The mystery of the loss of state-owned leasing companies: small scale but large number of people, single business but continuous operation.
The operation of a state-owned enterprise leasing company has attracted widespread attention. The company is small, with just over 30 employees, and its only business is renting out houses, but it is losing money every year. With an annual rental income of about 3 million, the company is still struggling to maintain normal operations, which makes the outside world question the meaning of its existence.
Although the company's business is simple, the combination of employee salaries and home maintenance costs makes the company always face losses at the end of each year. Although this kind of operation has been going on for more than six years and has been reported by the state-owned assets system many times, the company is still "strong and alive", which has caused people to think about the logic of its survival.
After coming into contact with the company's employees, I found that the atmosphere of the whole company is quite Buddhist. The employees' unhurried attitude towards their work, and their humility and arrogance in the face of external doubts, seem to have become their way of coping with difficult situations.
There is an opinion that the reason why a company loses money is that in addition to paying employee salaries and maintenance costs, it also needs to consider costs such as taxes and depreciation. These costs account for a significant proportion of annual rental income, making it difficult for companies to make a profit.
Others have questioned the fact that the sustainability of such companies is largely due to their state-owned enterprise background. In the state-owned enterprise system, even if the company loses money, it is often able to get the support of the state to continue to operate.
There is widespread skepticism about the company's future. Some people have suggested that if all employees are fired and the business is handled by professional intermediaries, it may be possible to achieve a quick profit. But there are also concerns that such changes could affect the livelihoods of employees, and that the existence of SOEs may come with a certain degree of social responsibility.
In addition to this leasing company, a similar dilemma exists in other state-owned enterprises. For example, in some units, despite the size of the database, the number of managers is relatively small. Although some subsidiaries of state-owned enterprises have lost money in their main business, they have been able to continue to operate due to various reasons.
In this regard, some experts pointed out that state-owned enterprises need to pay more attention to cost control and efficiency improvement in the operation process to avoid losses due to poor management. ** The society should also conduct stricter supervision and evaluation of the operation of state-owned enterprises to ensure that they can bring practical benefits to society.
The mystery of the loss of this state-owned enterprise leasing company not only raises people's thinking about the operational efficiency of state-owned enterprises, but also makes us re-examine the role and positioning of state-owned enterprises in the socialist market economy. It is hoped that in the future, more state-owned enterprises will be able to achieve healthier and more sustainable development through reform and innovation.