What Happened to Korea's Biggest Shipping Line? 

LOVE your content! Please make a video about Metaverse its impact on society, new opportunities, and your views on early investing in companies as roblox, fb or nvidia. Also it would be interesting on discusing the impact of metaverse in the semicoductor industry. Thanks!

You seem to have lost your oomph, dude ! The writing doesn't excite anyone and the 'reader' sounds soul-less.

Improve audio quality. Voice very low

Could you do a video explaining COSCO (Chinese Shipping Company), it seems to be the only massive shipping company in China, or maybe it's made up of many companies, I am not too sure. Also, I heard it is growing a lot. Is it an efficient SOE, or is its growth on debt and government subsidies?

What happened to your audio? It is so weak.

Ah...yes family a wonderfull recipe for disaster

Reads like a horrible kdrama Korean Chaebols really rather die with their shares than live with a bailout. Weird as hell

Maybe the oil spill in SF Bay had something to do with their unfavorable outcome?

Nepotism fails again

So she didn't assess where she was and took a side.

Sad

Where are you working now

@@zohaibrizvi3604 Maersk..

@@friendlychemist5587 share your contact details

@@zohaibrizvi3604 why should i share my contact details with you? I dont even know who you are.

@@friendlychemist5587 i was a part of hanjin in Pakistan may be you dont remember me

Germany had Hamburg Süd, but TUI the then owners of Hapag Lloyd wanted to sell, to concentrate on its toruism assets. TUI itself is the former Preussag, which had a lot of industrial assets(they were found as a privitaziation of Prussian mining companies). Basicly the German government stepped in as Hapag Lloyd was a solid buinsess and offered a loan to make sure the sell goes through. Hapag Lloyd never used the line of credit. They managed to place $500million of bonds in 2009, that made the line of credit unnecessary.

As manufacturing moved on to China, Japan and Korea industries stalled. They covered up the decline of their industries through accounting fraud. It was not that they were corrupt, they were trying to keep their empires alive, and fraud, tax cheating and other mechanisms all came in to play to try to save them.

As trade was lost to China, the big companies began lost revenue coverups to stay financially afloat. It was not apparent fraud for greed's sake.

Those last three items will cause the fall of any business and it happens all of the time. In fact, we see it happening in the CCP. Xi recently rid the CCP of a LOT of corrupt politicians and 120 top generals. Xi, Trump and Putin are all working together in a fight against the Cabal in all three countries...the battle between good vs evil.

@@millerscorner2 Xi is NOT

I still have my DVD copy of their attempt at a commercial with the tagline “your choice, your success” . 2007 they tried to do a major revamp of their US customer service team on top of changing contract formats, bunker clauses, and got bedazzled by CRM systems

Surprised (or maybe not surprised) to find you here. I watch your videos often.

@@sw36jl hello :) asianometry good channel too so yeah

I would assume most "standard" things are just things that get widely adopted. Like how the world has generally adopted metric to be the measuring standard, while American still uses imperial.

Isn't that the same thing?

A shipping container is basically the trailer part of a tractor trailer without wheels. The length of the trailer is determined by the safe turning radius of the load which is dictacted by physics and hence pretty much internationally uniform. 😁😁😁

Then those on top will never take the bailout. Since they are the one who decide if or not to take the bailout.

@@blackwingz55 True enough. Particularly as companies that need a HUGE bailout are usually run by the most venal and self-serving types of executives.

@@dewittbourchier7169 how old r u? If you still don’t realize that the rich&elite are worth more as a single individual then 10,000 workers then idk what to tell you. As it is said “all people are created equal, but some are more equal then others!” I am not saying it is fair, or even necessarily 100% true, I am however saying that it is indeed the reality we reside in!

Well in S Korea the economy is quite reliant on these family-led conglomerates & their leadership though e.g. there've been petitions for Samsung's CEO to be pardoned from prison after he was convicted of bribery, as people believed he'd be able to negotiate for more vaccines to be sold to S Korea (& probably help manage its relations with the USA e.g. with the building of a new factory in Texas)

Wikipedia is an Enemy military organisation. Its purpose is disinformation.

Wikipedia is a military organisation. 🪖 That's a good one.

Can you elaborate more on Munger's statement? I don't understand too well the implications he is trying to get across

100%

What a surprise ?? A company trying their best to cut cost to increase profits 🙄

What nonsense, most of the sailors are Indians and Filipinos, there were some Taiwanese officers in Evergreen but they were also been replaced by the Japanese ship owners resulting in several accidents like the one struck in Suez Canal that was crewed entirely by Indians.

@@madsam0320 the sailors were Filipino while the offficers were from Ukraine and Poland.

haters gonna hate

Evergiven, the container ship struck in the Suez canal was entirely crewed by Indians.

yeah, adding to your point, it sounds more like consolidation of power/ monopoly than anything else.

Cost cutting in reducing redundancy and revenue building in having better bargaining power are achieved.

You can see a dozen brands of containers on a single ship. However, the SHIP is history.

Because being part-owner of sinking turd is even a worse liability than not getting the money back,

Making the public a shareholder and your elected officials voting members of private companies can have some seriously bad consequences. It would turn the revolving door of government into a conveyor belt into board rooms. It looks like Hanjin's predicament was the result of bad leadership as much as macroeconomic factors, and while the workers suffered, it would have been throwing good money after bad.

Equity buy-in is more costly for the tax payers. At least the loan with restructuring provides senior capital with seniority in liquidity event and gets to decide the company fate during insolvency - most importantly you are not entirely bailing out the bad operators who are holding equity stakes. Equity buyin brings in public money at the same level of company owners, and it's even worse in the eye of the public. When the US bailed out AIG with equity money in 2008, all the senior executives at AIG still got near full bonus that year, creating a huge uproar. That's what can happen.

@@dk418 Thank you, for this highly educational answer on this complex topic.

Many of the chaebols had similar starts and support in their early years.

You don't say. I'm shocked, Shocked! That there's a link like this. /s

Corporate welfare is nothing new. Even when they're profitable for many years, the government subsides keep on rolling in. They call it capitalism. It's only welfare or socialism or communism when it goes to low to middle income individuals.

The LOVE of money is the root (source) of ALL Evil.

@@hessanscounty3592 Because S Korea's government wanted to grow the conglomerates so that they'd be big enough to be "national champions" with s significant international presence also I think (which can be a source of national pride too)

but the management aka the screaming lady's family still manage the company though. I also suspect conflict of interests. Government and competitors didnt like Hanjin for a long time and only wait for the right moment to strike and destroy the company.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gWPwlMv8lNI.html&ab_channel=taprootweb

Interesting ideas , are there Any examples happening currently?

did they tho? Since the company sold its asset to others, the only lost was the company's identity, which was no longer matter since it lost its integrity and positive public image.

Governments don't have any money. They depend on the people serving them to pay for everything. Bailing put companies now is impossible they already took all the value of our currencies.... they are too big to bail....

What if (at that time) the company still perform poorly after South Korean Gov bail them out though ? Remember nobody wants to spend taxpayer money to bail these giant conglomerate (look at what happened to the US during 2008), and just like you mentioned, the family of owners painted a very bad picture to the company's image.

I'm sure you're right. The family members act like spoiled kids just like the way the daughter behaved in their plane. If the family had stuck together as a family they could have come up with the money to pay the bank. But they are arrogant and the new generation kids are acting the same way.

Macadamia nuts caused the downfall.

Yeah look at Samsung or Huawei. Every country has good and bad bussines

He was the most enterprising of them all (except maybe Radar). They should have put him in charge of the company!

The IMF never really helps, the conditions they impose always makes things worse.

I really don’t care to criticize the only game in town, I can’t believe their intent is to make things worse. It just so happens that when at the mercy of others, people tend to capitalize on it with not much concern for the outcomes of those they wield a high degree of power over. People reference Sri Lanka and Africa in relation to China. They are demonstrating what was done to them in some sense. What good is the idle port of Sri Lanka if there are no heavy transports?

@@johnnykwon8173 There is evidence of foul play and political corruption in the rise of Hanjin. The goal of the IMF in their negotiations with ROK was to root out cronyism in the economy and lower debt to acceptable levels. HJ's insolvency was brought on by the family's inability to accept reforms and properly restructure their business. Before then management was completely dependent on subsidies and cheap government loans to continually expand their business, there was little growth outside of financing and acquisitions. Despite being cutoff by the IMF negotiation they continued to grow their business by accumulating more debt. Without government assistance they were exposed to a higher cost of debt and their strategy failed. When they sold assets to third parties to lease back to HJ via charter agreements they were gifting stripped profits to their close associates - that is when the real liquidation happened. If the family and its management wanted to save the company they would have paid down debt by diluting their equity share and raising equity from capital markets in 1997. Instead they opted to manipulate their debt:asset ratio via charter agreements to keep themselves and their associates compensated: ultimately trading long term stability for short term profits. IMF and WorldBank sometimes produces bad outcomes in order to restore financial order and fair capital markets but they cannot be to blame here. HJ failed in a very similar way to Daewoo (funding new enterprises with cheap government loans) and clearly did not learn their lesson as they continued on with cronyism as the economy and country was in the midst of reform.

@@kiresedivaneb @kiresedivaneb I tend not to use the word blame although I can see by the one sided analysis that is exactly the intent. Again I reiterate that their lending capacity, IMF, World Bank, is not something I can necessarily criticize as they helped achieve perhaps the best possible results. I can't necessarily criticize the archetype hierarchies of ROK conglomerates either. That is simply how they operate in the context given. The opinion that their operating code of conduct is what led to their failure is disproved in your dissenting opinion. I say that the goal to uproot cronyism is not the function of a capital lender and should have no bearing as to the success or failure of HJ. Sometimes in ascribing blame I tend to use the sentiment that there ought to be equal share, equal responsibility in bad outcomes. But that is in a ideal scenario. The IMF, World Bank, are beyond too big to fail and as such, much like you, I can't back down from my own dissenting opinion.

Yeah look at IMF dealing with Indonesia. The leader: Michel Camdessus, even boast that they engineer an economic disaster to collapse the government of Indonesia.