Group 1 - Government investment funds are a primary source of capital in the primary market, often attaching "return investment" conditions that require companies to relocate their core business or headquarters to receive funding [1][2] - This "return investment" requirement creates a dilemma for companies, as relocating increases operational costs while not relocating may result in missing critical funding, especially for cash-strapped firms [1][3] - The push for companies to relocate is driven by local governments aiming to attract quality enterprises and foster local economic development, with some regions seeing significant efforts from local leaders to recruit businesses [2][4] Group 2 - The types of "return investment" requirements from local guiding funds can be categorized into three main types: establishing branches with minimal operations, setting up factories or sales centers, and full relocation of headquarters with actual production and tax contributions [3][4] - Many investment firms and startups find themselves trapped by these "return investment" conditions, leading to frequent relocations that disrupt long-term planning and increase operational costs [3][4] - The reluctance of companies to relocate complicates the situation for venture capital and private equity firms, as they struggle to meet local government investment requirements while facing pushback from businesses [4][5] Group 3 - Different types of companies have varying considerations regarding relocation, with those possessing core technology and significant revenue often having stronger bargaining power in negotiations with local governments [6][7] - Concerns about the difficulties of managing operations in different locations are significant for companies, particularly in high-tech sectors where talent and operational coherence are critical [6][7] - The potential requirement to return government subsidies if a company relocates adds another layer of complexity to the decision-making process for businesses considering relocation [7] Group 4 - The current "return investment" model has led to a situation where many local funds achieve their short-term goals but fail to attract high-quality enterprises that contribute meaningfully to local economies [8][9] - There is a growing recognition that the focus on short-term metrics like the number of companies attracted may overlook the long-term benefits of fostering a sustainable business environment [9][10] - Recommendations include shifting the evaluation of local investment effectiveness from quantity to quality, emphasizing long-term contributions to local economies rather than immediate relocations [9][10]
“蜜糖”成枷锁 企业不愿搬 地方投资基金“返投”考核亟待优化调整
Zheng Quan Shi Bao·2025-09-17 18:58