WSJ : France claims victory in forcing GE to revise its Alstom energy bid

France claims victory in forcing GE to revise its Alstom energy bid

Operations At Alstom SA's Power Station Turbine Plant As Takeover Battle Intensifies...Bloomberg Photo Service 'Best of the Week': An employee uses a caliper micrometer to measure a section of a turbine at Alstom SA's power plant turbine refurbishment facility in Rugby, U.K, on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. The battle for Alstom intensified after Siemens AG stepped up plans for a bid to counter General Electric Co. (GE) in what would be the biggest tug of war for a French industrial company ever. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg©Bloomberg
Siemens is bidding €3.9bn for Alstom’s gas turbines business as part of an offer that is more complex than GE’s but one designed to win over the Alstom board with promises of co-operation
France’s socialist government has claimed a resounding victory for state intervention after forcing General Electric to significantly revise its $16.9bn takeover deal for Alstom’s energy businesses, which both companies approved at the weekend.
The government announced on Sunday night it had agreed terms with the French conglomerate Bouygues for its purchase of a 20 per cent state stake in Alstom, worth about €1.7bn at prevailing market prices. The government insisted on acquiring the stake as a condition of accepting the GE deal.

Arnaud Montebourg, economy and industry minister, said Alstom would have “disappeared” if the state had not stepped in to halt GE’s initial bid in April, following up later by taking powers that gave it a veto over a wide range of industrial takeovers.
“Entering the capital of Alstom will assure the alliance is properly respected, including the number of employees. There will be no knockdown sale of our interests,” Mr Montebourg said in an interview with Le Parisien newspaper.
Alstom and GE boards both unanimously approved the revised terms offered by the US company after months of wrangling with the government. The deal was backed by Paris over a rival joint offer by Siemens of Germany and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Well, we have no reason to further push what is not being appreciated
- Joe Kaeser, Siemens chief executive
Siemens and MHI accepted the government’s decision in favour of GE on Friday evening. In a letter to staff, Joe Kaeser, Siemens chief executive, complained bitterly that Patrick Kron, Alstom’s chief executive, had been “determined to prevent Siemens’ involvement at all costs from a very early stage”.
Mr Kaeser said the Siemens-MHI bid was worth €2.3bn more than GE’s offer. “Well, we have no reason to further push what is not being appreciated.”
Under the GE deal, the biggest ever industrial acquisition by the US company, it will take over Alstom’s global gas turbine operations, the biggest part of the French company’s business.
In the main revised elements of the agreement, it will enter 50-50 joint ventures with Alstom in the French group’s power grid, renewable and nuclear turbine operations.
The French state will have a “golden share” in the nuclear unit, as well as assured rights over its technology. The government will impose penalties on GE if it does not meet promises to add 1,000 new jobs in France over the next three years.
GE also agreed to sell its signalling business to Alstom to boost the latter’s remaining transport business, which the government feared would lack critical mass as a standalone company.
The revised bid put a value of $3.5bn (€2.6bn) on the stakes the French group will own in the three businesses that will be joint ventures with GE, meaning that the net cash cost of the deal to the US group will be $10bn.
Manuel Valls, the reformist prime minister, said: “Alstom would today be in the hands of GE without conditions if we had not intervened.”
Mr Kron, Alstom chief executive, said they hoped to close the deal, which will be submitted to competition authorities, early next year.

WSJ : Wall Street's Reason to Fear the Repo

Wall Street's Reason to Fear the Repo

A handful of Wall Street firms are much more vulnerable than their peers to a type of bank run seen during the financial crisis. Unfortunately for investors, the identity of these firms is a mystery.

One lesson from the financial crisis was that a little known but important source of funding, the repo market, can freeze up in times of stress. That is because cash investors, such as money-market funds, can suddenly stop making the short-term loans collateralized by securities, known as repurchase agreements, or repos, that help finance Wall Street's securities portfolios. The shorter the maturity of a firm's repo financing arrangements, the quicker they can come due and the more vulnerable it is to a repo run.

That is why the repo market, and reducing firms' reliance on it, has come into focus with regulators. Officials such as Federal Reserve governor Daniel Tarullo, the central bank's point person on regulation, have repeatedly spoken of the need for overhauls of this market, along with that of money-market funds.

Against that backdrop, a new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of repo financing for riskier, less-liquid assets, such as corporate bonds, offers some potentially encouraging news. It found that Wall Street as a whole appears less vulnerable to repo runs. The average maturity of these trades, weighted by the value of collateral, was nearly 80 days in the first quarter, up from just 40 days in 2011.

But not all firms are so well placed. At a quarter of the 15 firms with the largest positions in this market, the weighted-average maturity was 26 days or less, according to the Fed researchers.

So which firms are the weakest in this regard? That's the rub: The New York Fed study used confidential information that investors can't access. And because most firms don't disclose the maturity of their repo trades, there is no way to tell which is most vulnerable to a repo run. Citigroup, C -0.46% Morgan Stanley MS -0.77% and Goldman Sachs Group GS +0.06% are the exceptions: Each discloses that its risk assets have secured financing with a weighted average maturity of more than 100 days. For the rest of Wall Street, the weakness detected by the Fed is cloaked in opacity.

It isn't as if this is a trivial matter: Repo runs played a role in the demise of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. So the extent of a firm's vulnerability to such a scenario shouldn't be kept hidden. What's more, these known unknowns can become dangerous if markets come under stress. Another lesson from the crisis is that when markets suspect that some financial institutions are critically weak but can't identify which ones, liquidity dries up for everyone.

Hopefully, this study is a sign that regulators, who have made clear that the repo market can contribute to systemic risk, are moving toward requiring greater transparency. An added benefit: Banks made to disclose repo vulnerability would likely move to reduce it. It is time to shed light on the repo market's darkness.

WSJ : Obama Warns ISIS Could Destabilize Region

Obama Warns ISIS Could Destabilize Region
The President Is Concerned Destabilization Caused by ISIS Could Spill Over To Allies like Jordan

President Barack Obama warned in an interview broadcast Sunday that the group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham could destabilize the region and someday threaten the U.S.

In an interview on CBS's CBS -2.20% "Face the Nation,'' the president said there are "a lot of groups out there that have more advanced, immediate plans against the United States,'' but said the U.S. will have to be vigilant.

"Right now the problem with ISIS is the fact that they're destabilizing the country—that could spill over into some of our allies like Jordan, and that they're engaged in wars in Syria where, in the vacuum that's been created, they could amass more arms, more resources,'' Mr. Obama said.

"ISIS is just one of a number of organizations that we have to stay focused on,'' Mr. Obama said, citing other groups like the Yemen branch of al Qaeda and Boko Haram in Nigeria.

"What we can't do is think that we're just going to play Whac-A-Mole and send U.S. troops occupying various countries wherever these organizations pop up,'' he said. "We're going to have to have a more focused, more targeted strategy and we're going to have to partner and train local law enforcement and military to do their jobs as well.''

The head of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) was more grim in discussing ISIS on NBC's "Meet the Press.''

She said that as radicals in Iraq score military victories, the country could become a future threat to the U.S.

"There will be plots to kill Americans,'' she predicted. Rebels from ISIS, she said, "are vicious, they have killed thousands of people. and they do want to develop the caliphate''—an Islamic religious state—throughout the region.

Asked if U.S. intelligence agencies saw this situation coming, Sen. Feinstein answered, "I would have to say no."

WSJ : Calls for QE Pose Headache for ECB

Calls for QE Pose Headache for ECB

For the ECB, QE just won't RIP.

If the European Central Bank hoped its raft of actions in June would quell the debate around quantitative easing, it must be disappointed. The International Monetary Fund has renewed its call for the ECB to be ready to undertake asset purchases if needed. This underlines a looming challenge for the ECB, even if the IMF's faith in the power of QE looks misplaced.

The IMF welcomed the ECB's actions to cut rates, provide liquidity and boost corporate lending. But it argued that if inflation remained low, the ECB should be prepared to buy government bonds on a large scale, increasing the size of its balance sheet. "This would boost confidence, improve corporate and household balance sheets, and stimulate bank lending," the IMF said.

That represents the orthodox line on QE, which makes it worth questioning.

The main channel for bolstering confidence is through boosting asset prices. The first dose of bond purchases by the Federal Reserve clearly provided a vital lift to confidence in this way.

But euro-zone bond and stock prices already have risen sharply since ECB President Mario Draghi pledged in 2012 to do "whatever it takes" to save the euro. There are concerns about the effects of QE on financial stability.

Second, while higher asset prices might help lenders feel more confident and reduce borrowing costs, it isn't clear they would directly feed through to an improvement in corporate and household balance sheets. The IMF itself notes that sovereign- and corporate-bond yields are at historical lows "in many countries." Many Europeans don't have direct exposure to financial markets; there might not be a particular effect on households at all.

Finally, it isn't clear that QE would necessarily boost bank lending. This has been a constant complaint in the U.K. and U.S. This may reflect both credit supply and demand problems: Banks are being forced by regulators to become safer; consumers and companies could be reluctant to borrow. Both are likely in the euro zone, where the process of cleaning up bank balance sheets has been slower than elsewhere.

But the IMF's recommendation still points to a problem for the ECB. The debate about QE seems unlikely to go away. The central bank, therefore, needs to keep QE on the table as a possibility, without making the market believe that it is certain. A certain level of ambiguity is required. The current tactic, used by executive board member Benoît Coeuré in his response to the IMF's call Friday, is to say QE is possible but unnecessary now.

That may work for some time. But if the clamor for QE becomes louder, it may not satisfy investors who are aware the ECB faces practical problems in buying government bonds, given the fragmented nature of euro-zone markets and the political stink it might cause. The IMF's promotion of QE only complicates the ECB's balancing act.

WSJ : Shinzo Abe's 'Third Arrow' Seeks a Hard Target in Japan

Shinzo Abe's 'Third Arrow' Seeks a Hard Target in Japan
New Growth Measures Chip Around the Edges of Nation's Economic Foundations

TOKYO—Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made strides over the past year to end Japan's long bout of debilitating deflation. He'll announce still more measures this week designed to stir economic growth.

In that, he faces a fundamental choice: Is Japan willing to shake up long-standing customs and business practices to achieve growth on par with the U.S. and the healthier European economies? Or will Tokyo settle for low-risk, low-return policies that might slow the decline, though do little to reverse it?

With bold "Japan is back" rhetoric, Mr. Abe has promised an ambitious rebound route. "I am willing to act like a drill bit" for deregulation, he declared early this year to the World Economic Forum in Davos. "No vested interests will remain immune from my drill."

He sees Japan's economy growing soon at a 2% annual pace, twice that of the previous 20 years, and only slightly lower than the Federal Reserve's estimate of the U.S. economy's growth potential.

Improving long-run growth prospects is now a big issue for policy makers globally. Governments and central banks responded to the recent recession by trying to spur demand with interest-rate cuts and spending programs. Now they're facing persistent headwinds to rising prosperity, like slow population growth and sagging workforce productivity.

But Mr. Abe's new "growth strategy"—an updated version of a program first announced a year ago to poor investor reviews—suggests he's using not a drill bit but a sculptor's chisel, chipping around the edges of Japan's economic foundations. Early drafts released in advance of Tuesday's formal unveiling show a pattern of proposals scaled back or obfuscated, leaving crucial details, like size and timing, blank.

The plan will include a corporate-tax cut, from the current rate above 35%, to "below 30%," in line with the average of about 29% among nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. But it won't specify the new rate, how long it will take to get there, or what offsetting tax increases will be included to contain Japan's bloated debt.

Many changes are left to new "special economic zones" with extra freedom to cut through red tape constraining everything from hiring and firing to agriculture land ownership and management. But it will be months, or even years, before it's clear what, if anything, they've actually cut.

The new proposals "largely exceed market expectations," Nomura Securities' economists said in a report Tuesday. The Nikkei Stock Average has rallied over the past week to its highest level since late January on hopes for the package. But, they added, "we are not in a position…to forecast whether or not the government can carry out these plans with results."

This is Mr. Abe's second attempt to fire the "third arrow" of his Abenomics revival program. The first two arrows—a massive increase in money printed by the Bank of Japan and a sharp boost in public-works spending—did succeed in raising growth over the past year, and in pushing inflation to an annual rate of 1.3%, up from a 15-year average of 0.3% deflation.

But raising prices is easier than boosting long-term prosperity. "Overcoming protracted deflation itself is a great achievement," Kikuo Iwata, a deputy BOJ governor, said in a recent speech. "But in terms of revitalizing Japan's economy, it will not be enough."

Japan's "growth potential" has shriveled from an annual pace of 4% in the late 1980s to less than half a percent now, according to central-bank estimates, the result of a shrinking population, cutbacks in capital spending and stagnant productivity. Raising that figure is what the "third arrow" is supposed to do.

There's plenty of low-hanging fruit that could bear quick results. Economists say Japan could make gains in rolling back regulations just by carrying out some simple proposals that face minimal political resistance, like allowing electronic submission and processing of export and import documents.

But Mr. Abe is making only modest changes in policies seen as most significant in constraining growth and efficiency. A case in point: easing Japan's unusually tight restrictions on immigration, as well as limits on hiring, firing and pay.

As a nod in that direction, Mr. Abe is proposing a slight increase in the number of sectors that can bring in a few thousand foreign guest workers, as well as an extension of their temporary stay to five years from three.

To many Japanese, stronger growth from bigger changes isn't worth the disruption. In a recent speech, former Bank of Japan Gov. Masaaki Shirakawa portrayed deflation as "the flip side of very low unemployment." Even in the depths of the country's slump, the jobless rate stayed below the 6% level considered low in the U.S. He called the labor-market stability "a social contract."

The question, which Mr. Abe has yet to answer with clarity, is whether, in pursuit of stronger growth, he is willing to try to rewrite Japan's social contract.

WSJ : Lululemon Founder Fights for Company Control

Lululemon Founder Fights for Company Control
Dennis 'Chip' Wilson Weighs Options to Shake Up Board, Gain More Influence

Lululemon Athletica LULU -0.10% founder Dennis "Chip" Wilson is working with bankers at Goldman Sachs GS +0.06% as he weighs options for shaking up the company's board and gaining more influence over the yoga gear maker's operations, people familiar with the situation said.

Among the founder's possible options are launching a proxy fight or joining with a private-equity firm in a buyout, other people familiar with the matter said. So far, Mr. Wilson hasn't made any decisions on further steps, said a person familiar with his thinking who wouldn't elaborate on what is under consideration.

Lululemon's board has sought advice from bankers in response, another one of the people said. The board hasn't been asked to act on a specific proposal from Mr. Wilson, and nobody has approached the board about possibly buying the company, the person said.

Goldman, which helped take Lululemon public in 2007, has had a long relationship with Mr. Wilson. The two sides are in the process of negotiating the terms of their arrangement as Mr. Wilson, who is looking for additional advisers, selects his team, one of the people said. A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment.

The moves suggest Mr. Wilson intends to exert influence over how the maker of fashionable yoga gear is run even though he stepped down as chairman last month and relinquished his role as CEO in 2005. Last week, he announced that he was voting his 28% stake against the company's new chairman and another director at its annual meeting.

Both directors were re-elected, but the conflict prompted speculation that Mr. Wilson may have bigger changes in mind. Since announcing his opposition, the founder has received several calls from financial firms who have been soliciting him with pitches, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Bankers also are trying to interest clients in a deal.

Going private could be a big bite for a private-equity firm given the premium that would be required atop the company's $5.9 billion market capitalization, people in the industry said.

Once a highflier, Lululemon has tumbled over the past year after it had to recall yoga pants that were too sheer. The debacle cost the company tens of millions of dollars and damaged its reputation. While it was focused on fixing the quality issues, it missed a shift in consumer demand toward bright colors, patterns and new trims from solid staples. The shift caused the company to lose out on sales and left it with piles of unsold inventory.

The company's shares have lost nearly a third of their value this year and fell by 4 cents to $40.23 on Friday.

Mr. Wilson's stated frustration isn't so much with the management, led by new Chief Executive Laurent Potdevin, which he supports, but with the strategic direction set by the board. Mr. Wilson founded the company in 1998 by creating innovative designs using high-quality fabrics, and he wants the company to return to those roots by making product development a higher priority, the person said. He had expressed his dissatisfaction to the board on several occasions before going public with his concerns.

A Lululemon spokesman said the company is focused on strengthening its "product engine" and expanding around the globe.

Founders and former executives who wage a battle against their companies can sometimes face an uphill battle. Ezra Dabah, the ousted chief executive of the Children's Place Inc., PLCE +0.32% abandoned a proxy fight in 2009 after proxy advisory firms recommended that shareholders side with the company. Mr. Dabah agreed to sell half of his 4.9 million shares in the company and resign from the board at that time.

Dov Charney, who was removed on Wednesday as chairman of American Apparel Inc. APP +0.88% and told the board intends to fire him as president and CEO, is facing a similar dilemma. Mr. Charney doesn't intend to sell his 27% stake in the company, a person familiar with his plans said.

(BFW) France Reaches Deal With Bouygues for Up to 20% of Alstom

BFW 06/22 18:15 France Reaches Deal With Bouygues for Up to 20% of Alstom
 BN 06/22 18:08 *FRANCE REACHES DEAL WITH BOUYGUES FOR UP TO 20% OF ALSTOM
MORE: France Reaches Deal With Bouygues for Up to 20% of Alstom
2014-06-22 18:17:32.377 GMT


By Andrea Snyder
     June 22 (Bloomberg) -- At end of 20 months, for 8 trading
days, a maximum of 15% of of Alstom will be able to be acquired
at the market price with a standard discount.
  * French government to exercise 20% of the voting rights in
    Alstom, will name 2 members to Alstom’s board
  * NOTE: Earlier, GE Poised to Win Alstom Bid as France Said to
    Near Accord {NSN N7KFEN6VDKI4<Go>}

Link to statement: {NSN N7L12T3V2800<Go>}
Link to Company News:{7011 JP <Equity> CN <GO>}
Link to Company News:{ALO FP <Equity> CN <GO>}
Link to Company News:{EN FP <Equity> CN <GO>}
Link to Company News:{GE US <Equity> CN <GO>}
Link to Company News:{SIE GR <Equity> CN <GO>}

For Related News and Information:
First Word scrolling panel: {FIRST<GO>}
First Word newswire: {NH BFW<GO>}

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Andrea Snyder at +1-202-624-1831 or
asnyder5@bloomberg.net

FT : Juncker’s triumph would be revolutionary for the EU

Juncker’s triumph would be revolutionary for the EU

Revolution is a strong word. But if, as looks likely, EU leaders bow to the European Parliament’s will this week and pick Jean-Claude Juncker to be the next European Commission president, it will represent a shift of power to the legislature at the expense of the other EU lawmaking institutions – the commission and the bloc’s 28 national governments.
More quickly than their opponents thought possible, the political parties that control parliament are forcing government leaders, for the first time in the EU’s 56-year history, to endorse a presidential candidate they themselves have not chosen. True, the precedent set will not be as stunning as the 1964 legal case, Costa v Enel, which established the supremacy of the EU over national law. But it is substantial and possibly irreversible.

An attachment to legal procedure runs deep in EU traditions. This redistribution of power will occur without the sanction of an inter-governmental treaty, such as the Maastricht and Lisbon accords of 1992 and 2009. It will be a political reality nonetheless. Two consequences will surely flow from it.
First, as a heavy political defeat for David Cameron, the UK prime minister, it will push Britain closer to the EU exit door. It will increase the likelihood of an in-out referendum in which pro-EU forces risk being on the back foot.
Not only will Mr Cameron have failed to block Mr Juncker’s appointment, the European parliament will also become more powerful just when British influence there will be at its lowest ebb. Such are the fruits of the success in last month’s EU elections of the anti-EU UK Independence party – and the self-exclusion of Mr Cameron’s Conservatives from the legislature’s largest group, the centre-right European People’s party.
Come a referendum, many British voters will have a mental picture of a strange, Strasbourg-based parliament that shapes laws for the UK but in which the British voice struggles to be heard.
Second, the parliament’s triumph will damage the commission’s authority by making it more subservient to the EU legislature. It will politicise a body supposed to consist of commissioners who, working with their non-partisan civil service, represent the general EU interest rather than their home nations.
Even on a good day, the salty smell of politics wafts through the commission’s corridors. But Mr Juncker’s appointment will put the commission in uncharted territory. No president has been in such thrall as he will be to the parliament’s dominant political parties. The Commission’s role as an impartial regulator of business competition, fiscal rules and much more will be in question from day one.

David Cameron is under pressure from all sides and faces a delicate balancing act in attempting to renegotiate an acceptable UK membership settlement with the EU
Likewise, the political parties will seek to capture the 27 commissioners who will serve Mr Juncker. Before taking office, every would-be commissioner must undergo a confirmation hearing, akin to a grilling by the US Senate. The EU legislature bared its teeth in 2004 by forcing the withdrawal of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian candidate. In 2010 it skewered Bulgaria’s Rumiana Jeleva. This time, the political parties are trying – with what success remains to be seen – to influence the choice of commissioner made by each national capital even before Mr Juncker toasts his appointment.
It will not stop there. During the parliament’s five-year term, parties that support closer EU integration and command a majority in the assembly will maximise their input into the laws that the commission, under EU treaty rules, has the main responsibility of drawing up.
The assembly itself cannot propose laws. But the parties can and will exert influence through the powerful legislative committees that scrutinise the commission’s activity – and through less formal political contacts with individual commissioners.
The parliament’s power grab should not surprise EU governments, least of all London. Under the banner of democracy, elected assemblies have done this for the past 400 years of European history, nowhere more famously than in 17th-century England.
Are some governments regretting the way events are unfolding? Yes. But it was national governments which, over the past two decades, increased the parliament’s powers in one EU treaty after another. Now they are reaping the whirlwind.

(ZH) China Builds World's Most Powerful Nuclear Reactor; Regulators "Overwhelmed

China Builds World's Most Powerful Nuclear Reactor; Regulators "Overwhelmed"

We are sure this will end well. Just as China took the 'if we build it (on free credit), they will come' growth model to extremes in real estate; it appears their ambitions in nuclear energy production are just as grandiose. However, just as they lost control of the real estate market, Bloomberg reports China is moving quickly to become the first country to operate the world’s most powerful atomic reactor even as France’s nuclear regulator says communication and cooperation on safety measures with its Chinese counterparts are lacking. France has a lot riding on a smooth roll out of China’s European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) as it is home to Areva, which developed the next-gen reactor, and utility EdF, which oversees the project. French regulators, speaking in parliament, warned, "the Chinese safety authorities lack means. They are overwhelmed."

Not what you want to hear as the nation embarks on the biggest nuclear energy facility creation ever, "if too many nuclear power projects are started too quickly, it could jeopardize the healthy, long-term development of nuclear power..." and the Chinese (just ask the Japanese).


As Bloomberg reports, China is moving quickly to become the first country to operate the world’s most powerful atomic reactor even as France’s nuclear regulator says communication and cooperation on safety measures with its Chinese counterparts are lacking.

Chinese builders are entering the final construction stages for two state-of-the-art European Pressurized Reactors. Each will produce about twice as much electricity as the average reactor worldwide.
The French are in charge... kinda...

France has a lot riding on a smooth roll out of China’s EPRs. The country is home to Areva SA (AREVA), which developed the next-generation reactor, and utility Electricite de France SA, which oversees the project. The two companies, controlled by the French state, need a safe, trouble-free debut in China to ensure a future for their biggest new product in a generation. And French authorities have not hidden their concerns.
And are not happy...

“Unfortunately, collaboration isn’t at a level we would wish it to be” with China, Jamet said. “One of the explanations for the difficulties in our relations is that the Chinese safety authorities lack means. They are overwhelmed.”
...
“the state of conservation” of large components like pumps and steam generators at Taishan “was not at an adequate level” and was “far” from the standards of the two other EPR plants,
China is rushing...

Some 28 reactors of various models are currently under construction in China. That’s more building than any other nation on the planet, and the country hasn’t reported a serious nuclear accident in the 22 years it has operated nuclear plants for commercial use.
“If the current momentum of development continues, if too many nuclear power projects are started too quickly, it could jeopardize the healthy, long-term development of nuclear power,” Fan Bi, a deputy director at the State Council Research Office, wrote in an article for Outlook Magazine, published by the official Xinhua news agency, two months before the Fukushima disaster.
China General, the country’s biggest atomic operator is forging ahead with EDF. It will begin critical tests on the most advanced of the 1,650-megawatt Taishan EPRs before start-up in 2015
But the Chinese nuclear regulator is a "total black box"

The Chinese regulator’s website contains relatively little information about safety issues. The most recent post on Taishan is a 2009 report on the start of cement work at the reactor referring to “problems left over from early-stage construction.” It said all current work was up to standards, without elaborating. In total just nine posts on the website mention Taishan, and many are blank apart from the title.
Critics of China’s nuclear safety regime, including Albert Lai, chairman of The Professional Commons, a Hong Kong think tank, says that lack of information risks eroding confidence in safety controls in what’s set to be a 14-fold increase of atomic capacity by 2030.
“The workings of China’s atomic safety authority are a ‘‘total black box,’’ said Lai. ‘‘China has no transparency whatsoever."
And even the Chinese are nervous...

And in a rare public comment about safety concerns, China’s own State Council Research Office three years ago warned that the development of the country’s power plants may be accelerating too quickly.
We are sure this will all end well...