Asiabizblog - Business and Law for China and Asia

« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 31, 2007

Price-Fixing in China? Case-in-point: the Aluminum Industry

[Editor's Note: Price fixing and industry collusion aren't generally considered hot topics among investors and lawyers, except when the discussion turns to China. Does Chinese business culture, whatever that may be, favor monopolistic behavior, eschewing competition? Or is price fixing, where it occassionally pops up, merely a symptom of inadequate regulation, incompetent administration or general chaos, regardless of the region?

Alas, these questions have been subject to endless disputation, often argued anecdotally, for lack of hard evidence, as mere unsubstantiated claim. We are thus grateful to Lou Schwartz for today's post, which provides us with the benefit of his lengthy experience analyzing and reporting on the Chinese aluminum industry. His bio may be found at the end of his post.]

Contrary to Lou Dobbs’s characterization of China as “Communist” or “Red,” China’s economy today is actually raw, unbridled capitalism. The Chinese aluminum industry, which I have followed closely for more than eight years, is very representative of the road that China’s economy has taken since the death of Mao and the beginning of the Reform Period. From an outdated and lethargic industrial base managed by an enormous government-run mega-corporation to a plethora of new companies whose world-class plants are financed with much more private capital than state-owned bank loans (in 2006 77.2% of the capital which the Chinese non-ferrous metals industry used for fixed asset investment came from non-bank sources), the aluminum industry represents how Chinese industry has become more like what is described in The Wealth of Nations than the Communist Manifesto. And if there still is a doubt that the Chinese economy has become the greatest example of pure capitalism -- with all its warts -- since Adam Smith described it, one need look no further than the aluminum industry again, which has been spotted organizing cartels in an effort to save themselves from their own excesses.

The Chinese aluminum industry largely has followed the same meteoric trajectory as a wide variety of Chinese industries. In the first forty years (1953-1992) of its existence, the industry’s capacity to produce primary aluminum grew to 1 million tonnes per year (tpy). It took just an additional 5 years for primary aluminum capacity in China to reach 2 million tpy. Assisted by the restructuring of the Chinese non-ferrous industry beginning in 1997, a plethora of new companies in this space has grown China’s aluminum smelting capacity to a projected 14.6 million tpy this year from 3 million tpy as of the end of 2001. By late 2005, a group of 23 primary aluminum smelting companies, smarting from growing losses caused by their unrestrained development of smelting capacity which had exceeded even the torrid ramp up of demand for aluminum in China, banded together and agreed to idle 10% of their capacity to stabilize the price of aluminum. This consortium was sufficiently disciplined in idling capacity that it was able to mostly stave off a series of projected insolvencies among Chinese aluminum smelters.

Perhaps the most significant reason why primary aluminum smelters felt compelled in 2005 to form a seller’s cartel and idle capacity was that the price of alumina, their most significant input, had more than doubled in price -- due to the rapid increase in capacity in the Chinese primary aluminum smelting industry. The world’s producers of alumina, including the remaining Chinese state-owned aluminum industry behemoth--the Aluminum Corporation of China Limited (Chalco) ((中国铝业股份有限公司 (中国铝业)) benefited royally from surging alumina prices: Chalco leveraged the squeeze that primary aluminum smelters found themselves in to acquire companies that were at the brink of insolvency.

As the world price of alumina rose, Chinese entrepreneurs ((including Xinfa Aluminum Industry (信发铝业) and Weiqiao Aluminum Industry (魏桥铝业)), now inhabiting a free-wheeling economy, leapt at the apparent opportunities in alumina refining and in early 2006 began a rapid multi-billion Yuan build-up of alumina refining capacity in China. As of the end of 2007, total alumina refining capacity in China is expected to reach 27.7 million tpy, an increase of 4.4 million-tpy over year-end 2006 and a 17 million tpy increase over year end 2005! Not surprisingly the price of alumina has dropped by two-thirds since late 2005 and the price of the alumina refining industry’s most significant input -- bauxite -- has increased precipitously. This turn of events caused a group of seven private alumina producers, to meet in early 2007 and agree to adjust output to support alumina prices.

Meanwhile, lured by outsized prospects in supplying aluminum sheet, coil and foil for the construction, automotive and packaging industries in China and easy access to capital, Chinese industrialists flocked to the aluminum rolling industry beginning in 2004, pushing capacity up from 1.5 million tpy in 2004 to 2.5 million tpy in 2005; when all the rolling mills under construction or in planning are completed as of 2010, China’s rolling industry will have more than 5 million tpy of rolling capacity. In the so-called “Double 0” segment of the rolling industry (named for the thickness in millimeters of the aluminum foil produced) which supplies aluminum foil to that part of the packaging industry serving the tobacco, food, beverage, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, the growth in capacity is expected to grow to a significant proportion of the 940,000 tpy in total aluminum foil capacity which will be in place by 2010. Once again the response of the thinner gauge segment of the aluminum foil industry was to form a cartel to attempt to control output and prices. According to a report in 中国铝业网, in February 2006 five of the principal producers of “Double 0” aluminum foil met at a “summit” meeting to agree, among other things, to hold their respective shares of the domestic market to a fixed amount, to export all output in excess of their agreed share of the domestic market, to adhere to a specified lowest domestic and export processing price and to refrain from selling their products for a price in excess of the imported price.

In the free-wheeling economic environment that is today’s China it is far from certain that the attempts to monopolize markets is likely to have more than short term benefits to the Chinese monopolists. Rather, the central dynamics which Adam Smith discussed with such acuity in 1776 are at work in China today and will ensure that the attempts at monopoly power by some of the actors in this panoramic economy will not permit the level of control that was a fixture of the pre-Reform period.

[Lou Schwartz is president of China Strategies, LLC and publisher of the China Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development Report, as well as the China Aluminum Industry Report. Mr. Schwartz earned degrees in East Asian Studies from the University of Michigan and Harvard University, as well as his J.D. from George Washington University Law School.

Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Lou work includes matters dealing with China's legal system, economic development, trade and investment. After serving at a large U.S. law firm, Lou has for a decade taught at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and College of Arts and Sciences.]

July 26, 2007

Humble Request for a Translation

UPDATE: We have a translation. Thank you (!) to the four readers who offered to provide one.

I've had a second reader request for a translation into English of the Chinese text of "Guangdong Court Applies Hong Kong Law in Commercial Lease Dispute." With apologies, I can't spare the time to do even a rough translation myself.

Would you (yes, you, one of my mandarin fluent readers) like to do the translation itself? The willing translator will get some exposure (I will post your name as translator, your bio and a link to your website along with the translation). My only caveat -- the translation must be faithful to the original.

July 17, 2007

What Happens When Your Chinese Supplier Says: Sure, Go Ahead, Sue Me!

Because American states must, in most cases, enforce a judgment issued by the court of any other American state, Yanks in business tend to take for granted that fabulous feature of our legal system, known as "full faith and credit." [A dear relative was wont to say "for granite," but the malapropism is nevertheless just as valid, i.e., written in stone.]

But nations do not fall within the American constitutional system: American court judgments aren't not often enforced outside of the U.S. Unless, of course, there is a treaty between the U.S. and a foreign nation, there is little chance a court of that nation will recognize and enforce an American judgment. And, lest we forget, vice-versa.

For this brief post to be of any value to you, I must mention Don Clarke, who teaches at Harvard. He's written a brief article, entitled "The Enforcement of United States Court Judgments in China: A Research Note," and even if you are not an attorney, it is worth your time. Don says, in essence, that Chinese courts do not recognize and haven't enforced an American judgment.

My point in recommending you read Professor Clarke's article is this: here lies an important lesson for American companies who do business with China. Don't expect you can take an American judgment against a Chinese company to China and sue upon it. Your American judgment will not be recognized. Your more likely remedy would exist when the Chinese company has established sufficient presence in the U.S., such that you can sue the company in an American court. But unless that Chinese company has assets in the U.S. upon which you can levy, you are unlikely to recover very much at all.

What implications does this have, exactly? For importers, for example, the Golden Rule is to guard your money carefully -- before you even enter into a transaction with a Chinese exporter. Do not pay up front and then expect to receive product. You may not receive it once the money has left your hands. You will simply have no recourse.

The wise prefer to spend the extra fee to open a letter of credit, payable upon your acceptance of the product, rather than resort to prayer. Now prayer is a good thing, but its efficiency in trade is yet to be proven. Who wouldn't spend the extra? Many inexperienced traders. Perhaps you. Especially if you are new to importing -- and some I've spoken with are sourcing via the internet without even visiting the physical location of your provider -- you should never blindly pay cash up front. [If you haven't visited your supplier, you are neglecting essential due diligence.] But even if you have longstanding relationships with your suppliers, I would not recommend anything but L/C based transactions, except in the rarest circumstances (emergency circumstances where a mold needs to be opened immediately, etc.). Continue to pray, by all means, but, with some recourse in your own country, you won't need to pray so very urgently.

More on the practical aspects of Don's article in upcoming posts.