5 ms·

It's in the article: > Huawei’s employee ownership claim is untrue because its employees have no control over the trade union’s decisions, the paper says citin

by ukoki 7y ago

It's in the article: > Huawei’s employee ownership claim is untrue because its employees have no control over the trade union’s decisions, the paper says citing China’s Trade Union Law. The employees actually hold “virtual stock” which allows for participation in a profit-sharing scheme, which are canceled when an employee leaves the company and allow no voting rights over the company, it said.

AstralStorm 7y ago
Unless it actually has vote rights, it should be called what it is, corporate bonds.
- ucha 7y ago
  That's not what a bond is.
- dalbasal 7y ago
  The distinctions between stocks and bonds are fairly fluid, in practice. High finance & legals are sophisticated. Stocks and bonds are ultimately contracts and if you're not trading them on a market with standards, they can be written however you want. You can have bonds with all the practical implications of stock and the reverse. Voting rights and fixed interest. No voting rights, but with dividends, etc.
- dis-sys 7y ago
  Google's GOOG shares shareholders do not have the right to vote, it is being traded at $1,236 per share, while GOOGL shares have the right to vote, it is being traded at $1,241 per share, that 0.5% difference is the market pricing of the right to vote.
  - robrenaud 7y ago
    In the context of GOOG vs GOOGL, the voting rights are basically moot. Larry and Sergey's super shares dominate the votes anyway. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/18/why-alphabet-investors-dont-care-about-voting-righ.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/18/why-alphabet-inves...
  - Canada 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Google situation, but in any case you're right. A proper share does not require the holder be entitled to vote. What matters is that the share is the property of its owner. It's not merely a contract, like an option to purchase shares in the future, or employment, or an agreement to be paid royalties or profit. A share is property that is owned in perpetuity or until the corporation is dissolved. It can be bought and sold as though it is just another thing. If Huawei wants to redefine that then we have to evaluate what a corporation is and what is even means to be an "owner" of such a thing.
  - hayd 7y ago
    "which are canceled when an employee leaves the company" This however makes for quite a big difference. How the hell do you sell the damned things? If you accrue many "shares" what's to stop you being fired to nullify them? Hard to see these as valuable without a secondary market and maybe with no liquidity at all...
steve19 7y ago
So it's not state owned but might be state controlled, and ownership could easily be changed without the employees having a say? (I am neither for nor against the company and have no skin in the game)
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  If it’s run by a state approved trade union it’s run by a Communist Party approved trade union in which all senior positions are held by CPC cadres, and possibly all positions. That makes it an organ of the CPC and thereby of the party-state.
- ethbro 7y ago
  You've got it. Similar to Facebook's shareholders, except with more Xi and less Zuckerberg.
- seppin 7y ago
  > So it's not state owned but might be state controlled What's the difference?
hangonhn 7y ago
We are just splitting hairs here. In an authoritarian state with no real "rule of law" (yes there are laws but the party is more powerful than the law and power is completely concentrated in the hands of a few, possibly just one), what does it even mean to not be "state controlled"? Everything in China is controllable by the state. China has never had "rule of law". It's always been a very precocious state when it was able to centralize power since the Qin dynasty. Its rulers has never had to divest that power nor implement any sort of real rule of law. Laws in China serve the state, not the other way around (contrast that with Western liberal democracies). This stems from Qin's Legalist origins and every dynasty since then has inherited that basic idea even while they dressed it up with Confucian ethics. I'm not saying if it is right or wrong but I think some of us who grew up in Western liberal democracies can't even fathom any other systems that may exist and still function well* (depends on your objectives).

by ukoki 7y ago

AstralStorm 7y ago

Unless it actually has vote rights, it should be called what it is, corporate bonds.

ucha 7y ago
That's not what a bond is.
dalbasal 7y ago
The distinctions between stocks and bonds are fairly fluid, in practice. High finance & legals are sophisticated. Stocks and bonds are ultimately contracts and if you're not trading them on a market with standards, they can be written however you want. You can have bonds with all the practical implications of stock and the reverse. Voting rights and fixed interest. No voting rights, but with dividends, etc.
dis-sys 7y ago
Google's GOOG shares shareholders do not have the right to vote, it is being traded at $1,236 per share, while GOOGL shares have the right to vote, it is being traded at $1,241 per share, that 0.5% difference is the market pricing of the right to vote.
- robrenaud 7y ago
  In the context of GOOG vs GOOGL, the voting rights are basically moot. Larry and Sergey's super shares dominate the votes anyway. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/18/why-alphabet-investors-dont-care-about-voting-righ.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/18/why-alphabet-inves...
- Canada 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Google situation, but in any case you're right. A proper share does not require the holder be entitled to vote. What matters is that the share is the property of its owner. It's not merely a contract, like an option to purchase shares in the future, or employment, or an agreement to be paid royalties or profit. A share is property that is owned in perpetuity or until the corporation is dissolved. It can be bought and sold as though it is just another thing. If Huawei wants to redefine that then we have to evaluate what a corporation is and what is even means to be an "owner" of such a thing.
- hayd 7y ago
  "which are canceled when an employee leaves the company" This however makes for quite a big difference. How the hell do you sell the damned things? If you accrue many "shares" what's to stop you being fired to nullify them? Hard to see these as valuable without a secondary market and maybe with no liquidity at all...

steve19 7y ago

So it's not state owned but might be state controlled, and ownership could easily be changed without the employees having a say? (I am neither for nor against the company and have no skin in the game)

barry-cotter 7y ago
If it’s run by a state approved trade union it’s run by a Communist Party approved trade union in which all senior positions are held by CPC cadres, and possibly all positions. That makes it an organ of the CPC and thereby of the party-state.
ethbro 7y ago
You've got it. Similar to Facebook's shareholders, except with more Xi and less Zuckerberg.
seppin 7y ago
> So it's not state owned but might be state controlled What's the difference?

hangonhn 7y ago

We are just splitting hairs here. In an authoritarian state with no real "rule of law" (yes there are laws but the party is more powerful than the law and power is completely concentrated in the hands of a few, possibly just one), what does it even mean to not be "state controlled"? Everything in China is controllable by the state. China has never had "rule of law". It's always been a very precocious state when it was able to centralize power since the Qin dynasty. Its rulers has never had to divest that power nor implement any sort of real rule of law. Laws in China serve the state, not the other way around (contrast that with Western liberal democracies). This stems from Qin's Legalist origins and every dynasty since then has inherited that basic idea even while they dressed it up with Confucian ethics. I'm not saying if it is right or wrong but I think some of us who grew up in Western liberal democracies can't even fathom any other systems that may exist and still function well* (depends on your objectives).