Contemporary Amperex Technology Co Ltd’s (寧德時代) upcoming jumbo listing, which could raise more than US$5 billion, is the type of deal that can inject a much-needed adrenaline shot into a sputtering market like Hong Kong’s. But it is fast becoming a headache for Wall Street banks.
That is because the electric-car battery giant, commonly known as CATL, recently offered a mere 0.2 percent base underwriting fee to bankers, plus possible incentives, according to people familiar with the matter.
That is less than what others have paid recently for similar big listings, and a far cry from the 1.2 percent that data provider LSEG said Chinese issuers typically paid for certain types of share sales such as second listings in the past decade.
Photo: AFP
For Wall Street banks — many of which have their Asia bases in the city — the worry is that rock-bottom fees become the norm, posing another problem in a market that has been in a prolonged slump and increasingly dominated by Chinese underwriters. It is also a sobering reminder of how deals in Hong Kong, and by extension China, have become less lucrative.
“The reality is quite tough for investment bankers from Wall Street banks as Asian clients don’t like to pay fees for their work if there’s not much value added,” said Veronique Lafon-Vinais, a former investment banker of more than two decades, who is now teaching at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s business school. “It’s probably going to get worse, particularly for bankers at US and European firms, as competition from Chinese banks is increasing.”
Chinese banks have reason to get more aggressive to land deals in Hong Kong. Ever since the country’s securities regulator started restricting initial public offerings (IPOs) in the mainland in 2023 to stabilize the stock market, business opportunities for the country’s investment banks have dried up at home. That has made overseas listings such as those in Hong Kong more important.
“Chinese banks have built up their expertise and relationships in recent decades and are now fighting like never before to grab market share from Wall Street firms,” Lafon-Vinais said.
Companies that already trade in mainland China typically pay less to add a listing in Hong Kong than in a first-time IPO. Shenzhen-listed CATL’s proposed fees still stand out. For example, appliance maker Midea Group Co (美的集團), whose shares already traded in mainland China for years, paid 0.6 percent in fixed fees, plus up to 0.2 percent in incentives for its US$4.6 billion listing in September last year.
Bank of America Corp, China International Capital Corp (中國國際金融), CSC Financial Co (中信建投證券) and JPMorgan Chase & Co are set to work with CATL on its listing. Despite the low fees, Wall Street banks still pitched to get on the CATL deal to avoid missing out on what could be Hong Kong’s biggest stock offering this year, people familiar with the matter said.
What is happening in Hong Kong has historical precedents in markets such as India, according to Philippe Espinasse, a former banker who has authored books on Asian IPOs.
“Competition among senior underwriters is increasing, in turn affecting the level of fees,” he said.
For now, the hope is that in Hong Kong, the increase in deal flow makes up for some of the reduced fees that bankers get. IPO proceeds in the city may double to more than US$22 billion this year, thanks to major floats by China-listed firms and the possibility of US-listed Chinese firms seeking second listings on the back of rising geopolitical risks, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sharnie Wong (黃穎珊) said.
Zhang Yazhou was sitting in the passenger seat of her Tesla Model 3 when she said she heard her father’s panicked voice: The brakes do not work. Approaching a red light, her father swerved around two cars before plowing into a sport utility vehicle and a sedan, and crashing into a large concrete barrier. Stunned, Zhang gazed at the deflating airbag in front of her. She could never have imagined what was to come: Tesla Inc sued her for defamation for complaining publicly about the vehicles brakes — and won. A Chinese court ordered Zhang to pay more than US$23,000 in
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday held its first board of directors meeting in the US, at which it did not unveil any new US investments despite mounting tariff threats from US President Donald Trump. Trump has threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on Taiwan-made chips, prompting market speculation that TSMC might consider boosting its chip capacity in the US or ramping up production of advanced chips such as those using a 2-nanometer technology process at its Arizona fabs ahead of schedule. Speculation also swirled that the chipmaker might consider building its own advanced packaging capacity in the US as part
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電) yesterday said that its investment plan in Arizona is going according to schedule, following a local media report claiming that the company is planning to break ground on its third wafer fab in the US in June. In a statement, TSMC said it does not comment on market speculation, but that its investments in Arizona are proceeding well. TSMC is investing more than US$65 billion in Arizona to build three advanced wafer fabs. The first one has started production using the 4-nanometer (nm) process, while the second one would start mass production using the
‘NO DISRUPTION’: A US trade association said that it was ready to work with the US administration to streamline the program’s requirements and achieve shared goals The White House is seeking to renegotiate US CHIPS and Science Act awards and has signaled delays to some upcoming semiconductor disbursements, two sources familiar with the matter told reporters. The people, along with a third source, said that the new US administration is reviewing the projects awarded under the 2022 law, meant to boost US domestic semiconductor output with US$39 billion in subsidies. Washington plans to renegotiate some of the deals after assessing and changing current requirements, the sources said. The extent of the possible changes and how they would affect agreements already finalized was not immediately clear. It was not known