At present, the common form is mutual insurance.
Yesterday, *ST Jiao Shan said that he would provide joint liability guarantee for Shanxi 3D liquidity loan of 50 million yuan. As of the date of announcement, *ST Jiao Shan's total external guarantee has reached 450 million yuan, including 250 million yuan for Shanxi Sanwei guarantee, accounting for 55.6% of its total guarantee. It is worth mentioning that *ST Jiao Shan's net profit in 2008 and 2009 was-238 million yuan and-745 million yuan respectively, and its performance in the first quarter of this year was not satisfactory. Shanxi Sanwei is neither a subsidiary of *ST Jiao Shan nor related to * ST. Why did *ST Jiao Shan take the risk of providing such a huge guarantee for an unrelated company after losing money for two consecutive years?
Get something for nothing As early as 2009, *ST Jiao Shan and Shanxi Sanwei signed a mutual guarantee agreement to provide mutual guarantee for both parties to carry out bank credit and bidding financing business. Although *ST Jiao Shan's asset-liability ratio is above 70%, Shaanxi Sanwei frequently lends a helping hand to it. Up to now, Shanxi Sanwei has guaranteed 269 million yuan for *ST Jiao Shan.
Guarantee types such as *ST Jiao Shan and Sanjin Sanwei are not isolated cases, and the domino effect caused by mutual guarantee is not unheard of. In February of this year, the bankruptcy and reorganization of *ST Jinhua made the western Liaoning guarantee circle between *ST Zinc Industry and Jincheng Co., Ltd. surface.
Overguaranteed type
On April 1 day, Yin Tian Holdings indicated that it intends to provide 6.5 billion yuan loans to banks and other financial institutions for its subsidiary Yin Tian Communication, and assume corresponding guarantee responsibilities according to its shareholding ratio. By the end of 2009, the net assets of Yin Tian Holdings were only 2.2 billion yuan, and the guarantee of 6.5 billion yuan was more than three times its net assets, which really made people feel a cold sweat. More seriously, Yin Tian Holdings has been in a state of over-guarantee in recent years. According to the annual report, the company's total guarantees in 2007, 2008 and 2009 were 3.245 billion yuan, 365.438+0./kloc-0.70 billion yuan and 3.787 billion yuan respectively, accounting for 228.7 1%, 202.06% and 207.27% of the company's net assets in the same period.
In addition to Yin Tian Holdings, five companies including *ST Jinbei, Zhongguancun, Xinhuajin, Wan Jiale and Chongqing-Hong Kong-Kowloon also have similar over-guarantee problems. WIND statistics show that the total guarantees of the above companies accounted for 88.2%, 65,438+0.84%, 65,438+0.46%, 65,438+0.22% and 65,438+0.00% of the net assets respectively last year. Once the risk is detonated, the above-mentioned companies can't get rid of the quagmire of guarantee even if they go bankrupt.
Guarantee accident type
*ST Yuanfa's recent lawsuits are all due to two guarantees for Shanghai Huayuan Knitting many years ago.
In 2005, *ST Yuanfa provided joint liability guarantee for Huayuan Knitting Loan of RMB 65,438+0,654,380+0,000. I don't know if there is a problem with the operation or the capital chain. Huayuan Knitting, which should have repaid the loan in 2006, has been delayed again and again, and *ST Yuanfa has also become the object of bank debt collection, which is riddled with lawsuits. The lawsuit lasted for four years. Just yesterday, *ST source was returned and received the second verdict from the Jinshan District People's Court in Shanghai. Although the court ordered Huayuan Knitting to repay the loan and the corresponding interest within 10, it is not known whether Huayuan Knitting has the financial resources to repay it.
It is not uncommon for listed companies to be implicated or even "accepted by others" because of the accident of the guarantee object. Just last month, many properties owned by Gaoxin Development continued to be seized by the court because of the guarantee of a loan of 80 million yuan in 2003. The reporter learned that this is not the only trouble caused by the guarantee problem in high-tech development. In 2007, because of the previous guarantee, the company also seized its land and real estate.