 | « Back to article | Print this article |
The differences between China and India, in terms of operating as a foreign investment bank, are highlighted by the contrasting personnel hired to lead the operations.
Unlike in India, overseas investment banks in China can conduct local business only as a minority partner in a joint venture with a local firm. This means that power remains in Beijing.
In China, therefore, banks have typically had to hire bankers who speak fluent Mandarin and who can navigate Beijing's opaque decision-making.
Goldman Sachs' main figurehead in China is Fang Fenglei, chairman of the bank's investment banking operation on the mainland since it was set up in2004.
The veteran mainland banker is regarded as a "rainmaker" whose connections helped to win a string of deals - although he is relinquishing full-time duties at the joint venture to set up a private equity fund.
By contrast, Goldman, having split with its long-time joint venture partner in India, last year named Brooks Entwistle as chief executive of its new stand-alone operation. He joined Goldman 15 years ago, is well-connected among the various internal committees that ultimately sign off on investments and strategy in the country.
India's growth trajectory has also helped create a pool of talent, with native employees, based overseas, now prepared to return home. Morgan Stanley recently relocated Narayan Ramachandran from Singapore to Mumbai to head its new operations, while Lehman Brothers moved Tarun Jotwani from Europe to oversee its expanded Indian business.
In China, too, however, banks are recognising the need to cover the fast-growing non-state sector. Merrill Lynch this year hired Margaret Ren, a banker known for her links with Chinese authorities. But it also created another senior China role: a lead banker to deal with the mainland's capital-hungry private companies.