|Bid||0.00 x 0|
|Ask||0.00 x 0|
|Day's Range||12.43 - 12.43|
|52 Week Range||10.45 - 14.55|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.71|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||6.72|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.30 (2.45%)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Given a sad history of exploitation by foreigners, the young democracy of Timor-Leste can hardly be blamed for being hell-bent on self-sufficiency. But its current drive to cement its independence risks squandering the faltering progress the country has made. If the government doesn’t tread carefully, a future of debt peonage to China beckons.Friday marks the 20th anniversary of the final dark episode in Timor-Leste’s 24-year occupation by Indonesia, which killed about 100,000 Timorese and came after centuries of colonial neglect by Portugal. On Aug. 30, 1999, a referendum delivered an overwhelming majority in favor of independence for the half-island also known as East Timor, but unleashed a wave of retaliation from Indonesian forces and militias that left more than 1,400 dead and destroyed public infrastructure.Australia, the most forthright defender of Timor-Leste in that period, turned around to betray its new neighbor five years later. During negotiations over how to divide the oil and gas reserves along the undersea boundary between the two nations, Canberra used the cover of a foreign aid project to install listening devices in the office of Timor-Leste’s prime minister and eavesdropped on negotiating tactics, thus winning a larger share of resources for itself.Timor-Leste has nonetheless managed to pick itself up. Gross domestic product per capita more than tripled in the first decade after formal independence in 2002, before slumping with oil prices in the years since. Infant mortality rates have been cut nearly in half, while secondary school enrollment has roughly doubled.More to the point, the nation’s mineral wealth has been managed with more foresight than is normally the case with poor, newly independent states.The country’s Petroleum Fund has assets of around $15.8 billion, equivalent to more than eight years’ worth of non-petroleum GDP. Relative to the size of the economy, that’s larger than the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Norway. Drawing on fund surpluses to finance budget deficits has left Timor-Leste with minimal levels of public debt. In terms of corruption, the country scores around the same levels as Brazil, Thailand and Colombia, and ahead of Vietnam – not a terrible result, given the circumstances.It’s not all so positive. Half of employment is in agriculture, mostly at subsistence levels, and the country struggles to feed itself. Levels of undernourishment have declined only slightly and remain among the world’s highest.Worse lies ahead. The Bayu-Undan offshore gasfield which has provided Timor-Leste’s petroleum wealth for the past few decades will run out by 2023. The Petroleum Fund will be exhausted a few years later, according to one 2014 study. Further revenues will depend on developing the nearby Greater Sunrise field – and there the problems of self-sufficiency become most apparent.Bayu-Undan’s gas was brought ashore in the Australian city of Darwin, but Timor-Leste’s government is determined that Greater Sunrise product will be processed at home as the heart of a major new industrial zone, known as Tasi Mane. For all the powerful nation-building symbolism and potential revenue from such a plant, Tasi Mane may never be viable – especially given the collapse in gas prices and extreme difficulty around the world in financing major new projects. Building a whole new facility on Timor-Leste’s coast will cost around $12 billion, according to a 2016 report, even making the dubious assumption that it’s physically possible to build a pipeline through the seismically unstable Timor Trough to get there. A far better option would be to hook into the ready-made export terminal in Darwin or use a floating LNG plant instead – but those have been ruled out by Timor-Leste’s government.“The Timorese leadership has thrown all their economic eggs in this one basket because it has limited other options,” said Bec Strating, an expert on the country at Melbourne’s La Trobe University, “but I’ve never met an oil or gas expert who thinks this is a workable project.”The original commercial partners in Greater Sunrise are voting with their feet. Timor-Leste spent $650 million over the past year buying ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell Plc out of the venture, leaving only Woodside Petroleum Ltd. and Osaka Gas Co. The former has been adamant it won’t put significant amounts into developing Tasi Mane. With commercial finance steering clear, the most likely option increasingly looks like China’s Belt and Road Initiative. National oil company Timor Gap earlier this year signed a $943 million construction contract with a unit of state-owned China Railway Construction Corp. Countries in the region “go where they can to obtain either grants or soft loans,” former Timorese President Jose Ramos-Horta said in an interview with SBS News last year. “And that, today, is China.”Such a prospect risks a tragic waste of Timor-Leste’s potential. The Belt and Road is already notorious for building costly bridges to nowhere that leave governments with little to show beyond hefty interest bills. China’s growing presence in the Indo-Pacific via the Belt and Road has raised concerns that military and strategic aims, rather than purely commercial logic, underlie many of the projects. A $500 million highway built for Tasi Mane by a Chinese consortium in recent years and a $120 million airport are looking like white elephants.Gas-export plants are in any case too narrow a base for a national economy, with just 350 local employees at the ConocoPhillips terminal in Darwin. More likely, the orgy of contracts that a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project would kick off will offer a potent temptation for the sort of public corruption that Timor-Leste has so far mostly been spared. It’s understandable that this young country feels betrayed by its neighbors. Entering a new abusive relationship with Beijing isn’t likely to be the right way to secure its future.To contact the author of this story: David Fickling at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick McDowell at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
CR20, a subsidiary of China Railway Construction Corp (CRCC) is interested in billions of dollars of infrastructure tenders in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo, the state government said on Wednesday. Among the projects the firm is eyeing is a new metro line in the city of Sao Paulo, as well as intercity rail links and a project to clean up the heavily polluted Pinheiros River. "Within our company, we have to capacity to carry out practically all types of infrastructure projects," CR20 Chief Executive Deng Yong said in comments cited in a government statement.
Moody's Investors Service says in a new report that rising investment in China's railways, roadways and urban rail systems this year and next will boost revenue growth for most rated Chinese construction companies, with China Railway Group Limited (CRG, A3 stable), China Railway Construction Corporation Limited (CRCC, A3 stable) and China Communications Construction Co. Ltd. (CCCC, A3 stable) set to benefit the most. "We expect CRG, CRCC and CCCC to benefit most from the increase in infrastructure investment, as more than 50% of their revenue comes from infrastructure construction, and the other half from construction and other segments," says Chenyi Lu, a Moody's Vice President and Senior Credit Officer.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Expect “Pig-gate” to blow over. UBS Group AG’s ultra-rich Chinese clients are unlikely to desert the Swiss bank for local rivals, whatever the level of outrage over language used by its chief economist in a research report last week.The bank's potential loss of Chinese share-sale mandates isn’t a critical blow: UBS ranks a distant 11th in underwriting Hong Kong IPOs in 2019. (The bank fell behind after a one-year ban by the Securities and Futures Commission over deficiencies in its work on three companies that ran into trouble after listing.) Nor is the loss of bond mandates, such as its exclusion from a sale by state-owned China Railway Construction Corp.Wealth management is different. UBS is vying for a share of a Chinese private-banking market that was worth a record $24 trillion in 2018, according to Boston Consulting Group. The furor among local brokerages over UBS’s use of “Chinese pig” in a report on pork supply and inflation comes just as the Swiss firm and other foreign banks are muscling in on their turf. Switzerland’s Credit Suisse Group AG, Japan’s Nomura Holdings Inc., and Wall Street giants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley are among firms that have received approval to expand or are working toward taking majority stakes in China ventures.On top of that, Chinese regulators have cracked down on high-risk wealth management products sold by local banks and brokerage firms. That’s leveled the playing field for overseas competitors, which say their stricter compliance guidelines wouldn’t allow them to offer such investments.Still, it’s outside China where UBS has most to protect. Like all foreign banks, it’s a minnow in the mainland market. By contrast, there’s a treasure trove of Chinese money being managed offshore in cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and New York, according to a survey by consulting firm Capgemini SE last year. Boston Consulting reckons that market is worth $1 trillion. And here, UBS is hard to beat.At the end of last year, the Zurich-based bank had $152 billion more in assets under management in Asia outside mainland China than Credit Suisse, its nearest rival. Chinese players don’t rank in the top 10 for bankers to well-heeled individuals in the region, according to data from Asian Private Banker.UBS took in an unprecedented $16 billion in net new money in the first quarter, driving its Asia-Pacific assets to $405 billion. Credit Suisse collected the equivalent of $4.4 billion. UBS was also the region’s top equities trading house in the region last year, ahead of Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan, according to data from London-based analytics firm Coalition Development Ltd. It’s been Asia’s No. 1 equities house since 2010. That’s key for high-net-worth individuals looking for ideas to trade on.Money tends to flow to where it earns the most, other things being equal. Also, many clients have bought derivatives from UBS, which can’t be unwound at short notice without heavy penalties. UBS can console itself with the thought that other foreign banks have been able to ride out similar difficulties in Asia. Time is on its side. To contact the author of this story: Nisha Gopalan at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Matthew Brooker at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Nisha Gopalan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and banking. She previously worked for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones as an editor and a reporter.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- UBS Group AG has managed to alienate an important client that it’s hoping to milk for millions in fees.State-owned China Railway Construction Corp. has decided against hiring UBS as a joint global coordinator on a dollar-bond sale, Cathy Chan of Bloomberg News reported Monday. Haitong International Securities Group Ltd. has already cut business ties with the Swiss bank, while the Securities Association of China recommended members shun research by global chief economist Paul Donovan over language used in a research report last week.At issue were Donovan’s comments on the rise of inflation in China:“Does this matter? It matters if you are a Chinese pig. It matters if you like eating pork in China. It does not really matter to the rest of the world.”Two debates ensued. The first is whether Donovan’s words are offensive and racist. Even linguists are chiming in. The second is whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is right after all: Is doing business in China more perilous for foreign firms? Will Beijing continue to protect domestic players despite its vows to open up?As a native Chinese speaker, I don’t find Donovan’s comments racist, and certainly didn’t draw a connection with the pejorative term for Chinese laborers who built U.S. railroads in the 19th century. Rather, I find his choice of words unfortunate, and perhaps insensitive, given UBS is keen on luring wealthy Chinese clients.Bear in mind that 2019 is the Year of the Pig, which is supposed to be bountiful and abundant. Yet the nation, where pork remains the main source of animal protein, is suffering from a swine fever epidemic. To make matters worse, this year is shaping up to be another painful one for the economy: Growth is losing steam, despite Beijing’s trillion-yuan stimulus package, and the stock market is now in correction zone. Donovan’s comments were inauspicious, at a time when Chinese investors are already in a foul mood. I’d be willing to bet that we Chinese would better absorb his dry humor if the nation’s economic engine was running at full steam. You could say that China’s response has been a bit heavy-handed. But tough luck. It’s called the cost of doing business in emerging markets, and China is by no means an exception. Foreign banks have gotten into just as much trouble for lesser offenses. Two examples in the recent past come to mind.Andy Xie, an MIT-trained star economist, left Morgan Stanley in 2007 after an email he wrote citing “money laundering” as one reason for Singapore’s economic success. Never mind that it was an internal message. Donovan’s published report, meanwhile, presumably went through the requisite compliance hoops. Xie had disparaged Singapore, an Asian Tiger. Or consider what happened to JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Indonesia. In 2017, the government severed business ties with the bank, eliminating its role as a primary dealer in sovereign-bond auctions. That came after its research division downgraded the nation’s stocks to underweight, citing a “spike in volatility” following Trump’s surprise election win. The response also punished investment bankers for equity research, despite the well-established split between the businesses. That penalty certainly hurt: Indonesia is a mover and shaker in the bond world, with close to 40% of its sovereign issues taken up by foreigners.For UBS, even bigger asset-management fees are at stake. Unlike in the U.S., where passive funds now dominate, China is the last big market on earth where investors still have faith in active managers. That explains why global banks are falling over themselves to bulk up there.When I wrote about this in April, I warned that domestic brokers wouldn’t leave the field to the foreign “barbarians.” A cynic could ask about the conflict of interest apparent in Pig-Gate. After all, core members of the Chinese Securities Association of Hong Kong, which demands Donovan’s dismissal, and the Securities Association of China, which aims to block out UBS, compete with the Swiss bank for China money. In that light, the outcome with Haitong isn’t all that surprising. At the end of the day, beggars can’t be choosers. With its investment-banking business falling behind that of U.S. mega banks and Swiss rival Credit Suisse AG, UBS needs its wealth-management business. In that case, it had better start doing more to please a moody client.To contact the author of this story: Shuli Ren at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Rachel Rosenthal at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Shuli Ren is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asian markets. She previously wrote on markets for Barron's, following a career as an investment banker, and is a CFA charterholder.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
UBS has lost a lead role on a U.S. dollar bond deal for state-backed China Railway Construction Corp, just days after a Chinese outcry over a senior UBS economist's use of "pig" in connection with Chinese food price inflation. While UBS apologised for the remark on Thursday and put the analyst on leave on Friday, the furore led Haitong International Securities, a leading Chinese brokerage, to suspend all business with the Swiss group as some Chinese bankers and analysts criticised the bank for a lack of cultural awareness. On Monday, a spokesman at Chinese infrastructure giant CRCC confirmed it had dropped the Swiss banking giant from the deal, but did not give a reason.
Rating Action: Moody's affirms CRCC's A3 rating and assigns Baa1 subordinated perpetual rating; outlook stable. Global Credit Research- 14 Jun 2019. Hong Kong, June 14, 2019-- Moody's Investors Service ...
Investing.com - Asian markets rose in morning trade on Tuesday, with Chinese stocks outperforming their regional peers on reports of government funding support for major investment projects.
May 10 (Reuters) - China Railway Construction Corp Ltd : * SAYS UNIT'S CONSORTIUM WINS LAND DEVELOPMENT PPP CONTRACT WITH TOTAL INVESTMENT AT ABOUT 4.23 BILLION YUAN ($620.97 million) Source text in Chinese: ...
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of China Railway Construction Corp Ltd and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. This publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future.