????摩根大通（JPMorgan）正在將旗下的一項亞洲業(yè)務(wù)Global Special Opportunities Group掛牌出售，希望藉此拿到10億美元。這家銀行已經(jīng)向很多私募股權(quán)公司以及專注于信用業(yè)務(wù)的對沖基金兜售過這塊業(yè)務(wù)，而這些公司顯然都希望能在迅速發(fā)展的亞洲信用市場進一步擴張——我們這里講的亞洲實際上就是指中國。《金融時報》（The Financial Times）報道稱，黑石集團（Blackstone）旗下的GSO、凱雷（Carlyle）和KKR都在接觸中。

????人們可能禁不住會將這次出售與摩根大通最近引發(fā)爭議的中國員工聘用行為聯(lián)系起來。據(jù)稱這家公司目前正在接受美國當(dāng)局的調(diào)查，因為它涉嫌聘用中國官員子女以接近中國大型國有企業(yè)。

????這樣的做法似乎在很多美國人看來是可恥的，但在中國，利用“關(guān)系”促成業(yè)務(wù)不僅是常態(tài)，而且對于簽訂有保障的合同至關(guān)重要。因為合同在中國幾乎沒有任何意義，差不多可以隨時撕毀，無需付出大的代價。簡單說，在中國，只有收到了錢，交易才能算完成，畫上了句號。這就給這個原本已經(jīng)是高風(fēng)險的行業(yè)額外帶來了戴亮風(fēng)險。外國人可以用來降低這種風(fēng)險的辦法就是找一個中方談判席熟悉的面孔。

????摩根大通計劃出售的這家子公司只有35名雇員，看起來并不是美國當(dāng)局調(diào)查的目標(biāo)——但這一點并不重要。不過，這起事件還是引發(fā)了對于在華經(jīng)營成本的質(zhì)疑——有興趣出手的公司必須考慮這個問題。亞洲銀行家們告訴我，有些做法在亞洲普遍存在，是“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的經(jīng)營做法”。如果摩根大通因此獲罪，那么任何一家尋求在亞洲拓展業(yè)務(wù)的美國投資公司都將面臨很大的風(fēng)險。那么，這個因素會降低美國在亞洲金融子公司的價值嗎？摩根大通的這項或許可以測試這個問題。（財富中文網(wǎng)）???

????JPMorgan has put its Asia-based Global Special Opportunities Group on the block, hoping to fetch a cool $1 billion from the sale. The bank has been shopping the group around to a number of private equity firms and credit-focused hedge funds that apparently want greater exposure to the fast-growing Asian -- and by Asian we really mean Chinese -- credit markets. TheFinancial Times reports that Blackstone's GSO arm, Carlyle (CG), and KKR (KKR) are kicking the tires.

????One can't help but think that the impetus behind this sale may have to do with all the heat JPMorgan (JPM) has taken recently over its controversial Chinese hiring practices. The firm is supposedly under investigation by U.S. authorities for allegedly hiring the sons and daughters of Chinese officials in an attempt to gain access to China's massive state-controlled companies.

????While the practice seems despicable to many Americans, in China, using your "Guanxi" (connections) to facilitate business is not only the norm, it is crucial in creating a bonded contract. That's because in China contracts have little meaning and can be broken pretty much at any time with little penalty. Put simply, a deal isn't done in China until the money is transferred -- period. That introduces a great deal of risk in what is already a risky venture. The way a foreigner can reduce that risk is to bring a familiar face to their side of the bargaining table.

????The unit up for sale, which has only 35 employees, doesn't appear to be the one U.S. authorities have been targeting in their investigation -- but that doesn't really matter. The incident still raises questions about the cost of doing business in China -- something interested firms must take into account. If JPM is found guilty of violating the law for something that bankers in Asia tell me is ubiquitous and "standard operating practice," then any U.S. investment firm looking to expand in Asia would be exposing themselves to a great deal of risk. As such, does this reduce the value of U.S. financial subs in Asia? This deal could be test.