You're listening to Asia Centric from Bloomberg Intelligence, the podcast that explores the big ideas and trends moving money across the region. I'm John Lee in Hong Kong.
And I'm Kai te Dmitriyeva, also in Hong Kong.
John.
It's hard to fathom right now, but there was a time when the US and China actually got along, when trade investment between the two countries was flourishing. Rather than the current period we've got tensions and tariffs.
Our guest today, Weijian Shan, had a front row seat during this exciting period. He's the executive chairman of PAG, an alternative investment firm focused on the Asia Pacific region with fifty five billion dollars in assets under management. He's also the author of three books, including one of my personal favorites on China, Out of Gobi, My Story of China and America. Welcome Weijin Shan to Asia Centric.
Thank you, and Sean.
I know you prefer to be called that, even though that.
Was my last name, my family name. Everybody calls me find that last name Sean.
Good to know Sean. Many people might know you as a pioneer of private equity investing in Asia. What they might not know is that you were also a professor at the Wharton School, and Janet Yellen actually was your academic advisor at Berkeley. She also wrote the intro to the book that John just mentioned. So before discussing your day job and private equity, I wanted to get your thoughts on what's happening in China's economy. You know, there's been a lot. We just had several rounds of stimulus
announced by authorities. Still seems like it falls short of removing all real estate curbs, which is something you had spoken about with US earlier this year. So, given everything that's happening, given what officials have announced, is it enough do you think to finally jumpstart the economy in China?
Whether or not the measures taken by the Chinese government since I would say September twenty fourth, when they announced a major monetary package to stimulate the economy, I think it's too early to tell. In two ways. First, we don't see or I don't know if it's a full
package as yet. What they announced on September twenty fourth was a package to stimulate the economy, but in monetary terms only and that is they cut the interest rates, they cut the reserve ratios, and they released liquidity into the system. But that's on the monetary side, and I think the market was respecting more measures. On the physical side. They have made some announcement, but I don't think that's completed.
Some measures may have to be taken after further internal process, for example the approval of the Standing Committee of the People's Congress. So I don't think that the other shoe has completely dropped. With regard to the market. As we have seen, the market has reacted quite positivity. In fact, the first announcement took the market by surprise with regard
to its magnitude. But I think the market is also waiting for whatever physical measures then the government is going to announce, and whether it's going to be a big package or they're going to release small timeages, one step at the time. But the stock market has reacted quite positively, and if you look at data on the housing market in the first two weeks of October, it has been positive. And the good question is whether or not this rebound will be sustained.
Do you think it will be well?
Again, it's too early to tell because more measures hopefully will be taken. And I think that in order to completely turn around expectations, which is the key, the measures will have to be bold. It has to be very big, and it has to be consistent and has to be continuous. So this is a very early stage, and I don't think that we have seen the full impact of the measures on the economy. So it's too early to tell. And the hope is that the policy makers have made
decisions to turn around the economy and the market. Now they will have to own it, and therefore they will have to make sure that the measures are sufficient to sustain the recovery, not only in the stock market, in the housing market, but also in the confidence in the marketplace.
You mentioned fiscal policy. Now a lot of pundits are waiting for a fiscal berzuokah, so to speak, Why do you think the authorities have been so reluctant so far to release these measures.
I think in the past few years the policy makers have stuck to the impressive rule that physical deficit should now exceed three percent of GDP, and there's no such fast rule anywhere in the world. At one time in the past, some Western countries thought it's prudent not to exceed three percent of GDP. But if you look at the United States in twenty twenty and twenty one, deficit reached teen point five percent. Currently, I think it's about seven percent, So to stick to the three percent rule
is too potent, too conservative. Another thing I think that has prevented them from taking variable measures is that every policy has pros and costs, and if you focus on the cost, then you don't want to do anything because if become reserverse, we're not the cost. For example, China's interest rate prevading interest rate at this point is still about four percent. Inflation rate is zero point four percent CPI last month, so basically it doesn't exist, and in
fact there's deflationary pressure. But as the fact was raising interest rates, and if China cuts interest rates, of course that food pressure on the change rate. Cut these interest rates just about a month ago, I think they were very reluctant to eat on the money to resign right. So I think that's probably a reason why no older
measures have been taken until very recently. But now I think the priority has shifted towards making sure that they will achieve the growth target of five percent and if you do do something bolder, more aggressive, you will not be able to do it. And that's why I think they are rolling out these measures just to make sure that they will achieve the target and to make sure that the growth can be sustained as well. It's not just for this year and hopefully for a longer term.
Do you expect, by the way, the China to make around five percent growth this year?
I never had any doubt since the beginning of twenty twenty two. If they announced a growth target, they will be more or less achieve that target. I don't know if they will do it precisely, but around that number I have no doubt at all they will be able to achieve it. The reason for that is very simple. It is because China has more policy space, policy rules than any other major economy in the world. I already mentioned.
On the monetary side, interest rate remains quite high. Last year at this time was more than five percent, and there's no inflation, so there's a room to ease on the monetary side. In fact, if we look at another metric, which is the reserve requirement ratio for banks to park their departits with a central bank, even with fifty five vis points cut on September twenty fourth, the average reserve
ratio remains seven percent. One percentage drop on the reserve ratio would release through treating R and B about three hundred billion US donors liquidity into the system, So they have a lot of room to stimulate the economy on the monetary side. On the physical side, China's central governments that as a percentage of GDP is among the lowest
among major economies in the world. If they want to expand on the physical side, they have plenty of room to do so, and that's why I'm quite confident they will be able to achieve their target if they wish to, because they have the tools to do so. In the United States, for example, the fat didn't have any policy space to ease on the monetary side in the past two years because they have to contain inflation, right, so
they could only tightened. But that's not the situation in China today, so there's.
A lot more policy space that could help with growth. How concerned are you though about deflation and the potential for sort of a deflationary spiral in China or do you think that the policy space kind of addresses that as well.
Yes, I think that again deflation is a result of function of monetary policy being too tight, and if you loosen on the monetary side, obviously that would help on price levels. I think the problem with deflationary pressure in China is not so much the result of monetary policy, but as a result of over competition almost every major industry that you can think of. You know, just look at the electric vehicle sector. There are probably one or two hundred even makers in China, maybe more than all
the even makers combined in the world. Right, so the competition is cut throat, and they compete of course by depression prices, and I think that's a major deflator of the economy. But again, you know, if you stimulate the economy with monetary policies, you should be able to help change the expectations on the price side and therefore hopefully raised price levels across the board.
Do you see that happening anytime in the next year, in the next twelve months.
I think again, if they're consistent with the stiumulus policies, both on the monitory side on the physical side, you would expect that to happen. Where does that money go, right, so it has to have some impact on price levels eventually. Yes. And for example, you know, if we look at the property market, housing market expectations hopefully are shifting. We don't
know if has completely shifted. But in the first two weeks of October, especially during this national holiday period, you have seen prices stabilizing in the property sector, but you have seen the sales increasing quite dramatically. So I think it takes time. But if the policies don't continue to support the signals send out on September twenty fourth with a big monetary steamulus package, then things may face all
out right, So I hope they keep doing that. I mean, they can't keep doing that, but it shows a change in policy attitude to support the economy. And then once they made up their mind to do so, you would expect that they have the tools to achieve their goals.
Asia Centric is produced by Bloomberg Intelligence, where more than five hundred experienced analysts and strategists work around the clock to bring you timely, world class research. Our coverage spans two hundred market indices, currencies, commodities, and industries, as well as over two thousand equities and credits. If you like what you hear, don't forget to subscribe and shair Sean, you did mention over capacity is an issue and if
I could digress. Bloomberg News recently interviewed former President Donald Trump and he mentioned that is his favorite word in the English dictionary. I wanted to get your views. What's your views on the impact of tariffs and how can it impact China's economic growth trajectory.
We were talking about whether or not China's stimulus measures announced recently would have the desired effect on the market, on the property market, on the stock market, and on the economy in general. And I just said, it's too early to tell because barely a month has passed since they made the first announcement, and they may announce new
measures in the days to come. But when it comes to the trade war, we've had a history already because trade war started in twenty eighteen during the first trum administra. And then that's six years ago, so we have enough time to observe whether or not the trade war has achieved this intended effect for the United States and for
its effect on the Chinese trade or the economy. And I must say that data tell us it has produced no effect on the Chinese economy at all, in the sense of denting its esports capability or retarding its economic growth. In twenty eighteen, the year before the trade war started, or the year in which the trade war started, China's total esports represented about thirteen percent of the world's total. Today is fifteen percent. Actually, Chinese esports have increased.
Also diversified more Southeast Asia trade.
Precisely, China's esports as a percentage of American's total imports have decreased. China's total esports have not decreased. An American's trade deficit has not narrowed. So the trade war has not achieved the objective of reducing deficit for the United States. It has not achieved the objective of reducing a sports for China. So what has it achieved. It has made the worlding called me much less efficient. You're talking about moving from the most efficient producer to second best. Right.
It has made American cornmy less efficient. It has contributed to inflation. So if that's the history, if that's the track record, you can imagine that more terriffs is not going to achieve any further results than what we have seen already. Those are just fashion numbers, right, and anybody can check.
Do you think it'll get harder though? You know, we have a candidate, Donald Trump who's proposing sixty percent tariffs. Would that change the math?
It will get harder, But I would say that that's not going to be very good for the United States, for sur prices are going to go up because consumers hate the terriffs. And if America does not buy from China because it's too expensive, then will buy from other countries where costs may be higher. I read an article
by Boomberg on trailers sold in the United States. You know, now trade is very much done by big containers across the ocean, and then once they land somewhere, then you will have to use trailers to take all these containers
to different places. This article, which is quite lengthy but very interesting, basically told a story of a Chinese Soe state owned company being a dominant supplier of trailers in the US market before the Biden administration imposed a two hundred and twenty percent tariff on all the trailers imported
from China. So this company set up a production facility in the United States and continue to sell to the US market and then this Chinese company filed a lawsuit against this American competitor for importing components from China without being the twenty percent terrors.
I believe that was Shawn don In. That was a Shawn don In special exactly.
Then this American company got into serious trouble. So these two companies are both in trouble now, and the sales in the United States almost collapsed as a result of these terraffs, which we're supposed to protect the US market and US producers ended up not protecting anyone right. And I also think that a major vulnerability in the Chinese economy its dependent on esports on foreign markets. I think it's a good thing for China not to rely so
heavily on a sport markets on foreign markets. Especially today, protectionism miss on the rise and many countries are wary about Chinese products flooding into their markets. At the same time, domestic demand is insufficient. So I think that China needs to shift its growth model, and I've been talking about this in the past ten years, away from investments and esports in the direction private consumption, which represents only about forty percent of Chinese GDP.
Compared to something like seventy seventy five in the US.
Sixty eight percent private consumption for the United States. Right, so China needs to shift its growth model in order to sustain is economic growth. There's another thing, you know. The biggest advantage the Chinese economy has more than any other major economy by a big margin, is the savings rate. That gives its a huge advantage because savings rate, in
terms of macroeconomics is roughly equal to investment rate. So the reason that has been able to grow so rapidly in the past few decades, it's because it has such a high savings rate that it's fixed asse investments have been representing about forty five percent of GDP year after year. But what's China doing right now with that high savings rate. It exports it to the United States. Have you noticed that it has three trillion dollars of foreign change reserves.
Not long ago, it was the largest owner of treasure bills to assumee about trillion dollars. Now I think they have trimernated it down to about eight hundred or more than eight hundred bill US dollars. Still we're in a large amount. So the esports savings to the United States helping America to be able to grow its economy, and
America doesn't appreciate it. Right, So if the external environment the theories, then China will have to focus on investing that money in the domestic market again, shifting away from investments and esports to private consumption. I think in the long run that's what China should do.
I guess how do you spur that to happen?
Though?
That's sort of the trillion dollar question.
Yes, yes, you can't because again I've been talking about this for probably more than a decade, and it's very difficult to change it. Because if the esport market is so good, now, why don't esport during the COVID years as you remember in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, and China was exporting everything to all over the world and esports went up very substantially during that period of time. So I don't think left to their own devices, they would be able to make the shift. Because you can't
control all theate owned companies. You can't just tell them not to sell to esport markets, but to sell to the domestic market or somehow to help with domestic consumption. You can't do it. You know, it's like what Adam Smith said, everybody is for himself and there's no visible hand directing all these parties. Unless the esport market somehow
becomes more difficult, and that is a trail war. That's why I don't think that trade war is necessarily bad thing for China for the long term, and many people don't realize that. And I think that they will have to be forced to focus on domestic market if the conditions of foreign markets become very bad, are too expensive.
You know, think about it. If the Biden administration has raised terrors on Chinese eees to what one hundred percent or more, I don't know, if it has fast Congress, but you know that makes it very difficult for them to ask for to the US market.
Then what do they do?
They will have to focus on the domestic market.
Sean, We've talked about a lot of things like the geopolitical risks, the threat of tariffs, over capacity in certain industries, and I think you mentioned evs, but then you also said the potential growth of the China consumer sector. Now, you run one of the largest alternative investment managers, and some of your investments are in China. How do all these views you know, coalesce into investing in China right now?
Well, first of all, PAG my firm is Asia focused investment firm, and China is one of our own markets. Yep, it's not even the biggest one in the splitting your point, because China probably represents about thirty or less of our investment portfolio. We're very active in Japan, in Australia, in India, in Southeast Asia in addition to China. In Asia, the total GDP of Asia Pacific, by our calculation is about thirty three treating US donors. China is eighteen treating, so
it's more than a half. So as a rational investor, you know China has to be part of it. EU is about seventeen treating dollars in GDP, so China is bigger than EU. And China is a single market, whereas EU has single currency, but twenty seven countries, different laws, different languages, different culture, very fragmented as Southeast Asia. So China is part of Asia and China is important for US. I think that different types of investors who look at
Asian markets very differently. For example, if you are a venture campal firm, then the most interesting place is China. Why would you say that, because on June the twelfth of this year, the Economists ran a cover page article calling China a technology and scientific silverpower. Today. In August, Australian Strategical Policy Institute published what they call twenty year Leading Technology Track Study. They follow sixty four leading technologies
in the world since two thousand and three. In two thousand and three, of the sixty four leading technologies in the world, and they measure by the biggest impact that your research output would have in the literature and so forth. In two thousand and three, of the sixty four leading technologies, how many do you think America was leading twenty years ago?
Would it be like fifty of those sixty.
Four sixty sixty of the sixty four sixty America is leading by twenty twenty three, how many do you think America I'm.
Still going to strike out a guess and say that it's maybe half that.
Actually eleven percent of sixty four and that is seven, So fell drastically seven of the sixty four. What about the rest China now needs? In fifty seven of the sixty four, eighty nine percent of the leading technologies in the world. So if you're venture capital firm, you would invest in the United States, no question about it. Now, high impact research doesn't necessarily translate into high technology products. You know, I have to caution you in this regard,
but it's a good measure of what is to come. Right. So, if you're a VC firm, there are only two places I think you need to invest when it's the United States, which is still leading in applications in high technology, and the other is China. There are basically no other and we are not a VC firm, so we don't invest
in startup companies and all that. If you're growth company that is growth investor, which were not, then you can find growth opportunities in China, in Southeast Asia, any India, not so much in Japan because there's hardly any growth Japan. But if you're a buy on firm, you would invest in large markets where you would see very large scale businesses,
and that would be China, Japan, Australia and India. We're a buy on firm, so we're most active in those forem markets in Asia, but when it comes to China, our strategy is to focus on leading businesses which cater to private consumption I just mentioned, I think the future is private consumption. Right, the country will have to shift this growth model away from investments, away from a sports
into private consumption. Even though as a percentage of GDP you will see that the Chinese number is still very small. That is, private consumption represents about forty percent of Chinese GDP. But in abtrual numbers, you know, China has been increasing very fast and we think that's where in the future is. I have to emphasize that you need to invest in leading businesses, not just everybody, because it's cut through the
competition over there. So you have to invest in businesses which have very high entry barrier and competitive advantage which cater to private consumption. And we have been sticking to that policy for the past twenty years.
So on the flip side, would you avoid some of these over capacity exporters like EVS technology job.
You have used the term overcapacity several times, if you know this, I never used that term because it's never intentioned. It's just that the market is so competitive. Whenever there's something new, everybody wants to do it. You know what, as I mentioned, China's advantage is it has highs the savings rate in the world, so there's a capital to do it. So sometimes Western countries is talk about China's overcapacity as if that's a strategy somehow, so.
We should maybe change into over competition.
Or exactly several iterations of this word.
But you know, the truth matter is that whenever there's something new, many firms would swamp into it, whether it's solar panels, beads in battery or ev or anything. You know, China is very quick to jump on new things. And yes, those sectors may be very hot, but how many of them are making a profit. And for us, we have to make a profit and very high returns our investors is sept twenty percent plus i RR that is internal
rate of return. So it would be very difficult for us to make this kind of return investing in what is considered to be hot industries where combination is too ferocious for you to make your margins.
It sounds like you're already like even during the pandemic, and even now, it seems like that private consumption side, at least with the companies you're exposed to. Are you still seeing that kind of consumption? Are you still seeing the returns that you would expect or is this more of a patience kind of thing.
Oh? Absolutely. I typically don't talk about what we do publicly. We have an obligation to tell our investors.
What we write, but you feel comfortable sharing, right, But in private aguity, we're not consumer prolat company ourselves, so we don't need to promote our brand. But you know, there are a few deals I can use as examples because they are quite public already. Recently, we and our co investors took over control of the largest shopping mall manager in the world, and that is in China. Now
we renamed it as new Land Commercial Management. We manage five hundred or so shopping malls throughout the country, second largest in the world. It's called Signon Properties in the United States, which manages probably less than half of the floor space than we do. We put in more than
eight billion US dollars. That's a very big number. But this company makes about more than one billion dollars of net profit every year in twenty twenty one, twenty two, twenty twenty three, and we expect it to make this amount of money this.
Year as well. We're talking about net profit without any debt. This company has know that until recently, when we take over control of this company, we had occupancy rate of nineteen nine percent in twenty twenty two. Remember that a COVID year right O rate of our malls averaged ninety eight point seven percent last year. This year is actually a little less, but it is still more than ninety eight percent. It's a dating company in the world in
managing shopping malls. And what do shopping malls do? They sell to consumers, But you can make very good profit at of a business like this. On December thirtieth, twenty twenty two, we coos transaction of about five hundred million dollars into a company called IgE, which I would describe as Netflix of China, the largest video streaming company in the country. It's very profitable business just by what they do. A few years back, we invested very small amount of money.
You know, I just mentioned two big deals. We invested about one hundred and thirty million dollars in the company called China Music Corporation and eventually we merged it with c Q Music of ten cent and then in one public in the United States, we acted it from an investment our one hundred and thirty million dollars turned it
into two point six million dollars. So great. Yes, not every not every deal that we have done is less successful, is possible, But what are in Coumbon among those three deals? They all have to do with private consumption.
So you like private consumption in China. But you also mentioned is Japan the biggest dum country where you invest right now and one of the biggest, one of the biggest okay, So what's that strategy?
Yes, family is very different Japan. For the past three decades, there has been hardly any growth, right, So how do you make money as private equity investor in Japan if you don't play the stock market? Japan since about ten years ago started to change. Used to be the case if you're an activist investor in the stock market, you will be considered hostile. But since the Zombi administration, that attitude policy attitude completely changed because they wanted to improve
the efficiencies of large Japanese firms. So Japanese firms started to restructure to carve out none core businesses to improve their efficiency and therefore creating a market for private equity buy on the firms. Then you ask question if there's hardly any growth. How do you make your returns of twenty thirty percent? The answer is unlike anywhere else in Asia, Japan has a very easy monetary policy. Just a few months ago, the benchmark interest rate was still negative ten
basis points. Now it's zero percent. That's already a RaSE to zero percent. So it's like the game in the buyout market played in the United States since two thousand and nine. In that with QE, interest rate was practically zero. So you do LBO leveraged buyout. You leveraged to the hilt, like six times ev DO, seven times v DO or
even more. And since money is almost like no cost, interest rate is so low, you would be able if there's good enough pass flow, generate good returns for equity investment. So in Japan that game can still be played very well because America's interest rate is now five percent and China has cut its interest rates, but the prevading interest rate is still more than four percent. Japan is zero percent, So that's what you do. LBO all the style Sould.
I'd love to talk about some of your books, and I wanted to start off by talking about your second book, Money Games. You discussed your time at an American private equity firm, Newbridge Capital, and for the listeners, it later changed its name to TPG. But basically, you acquired a venerable Korean bank, Career First Bank, which collapsed during the financial crisis and.
What's nineteen ninety seven, nineteen ninety seven Asian financial crisis?
Asian financial crisis. Yeah, but and you were able to acquire that bank. But what really strung was that the competitive landscape was so different then. It seemed like there were very few private equity companies that you were competing with. I think for that deal, you're competing with maybe just Standard Chartered and HSBC.
Now we were competing with HSBC HSBC. Eventually we exited from the investment, saw the bank to stand their charter. Yeah.
But basically, like if you look at the industry now, there's so many private equity it's no longer like a new business. How has it changed in the last twenty years. How competitive is it right now to get deals done?
It has changed a great deal. In nineteen ninety seven, when the Asian Financial crisis first happened, a number of Korean banks failed and nationalized by the government, including Career First bank, which we a New Bridge Capital which was affiliated with TBG. As you noted, eventually we changed the name of Newbridge Capital to Tvgation and we were one of the very few private emputy investors and we were one of the fewer buyout investors in private acuity industry.
So when Korea got into trouble as a result of Asian financial crisis, there was a massive capital flight. At the end of nineteen ninety seven, Korea had only about twenty billion dollars left in its foreign change reserves. Just to put things into perspective, we now manage more than
fifty billion dollars. And Korea was the tenth largest economy in the world at that time and today as member of OECD, and as the tenth largest economy in the world, it had only twenty billion dollars left in its conference, which would last them about three days. So IMF came to Career's rescue with fifty eight billion dollars financial package or rescue package, with the condition that Career would have
to sell when miss banks to foreign investors. Why such a condition because the International Multinatural Institution believed the Korea's banking system failed for lack of credit culture throughout the system and that could only be brought in from outside. So Morgan Stanley was engaged to find a buyer for
Careers Bank. There was another bank for sale called Sold Bank, which eventually was now sold and Morgenstandy sent out forty invitations all the leading financial institutions in the world, only
HSBC and new Bridge Capital showed up. A new Bridge Capital was the only one private firm to have shown up, and Newbridge Capital at the time was only managing less than one hundred million dollars and at the time of closing the transaction, we increased our AUM that is capital under management to about five hundred million dollars and we had to raise capital in a hurry to close the transaction. So that was the early days of private equity in Asia.
Today I just mentioned we put together a dual of eight billion dollars. So at the time of Asian financial crisis, it was imaginable, right. My third book, Money Machine, is a story about Newbridge Capital buying control of a Chinese national bank. That's a very unique deal. It has never happened before, has never happened after that, a foreign investor buying control of National Bank in China. We invested hundred and fifty million donors and eventually we took out after
five years. Two point four billion dollars one hundred and fifty million donors was considered to be a big deal at that time yep.
But even in that transaction there wasn't that many competitors. It sounded like you were competing with a financial institution in Taiwan.
But that's what we did, compete with the institution. But in Taiwaiian.
Yes, if a deal like you know, Shinzhen Development Bank or Career Fast Bank came out, Now, how long would the list be of potential suitors. I'd imagine to be like massive.
Not necessarily when we acquired control of this shopping mode manager I just mentioned that happened just this year. There were no competitors, So different market is very different. Maybe I should digress a little bit to explain why that is case. In China, in private, you almost never do a deal through option process. Is almost always finantial negotiation. In Japan you almost always do a deal through option process. As in the United States, as in Europe. Why is
not the case? That is because in Asia, by and large, Japan is a mature market where trust level is very high, so one firm is not sufficiently differentiated from another. You know, whether it's PAG or Bain or KKR, from the point of view of the seller, they're all the same. And in China it's still a rather nascent market, and brand name in such a market becomes very important. And if you have a brand, you are differentiated from the rest of the pack. It's not just a matter that you
have capital. People have to know have you done duals of this magnitude? Have you been successful? Can I trust my company to you? Even though I get out, I still care about the future of this company. So once you build a brand name there, then you will get more than your fair share of the market. So in different markets, you know, the market dynamics are completely different.
We always like to ask our guests at the end, is there anything else that you wanted to highlight, anything we missed, or maybe you want to tell us about a forthcoming book.
I wrote three books, and not from the perverse of just telling a story, but I wanted to feel what I consider to be voiced in the literature. My first book is about the experiences of I and my peers through the Cultural Revolution of China, when China was extremely poorant I was making one dollar a month for many years as a hard labor in the Gobi Desert, and then crossing over into a period when China opened up
and the economy, of course developed very strongly. I just thought that there was no such book in the English literature. Since I lived through it, I should write a book about it. Private equity has become a major industry, as we all know. Harry Kravitz of KKAR likes to say that any idiot combined business is what happens afterwards that really matters. Whether or not you make money for your investors,
that really matters. So it's important to know what happens after by a deal, you know, and there are books like Barbarians at the Gate, which talks about the deal making part of that transaction, but there was no book by the insider talking about how did you transform the business? What did you do with the business? Did you add value to that business eventually? How did you get out?
And I thought, well, since there's so much interest on private equity, and I've gone through a lot of experiences, and I was in the position to write such books and I did No, I don't have a proverse anymore. Therefore, I don't think I'm going to write another book.
Well, if we see consumption coming back big in China, you're going to be the first person that all the publishers will be calling.
Well, thank you very much.
Well, it's been a fascinating discussion on China's economy, the private equity industry in Asia, and also a discussion on your three books. Thank you Sean for coming on the show.
Has to be a pleasure, and thank you.
Kited Mitrieva in Hong Kong.
I'm John Lee, also in Hong Kong. This podcast was produced by Clara Chen and you've been listening to the Asia Century podcast