Fundraising Plan - The company plans to raise a total of 200 million yuan for various projects after deducting issuance costs, with a total investment amount of 978.11 million yuan [1] - The company will initially use self-raised funds for project investments before replacing them with raised funds once available [1] Project Necessity and Feasibility - The Huixiu Cultural Tourism Engineering project has a total investment of 1.08233 billion yuan, focusing on the construction of a theater, commercial street, hotel, and parking facilities [1] - The company will undertake the project as a contractor, managing planning, design, procurement, construction, and quality control [1] Industry Trends - The construction industry is experiencing a slowdown in growth, necessitating innovative business models like EPCO to adapt to market changes [2] - The company aims to leverage new project models to enhance its presence in the cultural tourism sector and improve its market share [2] Policy Environment - National strategies such as "Beautiful China" and "Rural Revitalization" are expected to boost demand for cultural tourism projects, providing growth opportunities for the company [2] - Government policies promoting service consumption and cultural tourism are aligned with the company's business development direction [2] Financial Structure and Capital Needs - The company operates in a capital-intensive industry, requiring substantial working capital for project execution [4] - The issuance of new shares aims to supplement working capital, optimize the capital structure, and enhance profitability [7][8] Operational Impact - The fundraising will enhance the company's core competitiveness and market position, contributing to improved profitability [9] - The implementation of the fundraising projects is expected to increase the company's total assets and net assets while reducing the debt-to-asset ratio [9] Conclusion on Feasibility - The fundraising initiative aligns with national industrial policies and the company's strategic development, ensuring its necessity and feasibility [9]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the EPCO model in the cultural tourism industry, highlighting its complexities and the underlying motivations that drive its popularity among stakeholders, particularly local governments and project developers [5][14]. Group 1: EPCO Model Overview - The EPCO model stands for Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Operation, and is often perceived as a comprehensive solution for cultural tourism projects, but it is more of a profit transfer mechanism than a sustainable management system [9][15]. - The model allows for significant flexibility in budgeting and project execution, often leading to cost overruns and profit manipulation at various stages [10][12]. Group 2: Government Involvement - Local governments often support EPCO projects as they provide a way to achieve performance metrics without deep engagement in the complexities of cultural tourism [14][15]. - The reliance on government funding, such as special interest loans for rural revitalization, is a critical aspect of the EPCO model, which can create financial burdens for project developers [6][15]. Group 3: Risks and Challenges - The EPCO model is susceptible to risks such as changes in local government leadership, tightening of funding policies, and public scrutiny, which can jeopardize project viability [16]. - The article emphasizes that while some companies may currently be profitable, their success is often due to meticulous financial management rather than the inherent quality of the projects [16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the EPCO (Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Operation) model in the context of China's cultural tourism projects, highlighting its efficiency and the underlying risks associated with profit distribution and project sustainability [4][13][41]. Group 1: EPCO Model Overview - The EPCO model is presented as a comprehensive solution for cultural tourism projects, where a single team manages design, construction, procurement, and operation, allowing the government to focus on funding and approvals [13][14][40]. - The model is criticized for being a profit transfer mechanism, where each stage can be manipulated for financial gain, often at the expense of project quality and sustainability [15][39]. Group 2: Components of EPCO - **Engineering (E)**: The design phase prioritizes meeting government approval rather than attracting tourists, leading to repetitive and formulaic project designs [18][20][22]. - **Procurement (P)**: This phase is characterized by profit manipulation through controlled purchasing, where companies involved often have interlinked relationships, creating an "internal circulation" of profits [23][26][28]. - **Construction (C)**: The construction phase allows for dynamic budget management, where costs can be adjusted based on project changes, often leading to additional expenses [29][33]. - **Operation (O)**: The operational phase focuses on maintaining project viability rather than achieving long-term success, with an emphasis on minimizing losses rather than maximizing visitor engagement [35][38]. Group 3: Government and Corporate Dynamics - Local governments view EPCO projects as a way to achieve performance metrics without deep involvement, often prioritizing project initiation over actual outcomes [42][44]. - Companies involved in EPCO projects aim to generate cash flow through various stages, relying on government support and financial maneuvering to sustain operations [49][50]. Group 4: Risks and Sustainability - The article highlights significant risks within the EPCO model, including potential changes in local government priorities, tightening of financial policies, and public scrutiny, which could jeopardize project viability [51][52][54]. - The sustainability of the EPCO model is questioned, as it often leads to projects that appear successful on paper but fail to deliver real value or engagement in practice [56][58].