(Picture source: Panoramic Vision)
fuzzy valuation
In the face of this uncertainty in asset value, the response of the actual valuation conclusion of Nanjing Sanqiao in the project by Guotai Yuanxinfang to reporters was: "Let investors check the 'public information'." "As an issuer of open market bonds, Yiyang Group has raised many financings through open markets, banks, trusts, AMCs, asset management companies, private equity funds, etc. Nanjing Sanqiao Equity is one of its core assets. Regarding the valuation records of Nanjing Sanqiao equity, it is not difficult for investors to obtain relevant reports and records through public or other channels or subscribe to other products." Guotai Yuanxin said, but it did not make any statement on Nanjing Sanqiao's valuation. What’s even more strange about
is that Cathay Yuanxin also said that the value of Nanjing Sanqiao’s equity has never been used as a basis for the issuance and establishment of Aorui No. 1.
"Our company has never used any valuation of Nanjing Sanqiao's equity as the basis for issuing and establishing Aorui No. 1 product, nor has it independently or authorized any institution (and individual) to introduce the above data in any materials recommended to investors." Guotai Yuanxin said.
Industry insiders pointed out that when asset pledge is a risk control measure for financing asset management projects, the manager usually hires an independent third-party agency to evaluate the asset value of the latest phase of the collateral to prevent the risk of impairment of the collateral. Cathay Yuanxin said that the basis for the establishment of Auri No. 1 does not include the equity value of Nanjing Sanqiao, which also aroused doubts about whether Cathay Yuanxin is diligent and responsible.
"Because to ensure that the collateral is true and effective, the actual assets must be valued to cover the financing amount. This is also a necessary risk control measure for collateral financing. If the asset value is not evaluated, the project risk control is almost in name but not real." said the trust manager of a Chinese-headed trust company. "Nanjing Sanqiao is a non-public company, and its asset valuation is still non-fair, and the recognition standards of different financial institutions are different. You cannot turn the responsibility for judging valuation to investors by having financing records in the open market." The above-mentioned trust manager asked, "And the valuation methods of different companies are different. If investors have this professional judgment ability, is the meaning of asset management institutions only financial licenses?"
stocks that were liquidated
At the same time, the stock disposal of Aorui No. 1's other collateral, Yiyang Xintong, also encountered embarrassment.
is calculated based on the closing price of 12.76 yuan per share on January 12, 2017 on the third issue date of Aorui No. 1 Phase 3, and its value is 127.6 million yuan.
According to investors' reaction, the seller provided materials when selling, saying that the equity valuation of Nanjing Sanqiao was 839 million yuan, and Yiyang Xintong's stock was worth 127.6 million yuan at that time. The combined two were 966.6 million yuan. The mortgage rate of at that time was 400 million yuan (planned fundraising)/966.6 million yuan = 41%. The mortgage rate is in line with similar asset management products, which is an important reason why investors make subscription decisions.
However, when Yiyang Group was in a liquidity crisis, Cathay Yuanxin did not deal with the pledge of Yiyang Xintong shares. "The risk occurred in 2017, but Cathay dragged down the liquidity asset of Yiyang Xintong shares for nearly two years. The stock has now ST, falling by more than 70%. "The above-mentioned investor said.
In fact, Cathay Yuanxin is not indifferent. In October 2017, Guotai Yuanxin filed a lawsuit against Yiyang Group and Yiyang Group's actual controller Deng Wei , requiring property preservation and freezing of the above-mentioned deposits. The reason for the lawsuit is that the above-mentioned pledge is off-site pledge and must be handled through the litigation execution procedure.
However, on April 28 of the following year, the court made a first-instance judgment that Guotai Yuanxin won the case and had the right to give priority to the pledged property by auction, sale, etc. However, at this time, the share price of Yiyang Xintong had fallen to 3.49 yuan per share, with a market value of 10 million shares equivalent to 35 million yuan, which is only 10% of the financing amount.
This also led to the fact that within the following year, Guotai Yuanxin has not made any progress in the disposal of the above-mentioned stock assets until March 24, Yiyang Group entered the bankruptcy reorganization process.According to the law, after entering the bankruptcy reorganization process, the disposal of assets under the bankruptcy enterprise must be carried out within the bankruptcy process, which leads to further extending the above-mentioned asset disposal cycle. Zhang Xue, a partner of
Dacheng Law Firm , told reporters that according to the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Law and the judicial interpretation, as long as the bankruptcy application is accepted, all litigation and repayment activities must be stopped, and all are included in the bankruptcy track for repayment. The pledged property, pledged property and other properties are still bankrupt when liquidated, but creditors still have the right to repay, but Cathay Yuanxin needs to declare the debt and do not waive the right to repay.
Zhang Xue also said, "The security holder is given priority to repayment before ordinary debt, but if the value of the intermediate property declines from pledge to bankruptcy proceedings, for example, during pledge, the value of the pledged equity can cover the debt, but when disposing of the shares, the remaining ones that fail to repay the debt can only be paid as ordinary debt."
"In addition, there is another noteworthy issue that once the company enters bankruptcy proceedings, all interest and late payment fees attached to the debt will be stopped." Zhang Xue said.
"Once the bankruptcy process is entered, investors will have to wait longer to get the money, and the opportunity cost is immeasurable." An asset management person in Beijing's Chinese-headed securities firm pointed out.
The last year between the winning case of collateral preservation and the acceptance of Yiyang Group's bankruptcy application, it should have been the best time for Cathay Yuanxin to dispose of the above assets and achieve redemption. Guotai Yuanxin also stated that since the lawsuit was filed, it has been actively carrying out Aorui No. 1 debt asset restructuring and actively discussing cooperation with asset management companies specializing in the disposal of non-performing assets.
However, during this period, Cathay Yuanxin has never been able to dispose of the above-mentioned stocks, Nanjing Sanqiao equity and other assets, and the situation has developed to this day.
Non-standard risks frequently
For Cathay Yuanxin, it is no accident that it fails in financing non-standard businesses.
In 2017, the Blue Sky Environmental Protection Jiahe No. 3 managed by Guotai Yuanxin also defaulted. In 2018, the "Cathay Yuanxin Tianheng Yinghe No. 1 Special Asset Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as Yinghe No. 1)" and the Cathay Yuanxin Zhongke Jianfei Special Asset Management Plan successively defaulted.
In the 2014 Hengfeng Bank’s 4 billion yuan rigid redemption case, the Guotai Yuanxinmenli Jinjiang No. 1 special asset management plan was also involved. Behind the frequent occurrence of credit risks in
, it is not unrelated to Cathay Yuanxin's preference for non-standard business.
As early as 2013, when the fund subsidiaries' channels and non-standard businesses rose, Cathay Yuanxin became the "pathfinder" of non-standard businesses among fund subsidiaries.
In 2013, Guotai Yuanxin issued the Jiangsu Ancient Canal Special Asset Management Plan to provide financing for county-level urban investment platforms. A trust person revealed that the financing project was once abandoned by many asset management institutions due to its high risks, but Cathay Yuanxin still provided financing for it.
At the same time, Guotai Yuanxin also provided a letter of commitment from the local financial department on the risk control measures of the project, which is suspected to be contrary to Document No. 463 (Notice of the State Council on Strengthening the Management of Local Government Financing Platform Companies) that it strictly prohibits financial guarantees.
After the regulators tightened the non-standard business of the fund subsidiaries, Cathay Yuanxin did not stop.
After the supervision of fund subsidiary net capital was "online", Cathay Yuanxin had increased its capital. On January 11, 2018, Guotai Yuanxin increased its registered capital from 50 million yuan to 83.144 million yuan through the same proportion of capital increase by three shareholders. On July 20 last year, Cathay Yuanxin increased its capital again. After two capital increases in the same year, the registered capital of Cathay Yuanxin has increased to 120 million yuan so far.
, but whether this capital increase is enough to cover its scale is still questionable. According to the official website of Cathay Yuanxin, as of the end of May 2017, the company had a total asset management scale of more than 60 billion yuan and a total of more than 250 products managed.
According to the "Calculation Table of Risk Capital Preparation for Fund Special Account Subsidiaries" by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the proportion of risk coefficients of one-to-one and one-to-many non-standard businesses of fund subsidiaries is 0.8%-1.5%, 1.5%-3.0% respectively. Assuming that based on the risk coefficient of 1%, the corresponding capital of Guotai Yuanxin 60 billion should reach at least 600 million yuan.
radical "hidden truth"?
Net capital supervision does not seem to have braked on the non-standard business of Cathay Yuanxin. Even after the new asset management regulations are implemented, Cathay Yuanxin is still making new "innovation" in the non-standard model.
Economic Observer reporter noticed that in March, Guotai Yuanxin issued the 18-month collective asset management plan for the scale of 510 million yuan and a term of 18 months. The product was invested in accounts receivable claims of 3 urban investment platforms and 1 real estate project at the same time to meet the "double 25%" ratio restrictions on the new asset management regulations.
However, in the view of industry insiders, this product only meets the requirements of the new asset management regulations on the investment ceiling of a single target, but still faces difficulties in multiple links such as net value accounting and risk disposal. "The valuation of non-standard assets is difficult to solve. At present, only amortized cost method can be used. However, if risks occur, how the product promptly reflects the risks and fully reminds investors of risks, there is controversy." The aforementioned trust manager said, "In the secondary market, municipal bonds themselves are a belief, and this risk is even more difficult to express on the non-standard issue. Once a default occurs, it will bring greater uncertainty." Will
's so radical investment in non-standard businesses be related to Cathay Yuanxin's unusual "shareholding platform"?
Tianyan Check data shows that among the shareholders of Cathay Yuanxin, except for the 55% held by Cathay Fund and 24.30% of the shares held by China Construction Investment Trust, the remaining 20% are Shanghai Jinzan Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinzan Investment). According to industry insiders, the company is suspected to be a shareholding platform of Cathay Yuanxin management.
Tianyan Check data shows that Tianjin Zan Investment was established on November 13, 2012. The invested shareholder of Guotai Yuanxin when it was established, and the actual controller Liang Zhiping is the director and general manager of Guotai Yuanxin. His shareholding ratio in Tianjin Zan Investment was 49.50%. Previously, Liang Zhiping also served as the deputy general manager of Guotai Fund; Feng Yi, who once served as the managing director of Guotai Yuanxin, also holds 7% of the shares of Jin Zan Investment.
As of May 9, Tianjin Zan Investment had a total of 21 natural person shareholders. Except for Chu Liang Zhiping, most of the other shareholders subscribed in June 2018.
"This should be a typical employee stock ownership platform. At first, only the top leader will hold the employees on their behalf. After achieving relevant performance, the corresponding equity incentives will be subscribed." The head of a small and medium-sized public offering in Beijing said, "If there are employee stock ownership in it, the company's actions in non-standard and other businesses may be more active, but whether the relevant risk control can be in place will be a question mark."
