Let the hate mail begin.

Whenever we write on how things are getting bad for foreign companies doing business in China and on how foreign companies should think long and hard before doing business in China, we get hate mail or hate comments (which we typically delete). Many of these come from China consultants who   sometimes blatantly accuse us of damaging their business. I have already received two angry emails for what I am about to write about in this post. Those two emails came in response to what I said in the article this post will be discussing.

The article is Nokia exit: Is China’s ‘golden age’ of foreign investment over? written by Peter Ford the Christian Science Monitor’s Beijing Bureau Chief and truly one of the deans of China journalism. As you can tell by the title, the article examines whether China’s golden age of foreign investment is over. Doing Business in Vietnam

There is no disputing that China’s golden age for foreign companies doing business in China is over. China today is just not nearly as favorable or easy for foreign companies as it was ten years ago. It just isn’t. But that does not in any way mean that there are not a wealth of opportunities for smart companies to make money in or from China or to save money by using Chinese manufacturers.

In my mind — based largely on what my own firm’s China lawyers have seen over the last ten or so years, I divide China into the following three “eras” for foreign companies from the perspective of my own law firm:

1. The initial era, which lasted until around 2008. During this era, many foreign SMEs were operating completely illegally and off the gird in China and when we told them what would be involved in our getting them legal, most chose to continue operating illegally. There was a gold rush mentality and whether operating legally or illegally (and back then the distinctions were not so clear cut), it seemed that all or at least nearly all of our clients were thriving in China. Few companies understood or cared much about protecting their IP in China; they believed it was hopeless.

2. The transition era. This era was from around 2008 to 2013 or so. Some remnants of the initial era remained, but were in decline. Of those who called our China attorneys about what it would take to start operating legally in China, around half chose to make the necessary changes to get legal with the other half choosing to keep operating as they were, “at least for now.” Many foreign companies began realizing the importance of registering their trademarks, copyrights and patents in China.

3. The current era, starting roughly in 2014. Despite China’s downturn, and despite our law firm getting fewer contacts from potential clients, our workload has greatly increased. Three things explain the increased workload. One, Virtually all foreign companies now realize that they must either get legal in China or leave — no more operating illegally “for now.” And two, getting legal has become a lot more complicated and work intensive, which means more attorney hours.  Three, virtually all companies not only understand the importance of protecting their IP in China, they actively wish to do so. Virtually all companies also now understand the importance of having an enforceable China contract when doing business with Chinese companies.

So despite China constantly getting tougher on foreign companies and despite it making sense for many more foreign companies to leave China or not go there at all, my law firm’s China practice continues to grow and — believe it or not — so does foreign investment into China. Why should this paradox be true?

Because what is happening with foreign investment into China is not so much a shrinking but a maturation. Call it the end of irrational exuberance if you like, but whatever you call it, what is happening is that those companies that never should have gone into China in the first place are now largely gone or are in the process of leaving, or at least seriously considering doing so. And now those companies looking to go into China or to have their products manufactured there or to sell their own products and services there are looking into China for all the right reasons.

China still has 1. 5 billion people and there are still countless companies that should and do salivate at selling their products and services to China. But there is also the realization that doing so will not be easy, fast or cheap. China is still the factory to the world, but it is not the only country in which it makes sense to manufacture and companies are increasingly realizing this.

Peter Ford’s article nicely reflects all this. It starts out focusing on Microsoft shutting down two of its China cell phone manufacturing facilities and moving that production to Vietnam. Ford describes this move as the “latest sign that for international companies, China is losing some of its luster after years of shining as the brightest star in global capital’s firmament.” But he quickly follows this up by noting that “China is still a huge, growing market that no global company can afford to ignore. Its economy, the world’s second largest after the US, is expanding at around seven percent a year.” There you go. China is no longer THE country for everything and everybody but it is still the country for many companies and for many things.

Ford then lists the following as some of the concerns foreign companies have about doing business in China:

  • air quality. Check.
  • restrictive rules. Check.
  • higher costs of business. Check.
  • obstacles on market access. Check.
  • China has become a tougher place to do business. Check
  • China’s economy isn’t growing as rapidly. Check.
  • Chinese laws are unclear and often arbitrarily applied. Check, sometimes.
  • foreign companies are being singled out. Check.
  • foreign firms are being kept out of some of the most lucrative investment opportunities in China’s service sector. Check.
  • foreign businesses are less welcome than they once were. Check.

Does anyone really dispute that all or at least almost all of the above list is accurate? But be that as it may, what really determines whether a foreign company goes into China or stays in China is money. If the money is there and the foreign company can legally stay in China, it usually will. If the money is not there, it will eventually leave. Much of the above list has been true to some extent for ten years and nearly all of it has been true for five years. What has really changed is that foreign companies are being hit with so much from so many angles that they are having to decide whether to stay or not. Some are leaving but way more are staying.

What sorts of companies should stay or enter China and what sorts of companies should leave or not enter at all?

According to Ford, “Microsoft’s decision to decamp to Hanoi was doubtless influenced by lower production costs there. The Japanese trade agency JETRO found in 2012 that Vietnamese wages were around one third of Chinese wages.” Vietnam crushes China when it comes to wages. But if wages were the only factor in Western companies choosing where to locate, Microsoft would have moved its facilities to Yemen. Microsoft no doubt chose Vietnam for the same reasons Intel and so many large Japanese companies chose it years ago. Vietnam has a good workforce. Vietnam is a safe country. Vietnam has a growing economy. Vietnam has good (not great) political stability. Vietnam is a US ally (it really is). Vietnam has decent (though certainly not good) logistics. Vietnam has a growing consumer economy and it is a good base for selling into Cambodia and Laos and Myanmar. Doing business in Vietnam igets easier pretty much every year. Both Hanoi and Saigon are considerably cheaper cities for expats than Shanghai or Beijing.

Consumer facing American companies face similar (but different) problems in China:

But at the same time China is getting more competitive and harder to sell into, says Sage Brennan, head of China Luxury Advisors, which helps luxury goods companies break into China. “It is no longer the untapped marketer’s paradise that it once was,” he says.

One US company making that unwelcome discovery is GoPro, makers of miniature action cameras. The firm had barely begun to expand into China when Chinese mobile phone maker Xiaomi last week unveiled its own Yi Action Camera, selling for half the price of GoPro’s basic model.

The article quotes me regarding American companies moving from China to Vietnam:

Lawyer Dan Harris, who helps small and medium sized American companies operate in China, says that most of the businesses here he has helped to wind up have closed because of disappointing local sales, not because they are moving elsewhere.

Smaller firms cannot afford to move abroad because they have made big investments to establish themselves in China, Mr. Harris says. Nor are they big enough to take sufficient advantage of lower per-unit production costs to make a move from China to Vietnam worthwhile, as it has been for Microsoft, Intel and Samsung, among other global firms.

“But if the big companies go, the feeder firms will want to go too,” says Harris. “Eventually my clients will have to follow them.”

In my interview with Ford I talked about how Vietnam is great for huge companies like Panasonic and Canon and Toyota, which all have massive facilities outside Hanoi. It is also great for a massive company like Intel which by all accounts is doing well in Vietnam these days. Those companies have all the resources to figure out Vietnam and to work with the government to make things work for them there. These companies can essentially bring in or create in place much of the infrastructure they need.


SMEs on the other hand, typically need a fair amount of outside help to navigate Vietnam initially and so at first Vietnam can be more difficult than China. China has made it easy for foreign companies. Vietnam is still working at that. If a client asks me for a good China supply chain person, I can give them one in a heartbeat. If a client asks me for a good China sourcing person, I have lists ready to go, depending on the product. If a client asks me for a Beijing based accountant who knows both US and China accounting. I have a list for that too.

Vietnam can be more difficult. I have had American companies come to me to draft their manufacturing contracts to have kitchen products or shoes or t-shirts or toys made in China that they could be having made for lower cost in Vietnam. When I ask why they chose China rather than Vietnam their response is often something like “we would love to go into Vietnam but we really don’t know how to do it and we have this guy we trust who has already done xyz in China and so it will be easier and cheaper in the short run for us to just go to China.” But we are also seeing some of our medium size manufacturing clients whose manufacturing costs are rising in China looking to Vietnam to replace or supplant their China facilities. We are also seeing some of our clients that are doing well in selling their products or services in China looking to Vietnam to expand.

I could go on and on about China versus Vietnam and what sorts of companies should be choosing which country but this post has already gotten too long. So I will instead conclude with the conclusion to Ford’s article:

“A company puts its resources where it thinks its future market will be,” says Mr. Brennan. “China is not going away, but it is becoming just one market among others” while countries such as Indonesia offer the prospect of faster revenue growth.

“So far, companies have been focusing on China,” Brennan adds. “Now they are looking at southeast Asia and India too. We are seeing a groundswell shift in what companies are spending their time on.”

So true. What are you seeing out there?

For more on where to locate your business in Asia and on Vietnam as a choice, check out the following recent articles:

Dan Harris

I am a founder of Harris Bricken, an international law firm with lawyers in Los Angeles, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, China and Spain.

I mostly represent companies doing business in emerging market countries. It has taken me many years to build my network and it takes constant communication and travel to maintain it. My work has been as varied as securing the release of two improperly held helicopters in Papua New Guinea, setting up a legal framework to move slag from Canada to Poland’s interior, overseeing hundreds of litigation and arbitration matters in Korea, helping someone avoid terrorism charges in Japan, and seizing fish product in China to collect on a debt.

I was named as one of only three Washington State Amazing Lawyers in International Law, I am AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (its highest rating), I am rated 10.0 by AVVO.com (its highest rating), and I am a SuperLawyer.

I am a frequent writer and public speaker on doing business in Asia and I constantly travel between the United States and Asia. I most commonly speak on China law issues and I am the lead writer of the award winning China Law Blog (www.chinalawblog.com). Forbes Magazine, Fortune Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Business Week, The National Law Journal, The Washington Post, The ABA Journal, The Economist, Newsweek, NPR, The New York Times and Inside Counsel have all interviewed me regarding various aspects of my international law practice.

I am licensed in Washington, Illinois, and Alaska.

In tandem with the international law team at my firm, I focus on setting up/registering companies overseas (via WFOEs, Rep Offices or Joint Ventures), drafting international contracts (NDAs, OEM Agreements, licensing, distribution, etc.), protecting IP (trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and patents), and overseeing M&A transactions.

  • Rosemary Coates

    I was also quoted in the same article. I run the Reshoring Institute at the University of San Diego and I have my own global supply chain consulting firm. While many companies are considering Reshoring, this is really a misnomer. Mostly these companies are determining a new global manufacturing strategy…manufacturing in multiple global locations (including the US and Europe) where logistics costs can be minimized, quality can be carefully overseen and local markets can be served. Companies are moving away from chasing the lowest-cost market, and toward a well thought out global manufacturing strategy.

    • Ed Loos

      Yes very nice Rosemary and the local markets in the US and the EU are also very lovely I am sure. You can manufacture nice products in Mexico to sell to the US, and in Poland or Spain to sell to Northern EU. Its very nice. But those markets aren’t growing very much. If you want growth as most listed companies do otherwise their shareholders get upset you HAVE to be in Asia because that’s where the growth is. People say China is slowing but its the worlds 2nd largest economy and can still grow at 7%. How much will your bank give you? Nothing. And other consumer markets in Asia are the same, India is good and so are large parts of ASEAN. And with free trade you need to be here. So you talk about reshoring to one consumer market in US but that has nothing to do with the emerging markets in Asia. They are different markets so don’t be confusing them this is a different stories. .


    Not hate mail, but whilst Vietnam is of course important, other countries in the same region are also good options. Being British, of course Malaysia is a realistic prospect (though labour costs there are not nearly so low as in Vietnam) and has the advantage of (relative to its neighbours) good infrastructure and a good legal structure. Thailand’s instability is naturally a concern but it hasn’t impacted the essential soundness of the country as a place to do business. Indonesia is, as Sage Brennan points out, important, but its a coutnry that right now I’m still trying to get my head around.

  • Ed Loos

    Vietnam isn’t the “new China”. Its workforce is just 8% of China’s. You need to start thinking about ASEAN & India not tiny Vietnam. And very few companies are closing China to go to Hanoi or HCMC, you’re wrong about that. Companies are staying to build their PRC supply chain more inland.

    • FOARP

      “Vietnam isn’t the “new China”. Its workforce is just 8% of China’s.”

      I have to say I disagree that this is an important factor in deciding where to, for example, set up a manufacturing facility to manufacture for export. It really doesn’t matter how many millions of people live in a country if the only reason for your to be there is to set up a factory for 10 thousand, or even 100 thousand workers, and then ship out what you make there to other countries.

      The size of a country’s population does, of course, matter if you are planning to sell into that country. However, China has shown itself to be a difficult market for many foreign companies across whole sectors to enter, and many companies are only there to manufacture, with China not yet seen as a “go to market” country.

      As for moving in land in China, this is of course an option, but you are of lengthening you supply chain by doing so. Essentially you are not choosing between China and Vietnam here, but between inland, relatively undeveloped Anhui province and a Vietnam which may also be undeveloped but at least has a coastal littoral and ports.

      • Ed Loos

        FOARP – or I think we call you Gilman Grundy, everyone knows who you are, I don’t think you looked at a business map of Asia recently. China was the second largest recipient of FDI last year after the US so your claims that China has become more difficult cannot be true. Instead you can talk about lawyers talking about how hard it is in China so they can earn fees. Only people not in China will say how hard it must be, most of my friends are too busy making money to complain apart the pollution and the internet and the crappy TV. As for Vietnam, Hanoi is well inland and isn’t a port, yet is a big supplier to China. Anhui is inland but is the services and support province for Shanghai, which is certainly coastal, its the biggest port by TEU in the world. About China you saying not being a “Go Too” Market, well it was the second largest consumer market in the world after the US last year according to Euromonitor. So I don’t think you understand the dynamics of Asia and are talking about things you just follow from other publications instead of applying your own insights, which seem to me like jumping on bandwagons instead of having any real intelligence or opinions you can personally back up. That’s not “hate” that’s telling it how it is.

        • FOARP

          “I think we call you Gilman Grundy, everyone knows who you are”

          Because I’ve been very open about that being who I am. Relevance?

          “China was the second largest recipient of FDI last year after the US so your claims that China has become more difficult cannot be true.”

          I didn’t say it has. It just hasn’t become easy in the way a lot of people thought it would back in the early years of the last decade when people just drew a straight line through the liberalisation of the preceding decade and assumed it would continue.

          “you can talk about lawyers talking about how hard it is in China so they can earn fees.”

          Or, you know, the actual examples of companies that have run into trouble in China, like GSK (though it should be noted they’ve run into similar problems elsewhere). Or just look at the things I and people I know have to deal with every day.

          “Only people not in China will say how hard it must be, most of my friends are too busy making money to complain apart the pollution and the internet and the crappy TV.”

          Since you appear to have rumbled my identity as an international man of mystery, you must know I’ve been working in and with China since 2003. I too have friends with stories – friends who have quit the country because their business ideas didn’t click or because that massive take-off they expected didn’t happen. I’ve also worked in companies where the China operation was scaled back simply because it was costing more to do business there in their business field than in, say, Eastern Europe (some big-name companies actually demand that their projects aren’t outsourced to India/China), and because China ended up being a country where it was impossible to make profitable sales. Even those companies which continued to grow their line of business in China (like my former employers at Foxconn) have moved into Vietnam because it made sense for them to diversify away from China.

          “About China you saying not being a “Go Too” Market, well it was the second largest consumer market in the world after the US last year according to Euromonitor.”

          Depends what business field your talking about, and for who. Obviously some fields are entirely closed to foreign business – can you really get around that? Others are ones where foreign businesses might be allowed to enter but find themselves discriminated against in ways that effectively close the market to them. You can quote Euromonitor, but I’ve sat in the meetings where company presidents of billion-dollar-turnover companies have said “China just isn’t a go to market country for us at the moment”, and from their perspective they’ve been right to say so.

        • FOARP

          PS – not hatin’ either, but the days when you could just string together a few macroeconomic stats and wave at China’s population size, and use this as a justification for claiming that anyone and everyone who didn’t see China as being an awesome opportunity for their business (regardless of what their business is) is wrong are long gone. And that’s just how it is. China: good for some, but not everyone.

          • bystander

            doubly so since the macroeconomic stats are, how to say, more difficult to interpret than they might be elsewhere.

  • Terry Newman

    I looked at Vietnam and China (and Malaysia) before settling on China in 2008. There are many reasons why firms chose particular locations, but for us, among other things specific to us, it was that China was so much more developed and easy to navigate than Vietnam. We have not suffered here from corruption, but it seemed at the time to be a factor in Vietnam.

    The points in your article about the difficulties here are all true. I would even say that arbitrary application of laws is still arbitrary even if “sometimes” it is not. In other words I completely agree with Ford.

    • Ed Loos

      Yes Terry but since then (2008) Malaysia and Vietnam as part of ASEAN signed a Free Trade agreement in China in 2010. That meant the scrapping of duties on 97% on all tariffs on imports and exports between those countries and China. Trade between Malaysia and Vietnam and China has increased by about 600% since 2008, because its cheaper to make there than it is in China, but you can still sell to China. So I am wondering if your maths and business plan you did in 2008 still add up. I think maybe not is the case, if you reevaluated it (which I think you didn’t). But maybe you can use your China investment to sell to China and set up a subsidiary in one of those ASEAN countries to make your products, that is the trends. So ASEAN is good for manufacturing but China is a sales market. This Peter Ford guy is out of date about China and doesn’t understand what is happening. You need more knowledge than China to make money in China nowadays. China people only are going to get burned. You need to know how ASEAN and India is impacted and Peter Ford doesn’t have any clues other than to say China is over. Its useless information.

  • Ed Loos

    Axh, I note that Chinese company Xiaomi is to open up 100 stores in India this year, maybe the land of curry and insense is the next big thing: http://www.chinatechnews.com/2015/03/18/21495-xiaomi-will-open-100-experience-stores-in-india-in-2015

  • Francis Clemente

    Moving manufacturing from US to China is a big mistake for US in the first place. This is the reason why thousands of people lost their jobs in the US in the last decade.

    China now becoming a richer and a mightier nation due to their financial might is now showing their true colors in South China Sea issue. Their nine-dash line claim to occupy the entire South China Sea is a joke pushing around its smaller Asian neighbors by hook or by crook. China is a bully and cannot be trusted.