Talk:Evergrande Group

Lacking

Background connection Wikipietime (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Western name

Something should be said about the Western name "Evergrande". I understand that 大 means "big" in Chinese, so it is translated into Italian or Spanish, and The dictionary definition of 恒 at Wiktionary is "constant, regular, persistent", so it is translated into English. Is this mixed-language translation usual for Chinese company names? How is it supposed to be pronounced in English? Is this Western name used in China or do they always use 恒大 there? --Error (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There's not really too much to be said here. The name is the name, the logograms don't always really directly translate into something equivalent to what you might expect in a romanized name, and yes, mixed-language translations are common, although it's more complex than that: For instance, BMW in Chinese is 寶馬 or 'Bǎomǎ', which translates roughly to 'precious horse', and is intentionally something that sounds vaguely similar to 'BMW'.[1] The 'ǎ' suggests a dip in your voice, so you'd almost pronounce it like asking a question: "Bow-mah?"

Roman languages don't have tones and symbol stress the same way Chinese does, so direct phonetic usage across languages is difficult.

Evergrande is the group's chosen English name. Hengda (恒大) is the Chinese name. Both are official. (That should be changed in the article. 'Hengda' is not a 'previous' name as the article currently mentions.)

My understanding is that either would be theoretically acceptable in China, but that 恒大 ('hengda') would be more common.

You pronounce a pinyin 'e' similar to an english 'uh', so the pronunciation of 恒大 is kinda close to 'hungda', you can see it pronounced here. --No coffee, please. (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Company can made up English official name that have different meaning with its Chinese name (e.g. Lenovo, Legend Holdings, Coolpad, ZTC). Note that English is the de facto lingua franca / language that use in business contract and legal documents in Hong Kong and i think Evergrande Group as a HK listed company, is somehow primary or secondary registered (domiciled) in HK. Feel free to dig out primary source or secondaty source that explain the meaning of the company names in both languages. Matthew hk (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

They are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, Matthew hk. 124.217.189.132 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Evergrande Group (the list company, aka the parent company of the Mainland China incorporated main entity of the group) is also registered in HK as non-Hong Kong company. Just probably i won't using https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/ again as they now (or will) ask way too many personal info. Matthew hk (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes agree. Good job Matthew. 124.217.189.132 (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that the listed company legal person is called Evergrande, while the legal person that acted as holding company inside Mainland China, is known as Hengda. And in English wikipedia, we usually use WP:COMMONNAME, which English media called it Evergrande, and we don't really care the native name, because this is ENGLISH wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, it's all irrelevant, because Evergrande is the English name. Mention of 恒大 or 'Hengda' should only be for reference/completionist reasons — not the primary way to refer to the company within the article. --No coffee, please. (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Remove the irrelevant materials. The topic of non-Chinese language names of Chinese companies could be something for original research outside Wikipedia though. 219.76.18.205 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Financial data

The section is misleading. The company has a lot of equity from classifying perpetual as equity instead of debt. Matthew hk (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Evergrande liquidity crisis into Evergrande Group. It seems that is it unnecessary for the liquidity crisis to have a separate page from the main Evergrande page, especially considering that neither pages are that long resulting in an overly lengthy Wikipedia page. Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Flyme2bluemoon I disagree. The mere size of Evergrande's default could mean significant economic troubles to the whole of China's economy (via the local governments' reliance on land sales). I'd like to revisit the proposal in a year, however, to see how the situation has progressed.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say the scope of Evergrande liquidity crisis may need to change. Evergrande is merely the peak of the iceberg, they are way many peer under crisis. Matthew hk (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support rename to 2020–2021 China housing market slump under broader scope. See also 2020–2021 Xi Jinping Administration reform spree#"Three red lines" and property sector regulation. I don't think we need a standalone page on a company crisis, otherwise we'd also have one for Bear Stearns, though some would argue that Subprime mortgage crisis is just that. LondonIP (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, if editors can show this crisis is indeed independently notable of the company, this page may be more like what Enron scandal is to Enron, and I will strike my above comment. LondonIP (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I read a few news article about this and I think this crisis is independently notable enough for a standalone page, but I do still think we need a 2020–2021 China housing market slump, for the broader topic. LondonIP (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• LondonIP I agree with you that a renaming to something along those lines is warranted. When I created the page I did so following FT's categorization of content where news related to this issue were tagged "Evergrande Group" primarily. However, as focus shifts to the Chinese economy as a whole I think it should be renamed. I think "slump" is too vague and weak a word to describe the situation, and suggest we wait a month or so to see if it can be characterized as a crisis of the whole property sector, in which case I'd suggest it being renamed "2020-2022 Chinese property sector crisis". I don't think having an article on the Evergrande crisis and one on the crisis as a whole is warranted now, but that's a very weak opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  The reason I think this crisis/scandal is independently notable is because of the cascading effect it has had on the real estate industry in China, where there are another 20 companies in a similar situation, which are also in need of state help. This is a fascinating but complex subject and I agree we should wait. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps I spoke too quickly, LondonIP: Shimao’s debt woes deepen concerns over cash crunch in Chinese property - Shanghai bonds of once highly rated developer suspended after failure to make loan payment. Perhaps the evergrande liquidity crisis is due for a renaming, although I don't have the time right now to alter the article to fit a new name. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  If the Evergrade Liquidity Crisis is only notable because of its effect on the real estate industry in China, would it make more sense for an article to cover the issue overall in order to provide an overall encompassing wiki entry? Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz, Matthew hk, and LondonIP: So would it be reasonable to say that the Evergrande liquidity crisis page could (should?) be split into a page about a 2020-2022 Chinese property sector crisis (or something like that) and into the preexisting Evergrande page? Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flyme2bluemoonI would agree with this. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flyme2bluemoon: supposing the consensus here is to rename this page, I would suggest you withdraw the merge proposal, or that we move the page to to 2020-2022 Chinese property sector crisis and 2020-2022 Chinese housing market crisis. I will make the time to alter the article for the new name. LondonIP (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure housing market is an appropriate name as as far as I know housing ownership and the like hasn't really been affected. I'll move the article to 2020-2022 Chinese property sector crisis then, and alter the first sentence. I'll leave the rest up to you.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What's happening now in China is very similar to the United States housing bubble, but with very different causes, which we will cover. I'm fine with property for now as this is still a current event and anything can change. LondonIP (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good, thanks for the help! Flyme2bluemoon (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)