governing structures subject to corruption in Brazil remained largely the same throughout the long economic boom, as authorities channeled huge resources of the state to projects controlled by tycoons.

The protesters have directed much of their anger toward political leaders, some of whom are close to Mr. Batista, like the governor of Rio de Janeiro, Sérgio Cabral, to whom Mr. Batista occasionally lent his private jet and who found demonstrators camped in front his home.

“Eike Batista assembled an empire thanks to colossal financing from the Brazilian government,” said Carlos Lessa, an economist and former president of Brazil’s national development bank. “But his explosion of wealth and prominence on the global stage came with risks, as the government itself and investors are discovering now.”

Mr. Batista built his fortune by selling investors on the potential of Brazil, forming companies that would benefit from the country’s rich oil fields, vast mining resources and fast-growing middle class.

But over the last year, investors in Mr. Batista’s six publicly traded businesses — none of which are profitable — have unloaded their shares amid disappointing projections, missed deadlines and a heavy debt load.

“He bundled wind and sold it,” said Miriam Leitão, an economic historian and columnist for O Globo, a leading Brazilian newspaper. “The euphoria fooled a lot of people.”

Now Mr. Batista is shedding assets and raising cash. In April, he dumped a large stake in his electric power company. He has put a private jet, a $26 million Embraer Legacy 600, up for sale. He is seeking a partner for Rio de Janeiro’s landmark Hotel Glória that he bought in 2008, a project that was supposed to be ready for the 2014 soccer World Cup but is mired in delays.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/business/global/brazil-fortune-and-fate-turn-on-billionaire.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Chinese Firm Is Behind a Group Bidding for Club Med

7:52 a.m. | Updated HONG KONG – Club Med, the French travel business that grew into a global resort operator, may soon become a private company under a buyout plan that involves a Chinese conglomerate playing an unusually visible role in the acquisition of a famous European brand.

The management and the two biggest shareholders of Club Méditerranée started a buyout offer on Monday valuing the company at about 540 million euros ($700 million).

AXA Private Equity of France, the Chinese conglomerate Fosun International and Club Med’s chief executive, Henri Giscard d’Estaing, said in a statement that they planned to make a formal offer of 17 euros per share “in the next few days.”

Club Med has been hit hard in recent years by the euro crisis, which has led to high unemployment and worried consumers across the Continent. Resorts in Europe and Africa accounted for 65 percent of the company’s revenue in the three months ended Jan. 31.

In response, the group said it planned to privatize the company to help make it “free from short-term constraints” as it seeks to reduce its traditional reliance on Europe and expand into emerging markets overseas, and capturing more demand from Chinese people traveling globally.

China overtook the United States two years ago as the world’s biggest source of foreign tourists, according to the World Bank. Mainland Chinese made 70.3 million overseas trips in 2011, a 22 percent increase from 2010. That compares with the 58.5 million overseas trips American tourists made in 2011, down 3 percent from the previous year.

And last year, China became the biggest spender in global tourism as outlays by Chinese traveling overseas rose 40 percent, to $102 billion, from 2011, according to the United Nations’ World Tourism Organization. Germans and Americans ranked second and third, each spending about $84 billion on foreign trips, the agency said.

Club Med opened its first resort on the Spanish island of Mallorca in 1950 and today operates more than 70 properties in 25 countries. The company’s offering of all-inclusive vacation packages and its traditional concentration on the European and North American tourist markets made it famous to a generation of postwar Western vacationers.

But the dynamics of growth in the global leisure industry have shifted dramatically in recent years, as companies seek to capture new demand from the increasingly wealthy populations of emerging countries like China, Brazil and Russia. Expediting that shift has taken on increased importance in the five years since the outbreak of the global financial crisis, as the West — specifically, Europe — has struggled to shake off economic malaise.

Club Med has posted annual losses in five of the last seven years, and revenue has not regained the level of 1.1 billion euros reached in 2008. The company has responded by closing less profitable resorts and expanding into developing markets.

Central to Club Med’s strategy as it pertained to winning more Chinese customers was a deal in 2010 that brought in Fosun, which is based in Shanghai, as a strategic investor with a minority stake.

Fosun and the other members of the group now bidding to take over Club Med have characterized the approach as friendly. Together they own 19.3 percent of the shares and 24.9 percent of the voting rights in Club Med. The bidders said their tender offer would lapse automatically if it failed to win at least 50 percent of the shares in the company.

Shares in Club Med soared about 23 percent to match the offer price in trading on Monday in Paris.

Until recently, Chinese companies have tended to be cautious when attempting to buy publicly traded companies, a wariness that stems in part from lingering memories of a controversial bid by the Chinese offshore oil company Cnooc for the American oil producer Unocal in 2005 that was effectively blocked by the United States Congress. Instead, Chinese acquirers have been aggressively buying privately held businesses, focusing mainly on European companies in machinery sectors like wind turbine component manufacturing, for example.

The Fosun-backed offer for Club Med, which trades on the NYSE Euronext in Paris, reflects the unusual nature of the relationship between the two companies. Many Western companies have expanded in China by setting up joint ventures with Chinese companies. Club Med chose a different route, allowing Fosun to buy a stake in the French parent company.

André Loesekrug-Pietri, the chairman and managing partner of a private equity fund based in Brussels, the A Capital China Outbound Fund, said he had approached Fosun and Club Med in March 2010 with a proposal for Fosun and A Capital to each buy stakes in Club Med.

Club Med had been struggling and was looking for a partner to help it open more resorts in Asia and to attract more Chinese tourists to its resorts all over the world. At the same time, Fosun was seeking a way to use its extensive real estate in China and its marketing divisions, which distribute insurance and pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Loesekrug-Pietri, who carries French and German passports, said a member of his staff was a personal friend of one of the four co-founders of Fosun. Mr. Loesekrug-Pietri held discussions with the Club Med chief, Henri Giscard d’Estaing, who is the son of a former president of France, and Michel Wolfovski, the deputy chief executive. But personal connections, known as guanxi in China, played little role in the 2010 transaction, Mr. Loesekrug-Pietri said. What really facilitated a deal, he said, was having the Chinese company buy a strategic stake in the foreign parent company instead of in a joint venture.

“It ensured full alignment of interests between the Chinese and foreign partners,” he said in an interview by phone from Paris.

The willingness of A Capital to take a long-term stake in Club Med alongside Fosun, in addition to serving as an intermediary in the deal, also reassured Fosun, Mr. Loesekrug-Pietri said. Fosun welcomed “somebody who had skin in the game,” he said.

Fosun and A Capital initially purchased 7.1 percent of Club Med in a deal that closed on June 12, 2010, only 89 days after negotiations began. Neither company has publicly disclosed how much of that initial stake was owned by each of them. Fosun has made further purchases since then, building its stake to 9.96 percent of the share capital and 16.48 percent of the voting rights.

At present, the two main investors in A Capital are the China Investment Corporation, which is China’s sovereign wealth fund, and SFPI, a Belgian pension fund. Mr. Loesekrug-Pietri said the China Investment Corporation only put money into A Capital last year and had played no role at Club Med, adding that he and A Capital had also not played a role in the takeover bid by Fosun and others announced on Monday.

A Capital, which manages 200 million to 250 million euros, will make a “nice premium” if it chooses to tender its shares for the takeover offer, but has not yet made a decision on whether to cash in its stake, Mr. Loesekrug-Pietri said.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/club-med-targeted-in-700-million-privatization/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Vivendi Beats Full-Year Earnings Target

PARIS — Vivendi, the French entertainment-to-telecommunications conglomerate, said Tuesday that it beat its full-year earnings target, helped by sales of video games and a smaller-than-expected drop in profit at its French mobile unit SFR, which has been hammered by a price war.

Vivendi posted full-year adjusted net income of €2.86 billion, or $3.78 billion, before one-time financial events, exceeding its target of €2.7 billion. Revenue rose 0.6 percent to €28.99 billion, compared with the average estimate of €28.51 billion in a Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S poll of analysts.

SFR saw full-year earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, or Ebitda, fall 10.6 percent, before one-time charges, to €3.3 billion, better than the group’s target for a drop of close to 12 percent.

The company’s Activision Blizzard video game maker posted increases of 9.8 percent in revenue to €3.77 billion and 13.6 percent in Ebitda to €1.15 billion last year as it launched new games like Black Ops II.

The division is not expected to match last year’s performance in 2013, however, because of a “challenged global economy” and a smaller number of game releases, Vivendi said, adding that the Ebitda target was still above $1 billion.

Vivendi’s chief financial officer, Philippe Capron said Vivendi was not in a hurry to push through asset sales. Vivendi’s financial position meant it was not forced to make a “fire sale,” he told analysts Tuesday.

“We are not under pressure in our disposals processes,” Mr. Capron said in a conference call. “If the prices are not good, we will take our time.”

Vivendi is looking to sell assets including its 53 percent stake in Maroc Telecom and GVT, a Brazilian telecommunications and television subsidiary, as part of an overhaul to cut debt and reduce its exposure to the capital-intensive telecommunications business.

Les Échos newspaper said Tuesday that Vivendi had failed to obtain offers near its preferred price of €7 billion for GVT and was delaying the sale.

Shares in Vivendi, whose businesses range from video games, music and pay-TV to telecommunications, have lost about two-fifths of their value in the last five years. The company is penalized by a conglomerate discount, meaning investors undervalue its intrinsic value because of the range of subsidiaries. Vivendi has said it wants to shake this off to improve its valuation.

“If disposals disappoint, investor focus will switch back to weak earnings momentum and the limited credit rating headroom,” UBS analysts wrote in a note.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/technology/vivendi-beats-full-year-earnings-target.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: At Random House, Employees Will Enjoy 5,000 Shades of Green

Random House had its corporate Christmas party on Wednesday night in New York, and word is that Santa likes bondage. A lot.

Markus Dohle, the chief executive of Random House, promised employees — from top editors to warehouse workers — a $5,000 bonus to celebrate a profitable year. The cheering went on for minutes, according to people in attendance.

Call it 5,000 shades of green.

This year, Random House had the good fortune to publish E. L. James’s “Fifty Shades of Grey,” about an inexperienced college student who falls in love with an older man with a taste for trying her up and whipping her, among other delights. The book has topped the New York Times paperback best-seller list for 37 weeks and counting. The sequels “Fifty Shades Darker” and “Fifty Shades Freed” have been in the top five for a similar amount of time.

The e-books have been best sellers even longer.

Also, Random House has had other big best sellers including “Gone Girl,” a mystery by Gillian Flynn that has sold over one million copies; “Wild” by Cheryl Strayed; and John Grisham’s latest, “The Racketeer.”

The bonuses will be issued in the next paycheck. To be eligible for the complete bonus, employees must have worked a full year at the company; everyone else will receive a prorated gift.

Stuart Applebaum, a spokesman for Random House, a division of the German conglomerate Bertelsmann, confirmed that several thousand American employees would be covered.

The first book in the “Grey” series was originally published by a small house in Australia. But it was acquired by Vintage, a Random House division, at the beginning of the year and has been a publishing phenomenon almost ever since. According to Random House, the book has sold more than 35 million copies in the United States.


Leslie Kaufman writes about the publishing industry. Follow @leslieNYT on Twitter.

A version of this article appeared in print on 12/07/2012, on page B2 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Cheers for Random House In a ‘Fifty Shades’ Bonus.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/at-random-house-employees-will-enjoy-5000-shades-of-green/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Under Investigation, and Doing the Investigation

Dongyun Lee

Whenever there is a report of corporate misconduct, a predictable response is that the company in question says it has hired a reputable law firm to conduct a thorough investigation, and it pledges to cooperate with the authorities to resolve the situation quickly.

Prosecutors usually announce their own investigation, if they say anything at all. In reality, the government often uses reports provided by the companies to decide how to resolve the case.

Yet this raises significant questions about conflicts of interest. Is it a good thing that much of the effort to police corporate misconduct seems to have been shifted to lawyers retained by the companies under investigation?

White Collar Watch
View all posts




A corporate investigation can easily cost a company millions of dollars, and sometimes much more. The German conglomerate Siemens paid over $1 billion in legal and accounting fees for its global inquiry into extensive bribery by employees.

Companies would prefer not to conduct an investigation at all. But having a law firm they hired overseeing the inquiry means they can maintain control over information, and minimize any surprises.

For the legal profession, conducting corporate investigations is a growth industry. Louis J. Freeh, the former F.B.I. director whose work includes an extensive report on the sex abuse scandal at Penn State, recently agreed to merge his firm into Pepper Hamilton — a sign that large firms want the cachet of a big name to attract more business.

For the government, waiting until the company’s investigation is complete means there is no significant commitment of taxpayer resources on a case that may not result in prosecution. And there are good reasons to defer to the company’s lawyers, at least at the early stages of a case.

If a company’s overseas conduct is at issue, government investigators must slog through numerous bureaucratic steps to gather evidence. Private lawyers do not have to follow the same rules, so they can often gather information more quickly.

Employees may be more forthcoming with the company’s representatives, whether out of a sense of loyalty or the misconception that they are not at risk for prosecution. Even if employees are told that information may be turned over to the government, there can be a sense of comfort from being a team player, regardless of whether the details implicate them.

Lawyers from outside firms also often gain a better understanding of a company’s culture and operations. In-house counsel can point out where to look for information and explain how decisions were made. That kind of inside knowledge usually would not be available to prosecutors because it could expose confidential information.

It may seem as if having a law firm oversee the investigation of corporate misconduct benefits both the prosecutors and the company in the inquiry. But there is a risk prosecutors may not be getting a picture of all wrongdoing, and the potential for the report to be slanted in a way to protect senior management.

The lawyers who conduct investigations are often former prosecutors or regulators themselves, sometimes coming back to negotiate with their old offices on behalf of new clients. This can create an interesting twist on the so-called revolving door, when lawyers leave private practice temporarily to take government jobs. Some have said that such lawyers may be more lenient on the companies they investigate in the hopes of getting a job later on.

Robert Khuzami, the enforcement director at the Securities and Exchange Commission, disputed that view, saying recently that staff lawyers “would not risk reputation and career and even jail by undermining an investigation for a possible future job prospect.”

The real problem, in my opinion, with the revolving door may be that former government lawyers are trusted because they developed reputations as tough prosecutors and regulators. Companies can use that reputation to their benefit when the lawyers return to their former offices to represent them.

In practice, the lawyers employed to conduct corporate investigations must draw conclusions about conduct that falls into gray areas. Unlike murder and robbery, white-collar violations are difficult to identify and often call for nuanced judgments about intent and knowledge.

When lawyers report their conclusions, are they free from bias about the company that is also paying their bills?

Certainly, questions have been raised about the value of such reports. Since the financial crisis hit, few senior managers have been identified as among those responsible for a violation.

Prosecutors relying on law firms to do the legwork for an investigation and report on potential violations may not be in a position to challenge their conclusions by conducting an independent inquiry. The Justice Department simply does not have the resources to investigate a company to the same degree as outside lawyers operating with seemingly unlimited resources.

One solution is to expand whistle-blower programs to reward those who report corporate violations directly to the government. The Internal Revenue Service recently awarded $104 million to a whistle-blower who provided information that helped bring down the wall of secrecy around Swiss banks.

Whistle-blowers offer a glimpse into a company that would not otherwise be available. The potential threat of a whistle-blower also can give prosecutors and regulators more leverage because information is no longer controlled by the lawyers who oversaw an investigation. As every investigator knows, it is far better to keep the target guessing about exactly what you know.

Companies do not care for whistle-blowing programs because they divert information from their internal compliance systems and instead give it directly to the government, meaning it is not filtered first by outside counsel. Maybe that is not such a bad idea.


Peter J. Henning, who writes White Collar Watch for DealBook, is a professor at Wayne State University Law School.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/under-investigation-and-doing-the-investigation/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Fallout Continues at Vietnamese Bank

A branch of Asia Commercial Bank in Hanoi.Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA branch of Asia Commercial Bank in Hanoi.

HONG KONG — Police in Vietnam have arrested the former head of one the country’s biggest banks, state media said Friday, as the fallout from a banking scandal continues to spread.

The ministry of public security’s investigation department arrested Ly Xuan Hai, who had resigned as general director of the Asia Commercial Bank, ‘‘for allegedly violating state regulations on economic management leading to serious consequences,’’ the state-owned Vietnam News Service reported on Friday.

The arrest of Mr. Hai, 47, which took place on Thursday when the police searched his home and office, is the latest development in a brewing banking scandal that has already this week toppled a co-founder of the bank, prompted a broad sell-off in Vietnam’s stock market and forced the Communist-run country’s central bank to step in and help fend off a run on deposits at Asia Commercial Bank.

The trouble at the bank began on Tuesday, when news broke that authorities on Monday had arrested the bank’s co-founder and former vice chairman, Nguyen Duc Kien, an influential local businessman who retained stakes in several banks and other businesses and who is also a soccer aficionado who served as the general manager of the Hanoi Football Club.

Asia Commercial Bank, in which Mr. Kien, 48, retains a stake but no longer has any management role, had tried to distance itself from his arrest for what it described as ‘‘his own personal wrongdoings in business.’’

The bank, 15 percent owned by the British bank Standard Chartered, 7.3 percent by the Hong Kong-based conglomerate Jardine Matheson Holdings and 6.8 percent by the Vietnam-focused investment and fund manager Dragon Capital, said in a statement Tuesday that the arrest of Mr. Kien ‘‘has no impact on A.C.B.’s financial position, its decision-making process and its operations.’’

But despite that reassurance, pledges of liquidity from the central bank and calls for calm from the securities regulator, investors and customers fled.

By Friday, shares in the bank had fallen 16 percent over the previous week. The broader Ho Chi Minh Stock Index also fell, ending the week down 7.8 percent as companies associated with Mr. Kien were especially hard hit.

Customers lined up to withdraw their money from the bank’s branches on several days during the week. The new bank chief, Do Minh Toan, who was appointed to replace Mr. Hai, told state media that customers withdrew around 5 trillion Vietnamese dong, or $240 million, worth of deposits on Wednesday alone. The bank had 146 trillion dong in customer deposits at the end of June, according to filings.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/fallout-continues-at-vietnamese-bank/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Heineken to Buy Stake in Asia Pacific Breweries for $4.1 Billion

Heineken offered to pay more than $4 billion for a stake in Asia Pacific Breweries, the maker of Tiger Beer.Mark Lennihan/Associated PressHeineken offered to pay more than $4 billion for a stake in Asia Pacific Breweries, the maker of Tiger Beer.

LONDON — Heineken extended its reach into Asia on Friday after the Dutch brewer agreed to buy a stake in one the region’s biggest brewers for roughly $4.1 billion.

Heineken, which already owns a 42 percent holding in Asia Pacific Breweries, will acquire a further 40 percent stake in the company from Fraser Neave, a Singapore-listed conglomerate and longstanding partner of Heineken’s in the region.

The deal underscores Heineken’s interest in fast-growing emerging markets.

Listed in Singapore, Asia Pacific Breweries operates 30 breweries across Asia, including in far-flung counties like Mongolia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Its brand portfolio includes Tiger Beer and Bintang lager, some of the best-known beers in the regional markets where they are sold.

Heineken previously said a successful deal would give it “direct access to a number of important markets, including Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.”

Larger global brewers are looking to deal-making as growth slows in their home markets.

In June, Anheuser-Busch InBev, whose beer brands include Budweiser and Stella Artois, agreed to buy the half of the Mexican brewer Grupo Modelo that it did not already own for $20.1 billion. Rival SABMiller bought Foster’s Group, the biggest beer company in Australia, for $10.15 billion last year.

Asia Pacific Breweries has been in play for weeks. Last month, Thai Beverage, controlled by the billionaire Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, initially offered to buy a 22 percent stake in Fraser Neave for $2.2 billion. Heineken countered in late July, offering to buy a 40 stake for roughly $4.1 billion. Heineken had set an Aug. 3 deadline for Fraser Neave’s board to accept its offer.

The agreement on Friday will trigger a requirement that Heineken make a mandatory buyout offer to remaining shareholders of the Asian brewer. The purchase of the remaining shares is expected to cost $1.9 billion. The deal is expected to close at the end of the year.

In early afternoon trading on Friday, shares in the European company rose 3.6 percent.

Credit Suisse and Citigroup advised Heineken on the deal.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/heineken-to-buy-stake-in-asia-pacific-breweries-for-4-1-billion/?partner=rss&emc=rss

China Takes Loss to Get Ahead in Desalination Industry

There is but one wrinkle in the $4 billion plant: The desalted water costs twice as much to produce as it sells for. Nevertheless, the owner of the complex, a government-run conglomerate called S.D.I.C., is moving to quadruple the plant’s desalinating capacity, making it China’s largest.

“Someone has to lose money,” Guo Qigang, the plant’s general manager, said in a recent interview. “We’re a state-owned corporation, and it’s our social responsibility.”

In some places, this would be economic lunacy. In China, it is economic strategy.

As it did with solar panels and wind turbines, the government has set its mind on becoming a force in yet another budding environment-related industry: supplying the world with fresh water.

The Beijiang project, southeast of Beijing, will strengthen Chinese expertise in desalination, fine-tune the economics, help build an industrial base and, along the way, lessen a chronic water shortage in Tianjin. That money also leaks away like water — at least for now — is not a prime concern.

“The policy drivers are more important than the economic drivers,” said Olivia Jensen, an expert on Chinese water policy and a director at Infrastructure Economics, a Singapore-based consultancy. “If the central government says desalination is going to be a focus area and money should go into desalination technology, then it will.”

The government has, and it is. At the government’s order, China is rapidly becoming one of the world’s biggest growth markets for desalted water. The latest goal is to quadruple production by 2020, from the current 680,000 cubic meters, or 180 million gallons, a day to as many as three million cubic meters, about 800 million gallons, equivalent to nearly a dozen more 200,000-ton-a-day plants like the one being expanded in Beijiang.

China’s latest five-year plan for the sector is expected to order the establishment of a national desalination industry, according to Guo Yozhi, who heads the China Desalination Association. Institutes in at least six Chinese cities are researching developments in membranes, the technology at the core of the most sophisticated and cost-effective desalination techniques.

The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top-level state planning agency, is drafting plans to give preferential treatment to domestic companies that build desalting equipment or patent desalting technologies. There is talk of tax breaks and low-interest loans to encourage domestic production.

In an interview, Mr. Guo called the government role in desalination “symbolic,” saying that direct government investment in seawater projects does not exceed 10 percent of their cost. By comparison, he said, big water ventures like the massive South-North Water Diversion Project, which will divert water from the Yangtze River in the south to the thirsty north, are completely government-financed.

Still, the government’s plans could mean an investment of as much as 200 billion renminbi, or about $31 billion, by state-owned companies, government agencies and private partners.

Beijiang’s desalination complex, built by S.D.I.C. at the behest of the Development and Reform Commission as a concept project, was almost wholly made in Israel, shipped to Tianjin and bolted together. Nationally, less than 60 percent of desalination equipment and technology is domestic.

China’s goal is to raise that to 90 percent by 2020, said Jennie Peng, an analyst and water industry specialist at the Beijing office of Frost Sullivan, a consulting company based in San Antonio.

There are plenty of reasons for China to want a homegrown desalination industry, not the least of which is homegrown fresh water. Demand for water here is expected to grow 63 percent by 2030 — gallon for gallon, more than anywhere else on earth, according to the Asia Water Project, a business information organization.

Northern China has long been short of water, and fast-expanding cities like Beijing and Tianjin already have turned to extensive recycling and conservation programs to meet the need.

Mia Li contributed research.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0457760932baf22c4acf7a8c3a5b06f4

DealBook: The Perils of Chasing Buffett


An investment by Warren E. Buffett is often seen as a harbinger of good fortune for a company’s shareholders.

When Berkshire Hathaway made a $5 billion investment in Bank of America last month, the stock quickly jumped — a phenomenon known as the Buffett bounce.

But it does not always pay to follow Mr. Buffett’s moves, at least when he buys preferred shares rather than common stock.

Consider his General Electric deal. Mr. Buffett, who in 2008 swooped in with a $3 billion investment for the troubled conglomerate, will net a tidy profit when G.E. pays back the money next month.

Warren Buffett, chief of Berkshire Hathaway.Charles Dharapak/Associated PressWarren E. Buffett, chief of Berkshire Hathaway.

Along with his principal, Mr. Buffett will take home an extra $300 million, as well as any accrued and unpaid dividends. During the course of his investment, the preferred shares paid a 10 percent annual dividend, or roughly $300 million a year.

Investors in the common stock have not fared as well over the same period. At the time of Mr. Buffett’s investment, shares of G.E. were trading at about $24.50. Today, they are down nearly 40 percent, at about $15.40.

It is a similar story with Goldman Sachs, which took a $5 billion lifeline from Mr. Buffett during the depths of the financial crisis.

The investment bank returned the cash earlier this year. As in the G.E. deal, Mr. Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway banked an annual 10 percent dividend, plus some extras when Goldman paid back the money. In all, Mr. Buffett took home $1.7 billion on the investment, or about $190,000 a day.

Goldman investors have not been as fortunate. When Mr. Buffett stepped onto the scene, the stock was selling for about $125 a share; it is now at about $104.

Of course, Mr. Buffett has an interest in seeing the stocks of Goldman Sachs and G.E. do well.

In both cases, he has warrants to purchase common shares of the companies at specific prices, which can be exercised through 2013. At current levels, those warrants are essentially worthless.

While it remains to be seen how Mr. Buffett will ultimately fare on his investment in Bank of America, the deal has all the hallmarks of those for Goldman and G.E. There is a 6 percent annual payout and a premium at redemption of $250 million.

And once again, Berkshire will share in any upside in the stock. Over the next 10 years, the company has the right to purchase 700 million shares at a strike price just north of $7.14. (The shares are currently at $7.)

But those stock gains would mainly be gravy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=119ed4faf2a09e1358bf64599c3e6a9d

EADS Seeks Flexibility on Shareholder Stakes

“We are pushing at the management level for a solution which allows shareholders to sell their shares if they want,” Louis Gallois, the chief executive of European Aeronautic Defense and Space, said during an interview late Tuesday.

The balancing of national interests in EADS, the parent company of Airbus, was enshrined in a shareholder pact that dates to the group’s creation in 2000. That agreement stipulates that the French and German stakes in EADS must be equal.

Daimler, the German automaker, owns 15 percent of EADS, while a consortium of German private- and public-sector banks holds 7.5 percent, though Daimler holds the banks’ voting rights. The French government and Lagardère, the media and aerospace conglomerate, own a combined 22.5 percent share.

Both Daimler and Lagardère have made clear in recent years that they do not view their EADS holdings as core to their operations. But the French and German governments have struggled to broker a sale of the shares to other investors in a way that would preserve the ownership balance. Moreover, because of the strategic importance of EADS, both Paris and Berlin have been eager to retain the power to block any potential hostile takeover by a foreign entity.

“We could propose other solutions to protect the company from hostile takeovers,” Mr. Gallois said. “We don’t necessarily need to have controlling shareholders for that.”

Earlier this year, some investors proposed creating so-called golden shares that would give France and Germany a veto over any strategic decision, like a takeover. But such a mechanism is not allowed in the Netherlands, where EADS is incorporated.

Mr. Gallois emphasized that the days of national power struggles and mutual suspicions within EADS had been consigned to the past. After an industrial crisis that resulted in a two-year delay of the Airbus A380 superjumbo jet, EADS in 2007 streamlined its management, eliminating a cumbersome structure that had placed two chief executives — one German, one French — and two chairmen at the helm.

That change, Mr. Gallois said, “had the immense advantage to make us a much more normal company.” The natural next step in the company’s evolution, he said, was to do away with the enforced balance of French and German ownership.

“I think the balance could be ensured, for instance, by the nationality of members of the board, by majority rules on the board, by agreements on the governance of the company,” Mr. Gallois said. “If there are no longer controlling shareholdings, the question of balance becomes less crucial.”

Any modifications to the shareholder pact could coincide with an expected transition at the top of EADS next year. Mr. Gallois, a 67-year-old Frenchman, is widely expected to step down and to be replaced by Tom Enders, the 52-year-old German who is chief executive of Airbus.

Mr. Gallois confirmed that the EADS board was “well engaged” in its discussions about his successor, but declined to indicate when an announcement might be made. He also appeared to rule out any dark-horse candidates for the job.

“I am not sure that you will be very surprised,” he said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=5fcb4aafeb78b58dfbacbb5e6edde898