XCMG less reason to sell 10 million is outrageous.

XCMG <P> offer to give up 3.198 billion JP Morgan Chase, and the choice of the Carlyle bid 20 billion. .Of course, there are 60 million U.S. dollars Carlyle capital injection and 6000 million U.S. dollars on the bet, but this is more like a "clever" arrangement so that the two quotations seem closer. .</ P> <P> recent "Southern Weekend" Ma Tao's report, it should be said for the same Xinhua News Agency reporter Di Wang (Man Chi) Week (National Hung) "is less to sell XCMG 1000000000" on the evidence provided .can be regarded as Mr. Wang "rehabilitated." .XCMG sell 10 billion was less sure, the key is less reason to sell 10 billion is established. .</ P> <P> XCMG spokesman made many explanations for this, but explained it is somewhat irregular. .</ P> <P> outrageous one of the reasons: to maintain the relative stability of the core team </ P> <P> have been the case in most M & A will have a similar provision, but the acquisition of the requesting party is generally the aim is to ensure that the enterprise .smooth transition. .But outrageous is that in the case of Xugong deal, the terms offered by the acquiree, and select it as a reason for low prices, in fact, it is equivalent to XCMG asset management as a negative .. .</ P> <P> result is: as long as the other party is willing to accept the management team, Xuzhou SASAC to less money. .Outrageous second reason: to maintain the same XCMG brand as a private equity fund Carlyle Group, the use of XCMG brand is that it should be the only choice, reasonably Carlyle must pay transfer fees or royalties brand. .However, in the case of Xugong deal, an assessment of 80 billion brand value, not only did not get anything in return, but also become negative assets; was going to make money conditions, but becomes a loss. .</ P> <P> result: as long as you agree to use the brand XCMG Xuzhou SASAC may have less money. .</ P> <P> ridiculous reason three: on the liabilities </ P> <P> acquired in all cases, the acquirer on the liabilities will generally have terms of risk control. .JP Morgan raised by the implicit contingent liabilities can be said XCMG is fair and reasonable charge, and Carlyle is willing to unconditionally assume liability risk is counterintuitive. .Unless there is full confidence in the risk of liability to ensure that the scale, otherwise, I do not dare to make any business decision-making as with Carlyle. .Carlyle's decision-making are so weird. .</ P> <P> ridiculous reason four: on the tender offer </ P> <P> tender offer means that the purchaser acquired the non-Xugongkeji Xugong assets, that is, the outstanding shares of listed companies. .Than originally Xugong another acquisition by another asset, to pay the cost of acquisition is another matter of course; the Carlyle tender offer of 8 billion in funds included in the total price of the acquisition of Xugong is unreasonable ., not to mention, the tender offer is simply impossible. .</ P> <P> As JP Morgan said Xugong on the disposition of the tender offer is simply not credible, but also against the business common sense. .The interpretation of work by Xu, JP Morgan Chase also tender offer money out of the offer from the 3.198 billion yuan, that is, whether to buy Xugong assets, or to buy Xugong shares outstanding plus XCMG assets, JP Morgan Chase are .only a 3.198 billion yuan, it sounds like is an international company as large. .</ P> <P>, of course, perhaps there are other reasons that are hard Xugong. .But since the matter has been made public, and Xu for a thorough explanation might work to set the record straight. .I think this should be is what most people expect. .</ P>.