In 2021, both the Chinese and American stock markets reached new heights, yet after three years of adjustments, the U.Sstock market emerged revitalized and once again setting records, whereas the A-shares in China remained trapped in a state of stagnationThis contrast raises significant questions about the underlying factors contributing to the glaring differences in shareholder returns between the two nations' markets.

One major element affecting shareholder returns is the disparity in dividends and share buybacksThe Diminished returns in the A-share market are partly due to their lower dividends compared to the U.Sstock market, where higher dividend yields justify its recent successes despite broader market indicesHowever, positing that the difference between A-shares and U.S

Advertisements

stocks is solely attributed to dividends would be a superficial analysis.

To truly understand the divergence between these two markets, we must analyze one critical determinant: the market capitalization of leading firmsIn the U.S., there are five companies valued at over $2 trillion, while in China, only three have crossed the RMB 2 trillion threshold, with just two listed on the domestic A-share marketPresently, China's GDP stands at around 64% that of the U.S., yet the gap in market valuations of leading companies is disproportionately wide compared to differences in per capita income, leading to questions about economic fundamentals.

After eliminating redundancies, it's revealed that there are a mere 11 companies with market capitalizations exceeding a trillion dollars

Advertisements

This substantial gap in market valuations points to a crucial difference in growth dynamics; it indicates a divergence in how quickly companies can scale and dominate, vital for driving sustained economic growth and innovation.

The ability of large companies to emerge from smaller ones and maintain significant growth is foundational; typically, higher market valuations correlate with long-term growth trajectoriesThese growth leaders are essential to supporting economic principles such as shared prosperity, a vital ingredient in the sustained success of the U.Sstock market.

The existence of such a disparity raises the primary inquiry: why does this vast gulf exist in the first place?

At the crux of the issue lies insufficient globalization; the competitive outlook for many Chinese companies remains predominantly focused on the domestic market, limiting their growth potential on the world stage.

I

Advertisements

Fragmented Inefficient Competition

Take, for instance, the manufacturing sector, particularly consumer electronics, where China has established a commanding presence, controlling over 50% of the global supply chainKey players like Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo dominate the market, collectively accounting for nearly 60% of global mobile device shipments, with the remaining portions going primarily to Samsung and Apple.

However, when it comes to profitability, the collective earnings of all Chinese smartphone manufacturers still fall woefully short compared to AppleFor instance, Xiaomi’s profits amount to merely 2.5% of Apple’s, emphasizing an alarming discrepancy in value creation between the two seemingly comparable markets.

Despite impressive sales figures, the vast difference in combined profits illustrates several underlying gaps – those including globalization strategies, technological prowess, and brand positioning.

What if all these companies were to merge into a single, unified brand representing China? The first thing that would happen would be a complete alignment in the domestic market

• India Cuts Rates by 25 Basis Points
• How to Navigate the AI Investment Boom?
• Amazon Doubles Revenue and Profit in Q4
• Global Public Debt on the Rise
• The Illusion of Ever-Rising UK Stock Market

Internal competition would cease, leading to reductions in redundant advertising expendituresResearch and development costs could be distributed across a unified production line, while physical retail space requirements would likely be halved.

Profiting is not merely about increasing capital value and stock prices; the core advantage lies in the ability to channel substantial profits towards overseas research initiatives, marketing channels, and large-scale R&D efforts, fostering true, transformative innovations that were previously not feasible.

A unified entity could precipitate significant market competition against Apple, owing to the collective power of its resourcesWhile overtaking Apple remains uncertain, the ability to compete on a global scale would undoubtedly magnify China’s competitive exposure exponentially.

Skeptics might argue that such a merger would likely lead to higher prices, negatively impacting consumers and suppliers alike

Job losses could ripple through the economy, and diminishing competition might stifle innovationHowever, these views frequently overlook the potential advantages of capturing profits from international rivals like Apple and SamsungExisting shareholders could also retain stakes in the newly formed group, continuing to share in its success; parallels can be drawn from how U.Scorporations operate within seemingly monopolistic domains.

Innovation undeniably stems from competition, but the reality of research demands financial investmentIntense competition can frequently lead to shrinking profit margins across an industry, ultimately stifling innovative capacities and creating a perpetual downward cycle.

Currently, many of China’s mobile manufacturers are stymied in their innovational efforts by the pressures of scale

Few dare to invest substantially in hardware advancements or to make sweeping changes to their productsInstead, the emphasis often turns to incremental software improvementsMeanwhile, Apple has been successfully developing its own chip technologies, widening the gap further between the two markets.

A climate where profits are consistently growing within the industry can foster healthy competitionHowever, when profit margins begin to decline, hindering research outcomes leads to a cycle of diminishing returns, which ultimately calls for an end to inefficient corporate rivalriesThis issue extends beyond mobile phones into virtually all sectors, wherein premature competition often leads to excessively narrow margins.

II

The Decline of Acquisitions

Creating globally competitive enterprises through consolidation remains one of the most feasible methods for escaping the current cycle of inefficiencyHowever, this naturally requires an uptick in restructuring and acquisition activities.

Looking back at the recent merger and acquisition activity on the A-share market, a troubling trend emerges: a noted declineFor 2023, the transaction volume dropped significantly, with the market showing a lack of vibrancy among company valuations and acquisition amounts.

While the U.Sstock market observed a slight decrease in acquisition amounts in 2023, notable is that the current levels in A-shares fall below those seen a decade ago.

An alarming decline in the quality of acquisitions is also evident

The A-share market is seeing incredibly few high-impact mergers, with the majority either perpetually merging within their tiers or weaker firms teaming up.

In contrast, the significant mergers in the U.Sinvolving large companies continue unabatedNotable acquisitions from 2022 onward include those of Microsoft acquiring Activision Blizzard, VMware merging with Broadcom, and Pfizer's acquisition of Seagen, among others.

The breadth of acquisitions across virtually every industry—from internet tech and gaming to pharmaceuticals and energy—illustrates a clear picture of strong and strategic mergers within the U.S.

The glaring disparity becomes even more pronounced when we analyze data specific to A-shares.

Historically, there has been a noticeable absence of large-scale mergers and acquisitions among major players in the A-share market

Rarely do we encounter deals exceeding a hundred billion, often resulting in minimal integrations where, for instance, companies acquire minority stakes or inflate their market shares while retaining their original identities.

In the U.S., acquisitions typically lead to the complete delisting of the acquired company, ensuring cohesive strategic alignment moving forwardThe presence of numerous former market giants in the U.Sstock market serves to illustrate the ongoing consolidation trend.

This results in a reduction in the market float, which ultimately can stabilize stock prices by decreasing the number of shares without impacting overall funding levels.

Moreover, private enterprises in A-shares do not actively pursue mergers and provide acquirers with a limited array of options, while state-owned enterprises appear more favorable towards consolidation

A historical narrative of massive state-owned enterprise mergers exists, witnessed in the integrations of China South and North Railway or the merger of crucial aviation and chemical firms.

Some measure of success has been achieved within state-owned enterprises, reinforcing their market competitivenessProving factors such as stability in certain sectors have been instrumental in boosting stock performance.

However, the scene is vastly different when examining major private enterprises engaged in A-share transactionsThe space is scant for successful large-scale mergers, with the only widely recognized case being Midea’s acquisition of Little Swan.

Even when automotive giants are acquired, the parties involved often witness the burden of external acquisitions outweighing the advantages, as highlighted by high-profile Chinese consumer brands falling to foreign acquisitions in the past.

The implications are myriad, reflecting a spectrum of issues tied to the lack of corporate ambition within these private enterprises.

III

A Need for Paradigm Shift

The current merger and acquisition challenges arise not only from external factors but from entrenched mindsets, with enterprise representatives often favoring market monopolization over broader ambitionsThis translates to a narrow vision, primarily focused on eliminating domestic competitors while showing reluctance toward entering global markets.

The frequently touted perspective suggests that removing or absorbing near-term competitors solely serves to supplement internal production capacity, thus overshadowing the significance of strong acquisitions or partnerships that require strategic capital outlay.

Additionally, many firms follow trends rather than conducting rigorous evaluation before pursuing acquisitions, susceptible to market cycles that typically inflate acquisition prices.

Successful acquisitions should essentially target reasonable pricing amidst genuine business needs, not merely capitalize on speculative opportunities that arose during boom phases of the market.

A distinct tendency emerges within many firms favoring international acquisitions, though the rationale proves valid

Developing from ground zero while vying for global competitiveness consumes valuable time and resources.

Common patterns of international acquisition reveal two major objectives: one involves acquiring technology firms with little hope of immediate financial returns, and the other focuses on acquiring overseas brands primarily to allure domestic customers enamored with foreign labels.

Unfortunately, overseas acquisitions often entail complex administrative hurdles and cannot guarantee meaningful improvements to domestic market positioning.

The incidence of successful overseas acquisitions remains disappointingly low, as numerous firms have emerged without observing corresponding increases in overseas revenues.

Conversely, the potential advantages of pursuing mergers domestically are frequently underestimated, particularly when objective restructuring can rapidly rectify competitive imbalances.

Yet, the momentum towards beneficial overseas acquisitions waned, with 2023 reflecting only marginal improvements compared to a regression over time.

The final question to address becomes this: What contradicts mergers and acquisitions? The answer is often the reliance on spin-offs.

Mergers and acquisitions entail purchasing part or all of another company's stock; in contrast, spin-offs release portions of a company's stock on the market through separate listings, effectively diluting control.

This pattern is particularly evident in Hong Kong, which despite experiencing a higher volume of private company mergers compared to A-shares, has simultaneously witnessed a trend towards spin-offs

This dilution erodes market liquidity and could fragment strategic goals among subsidiaries.

Pursuit of multiple listings tends to govern companies’ strategies, measured by the premise that having more subsidiaries equates to enhancing overall value.

A critical observation reveals that the companies that pursue excessive spin-offs generally fail to deliver sustained stock performance.

In contrast, the American market maintains a continuous trend towards the acquisition and consolidation of corporate entities to leverage existing capabilities.

The strategic inclinations of major U.S

companies often capitalize on integrating various business units while optimizing overall costs to maximize shareholder value.

These synergies give rise to colossal entities such as Berkshire Hathaway, Procter & Gamble, and Johnson & Johnson, with innumerable subsidiaries contributing to an overarching growth trajectory.

The rapid advancement of these corporates does not stem from core operations but through strategic acquisitions of promising companies, showcasing a model that Chinese firms have yet to fully embrace.

IVConclusion

Breaking free from the current cycle of inefficiency requires that leading firms collaborate in competitive mergers to forge global competitiveness

Remaining stagnant within low-tier competitive environments is counterproductive; failing to innovate could ultimately allow lesser foreign firms to gain ground.

Nonetheless, if mergers lead to monopolistic behavior characterized by price hikes at the expense of consumers, rather than embracing global competitive standards, the amalgamation holds limited value.

Successful mergers must involve multifaceted engagement from stakeholders, inclusive of acquirers, those being acquired, the employees affected, and regulatory entities overseeing competitive practices within global markets.

Encouraging globalization-focused international acquisitions is paramount, yet due to the current decline in Chinese markets, the priority should shift toward domestic mergers before embarking on less secure overseas ventures.

The pivotal transition within the A-share market and the broader Chinese economy necessitates a vigorous strategy for restructuring, drawing on collective efforts of various stakeholders to catalyze substantial shifts in the business landscape.