On December 13th, according to the announcement of the resolution of the first bondholders' meeting of &#34;22 Vanke MTN004&#34;, none of the three extension proposals were effectively approved.
As of the debt registration date, December 9th, there were a total of 20 institutions that were holders or agents of holders of 22 Vanke MTN004. Among them, 18 institutions participated in this extension meeting, with a total valid voting power of 19,890,000, accounting for 99.45% of the total voting rights.
This meeting involved three proposals, with the core extension rules remaining consistent: all proposals were for a one-year extension, during which no principal or interest payments would be made.
The differences mainly focused on credit enhancement arrangements—Proposal One maintained the initial extension plan without setting up credit enhancement measures; Proposals Two and Three introduced credit enhancement terms acceptable to investors, while also clearly stating conditional adjustments to the principal and interest payment arrangements.
According to the &#34;22 Vanke MTN004&#34; bond prospectus, for a proposal to pass, it requires the consent of holders with voting rights exceeding 90% of the total voting rights of this debt financing tool.
From the voting results, none of the three proposals received more than 90% valid voting consent. Notably, no one voted in favor of Proposal One, while 16 institutions voted against it, accounting for 76.70% of the total voting rights, thus Proposal One did not take effect.
<img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/a08afb03-69ff-42bc-9cb6-5079769d092d.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/a08afb03-69ff-42bc-9cb6-5079769d092d.png"/>
Huang Lichong, president of Huisheng International Capital Co., Ltd., stated that Vanke's initial extension proposal (i.e., Proposal One), under the current pressure on real estate companies, effectively allows creditors zero cash flow and zero additional compensation for one year, which naturally triggered strong opposition from some institutions.
&#34;The reason the extension terms appear to be rigid is that Vanke's own operating cash flow and refinancing channels have been compressed, and it can only prioritize ensuring the delivery of buildings, rigid financial debts, and operational expenditures, hoping to exchange time for survival, while creditors demand price and terms to recognize losses in advance,&#34; Huang Lichong believes.
The proposal with the most votes in favor was Proposal Two, which included additional credit enhancement measures acceptable to investors and conditional adjustments to the principal and interest payment arrangements of the medium-term notes. A total of 7 holders or their agents voted in favor of this proposal, with a valid voting power of 16,680,000, accounting for 83.40% of the total voting rights, but still did not exceed 90%.
The opposition ratio for Proposal Three also reached 76.70%, with only one vote in favor, accounting for 18.95% of the total voting rights.
Therefore, none of the three proposals from the bondholders' meeting of 22 Vanke MTN004 took effect.
The bond prospectus indicates that a grace period of 5 working days is set for defaults on the timely and full repayment of the principal or interest of the debt financing tool. If the issuer fully repays the debts described within this period, it does not constitute a default under this debt financing tool
When the issuer encounters risk or default events, the issuer can negotiate with the holders to take the following risk and default disposal measures. First, restructuring and changing registration elements: with no objections from the issuer, the holder meeting can pass a resolution with a voting ratio of 90% to adjust the basic repayment terms of this debt financing tool, and this resolution will bind all holders under this debt issue; second, restructuring and repaying in other ways.
In other words, Vanke has a grace period of 5 working days to negotiate with investors.
In the first three quarters of 2025, Vanke reported a net loss of 28.02 billion yuan, still facing phased operational pressure; the cash it holds amounts to 65.68 billion yuan, with interest-bearing liabilities totaling 362.93 billion yuan, and a debt-to-asset ratio of 73.5%.
Huang Lichong believes that so-called market-oriented debt resolution means that debt issues are mainly resolved through negotiations between enterprises and creditors, transaction structure design, and asset disposal, rather than relying on administrative orders and unconditional guarantees. &#34;Compared to small and medium-sized distressed real estate companies, Vanke's advantage in market-oriented debt resolution lies in the fact that the table is still there, time is still there, and the asset pool is still there. It can strive for a longer amortization period through multiple extensions, asset securitization, project consolidation/separation, and equity introduction in various combinations. The challenge is that the scale is too large, the projects are too widespread, and the social negative impact is enormous. Every step is under the magnifying glass of regulation, ratings, and the market, leaving less room for error.&#34;
Risk Warning and Disclaimer
The market has risks, and investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment goals, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Investing based on this is at their own risk

000002

02202

Vanke's three extension proposals presented at the "22 Vanke MTN004" bondholder meeting were not approved. Proposal one had no credit enhancement measures, while proposals two and three included credit enhancement terms acceptable to investors, but none received more than 90% of the voting rights' approval. Vanke is facing pressure from operating cash flow and refinancing channels, and the extension plan has sparked opposition from creditors

- On December 13, the first bondholder meeting for "22 Vanke MTN004" resulted in all three extension proposals being rejected.  
- The proposals aimed for a one-year extension without principal or interest payments, but failed to secure the required 90% approval, with significant opposition due to concerns over cash flow and compensation.  
- Vanke faces ongoing financial pressure, with a net loss of 28.02 billion yuan in the first three quarters of 2025, and has a five-day grace period to negotiate with investors regarding debt repayment.

All three proposals for Vanke's extension period were not approved, and there is still a grace period of 5 working days