In this process, there is now a message that i remember, a more typical one, namely, the removal of the large shareholders, a statement that obviously has no change in the weight structure of the entire stock. This does not explain what is meant by kicking out the large shareholders, who continue to exist without change, and then say that we have some harsh terms with others that give others more voice. In fact, we look at investors who invest in any business, especially those like this, so-called convertible investors, and each project has a similar clause, which, i say, has happened in our american history. Mr. Wong introduced him as a financial investor in 2006, when his share was around 5 per cent. He did not use the cb entirely, using a part of the cb, some of which was called the turbo, a more professional term, meaning that he had such an interest, that he had not paid in cash at the time, that he had given it to the company, that he had a 5 per cent share of weight, and that it was clear that the details of their articles contained two articles, one to bind mr. Huang, and the other that he had given him a seat on the board. So let's look at other things, like new bridge capital tbg, which invests in daphne, and as a similar investor, he has the same provisions, including, like the recent goldman sachs investment in jiley, as a model for financial investment, and he has the same provisions。
Now that these articles are problematic, it seems to me that the public may be unprofessional, but from what is suggested by professionals, they have a different meaning. This includes me and ben binding some of the terms, making the company passive, and many of them are jokes, and it's not even true what a professional should say. For example, when i was at the most difficult time for the company, when there was no money, when there was a massive decline in bank loans, i used my personal assets to guarantee the company's loans, which was totally unconnected, because at that time the company had not even come in to accept investors at all, and when the company was about to die, we were under so much pressure that it was a contradiction that i wanted to take out the guarantees, because i didn't know whether minada was dead or alive. But i've seen those guys on our team, and everybody's staring at me and saying, "sign it, you don't sign it, you may not live tomorrow." so this thing has something to do with ben's terms. Bene's terms do not contain any such clauses, and all the cb's provisions contain similar provisions, which means that when your company's financial situation breaks, he has a saving clause for investors to redeem. There are many rumours in the media about what we simply don't exist, including about tied management。
Chen xiaoming: it's a very bitter place for me, and in fact i've had a lot of blogs lately that don't look, and i've had a lot of stress from all the voices in it. Many of our executives received threatening phone calls and various forms of harassment. In fact, i feel like i have a few points, and in fact we have never been clear to the media。
For example, who owns this enterprise, mr. Huang guangyu, is undoubtedly the founder of the enterprise, whose growth and development require his previous efforts and contributions. But as a listed company, even if it is a non-listed company, the relationship between the founding shareholders and the company is actually more complex when the company is big, because he has a social responsibility, he has to balance a wide range of interests, he has to work for the future of the enterprise, and you have to match social values, and society will have to accept you, and society will give you a wide variety of resources and opportunities. Of course, there are many components of this society, such as consumers, our various stakeholders, our management teams, our employees, our shareholders, our governments, and so on the whole, we cannot consider the issue in the context of a single shareholder。
I feel that the united states should become a good company. Indeed, mr. Huang has created such a foundation, for example, as a long-range rocket, and if we put it in a higher orbit and become a world-class retailer, he could be the first level of the rocket and put it at a height. But then there was a problem, and to me, i might have been, and my team might have taken on the responsibility of saying that we were going to push it up again, that we were going to push it up again, that we were going to be the second stage of the rocket, and, of course, that we were not going to reach that altitude, and that there might be a third stage that would have sent it to orbit in the future. So my definition is that i'm now the second level of this rocket, and we agree with our desire to make this business a future of excellence and respect. In the course of the enterprise's growth, it requires different stages, and different people need to contribute to its development. If he had just said that because i was a founding shareholder, that the company's death and survival were only about me, i don't think that it should have become such a good respected enterprise。
In fact, from the point of view of a listed company, the same theory is the same, so no one of us can think of a business as our own, so to me, my general position is that i may be part of the second stage of this rocket. I might leave the company in the future, if there was a better team that could take the company to a better place, and i should leave the business from the same point of view, from the point of view of shareholders and from the point of view of managers. At the same time, there are many who say that the united states is a national brand and what kind of national business it is, and that my ideas may actually differ from those. I once told my team that as long as i was in the united states, i wouldn't let any foreign investment become a single major shareholder in the united states. Of course, it's hard for me to say whether it's reasonable, but it's probably also a case in point. Since china's development in the retail sector, especially from the united states and after the merger, was intended for this purpose, it may be difficult for me to give up on this, so many of the accusations made in this regard, i think, may not have been understood, or some other one, or some misleading。
But i'm sure i won't let that happen as long as i'm here for a day. But neither should my equity, which must not change. Because of the growth and development of this enterprise, it requires constant absorption of a variety of nutrients that can support him. How to match the social context at the time, or some of the environmental changes in the industry, to form one of the best models, should not have a framework in which we must not change, which may be difficult for me to accept. So what we're thinking about is thinking about a stronger and better future for business, and doing the right thing for business, which is the purpose of our team as a whole, including after all the changes that took place at the end of 2008, which is indeed very difficult for us to communicate with the public, and perhaps not for many to understand, but we do do everything。
Whose beauty is it
Risheng steel: so, if you come here simply, ask the united states whose country is the united states, the answer should be the united states as a public company, the listed company, the united states as a public corporation, the united states as a nation of all stakeholders, and the united states as a risk-broker
