融资租赁那个方向发展潜力比较大？飞机租赁？工程机械？船舶？地产？汽车？融资租赁公司有没有上市企业？通过融资租赁业务发展上市的？国际上融资租赁成熟的国家有哪些业务可以嵌入社会，人的生老病死各个方面？使其离不开融资租赁？融资租赁公司喜欢MBA吗？感觉融资租赁是新兴企业的好帮手，帮助企业快速发展？比如京东，聚美等要求自己构建物流配送，可以通过融资租赁快速扩张，抢占地盘？
谢谢邀请。融资租赁哪个行业发展潜力比较大，一方面看这个行业自身的发展潜力，这个要随时间推移动态来看；另一方面看这个行业是否适合融资租赁，也即融资租赁在这个行业的渗透率，这个可以结合发达国家的成熟的行业业态来对比。举几个例子来简单说说：1. 交通工具（比如飞机、汽车）、医疗设备等都是行业前景较好的，未来市场广阔、受经济周期影响非常小、风险低，并且该类设备容易处置，适合作为租赁物，因而这也是各家融资租赁公司大力开拓的方向，该类行业的融资租赁业务发展最快。2. 工程机械、生产设备（例如机床、生产线）等跟经济大周期有关，具备很强周期性，受经济发展增速和行业产能情况影响大，市场波动也较大，比如纺织机械、印刷机械等等，以这类业务为主的融资租赁公司经营状况亦容易受波动，一般要有行业背景和较高风控水平才敢参与竞争，该类行业情况较为复杂。3. 公用事业（比如轨道交通、水务）、环保产业（比如污水处理、合同能源管理）、新能源（比如光伏电站、风电场）等受经济周期波动小，甚至有些有逆周期性，比如经济不达预期时政府加大基础设施建设，其他行业产能过剩时大力推动节能环保和新能源，以这类业务为主的融资租赁公司需要具备很强专业性和资金实力。该类行业随着更多向民间资本开放，更多实力强的融资租赁公司进入，未来具有很好前景。4. 地产、道路、桥梁等不动产受法律法规、税收政策影响较大，受监管要求不同业务开展情况不同，而且开展这类业务要考虑合规性和经济可行性，前景比较难定论。融资租赁的业务范围一般为有形动产等高价值、低损耗的固定资产。因个人主要固定资产为房屋和车辆，所以直接涉及个人生活的主要是车辆，高端的比如游艇、私人飞机；而间接涉及到个人生活的就很多了，城市中的轨道交通、公交、供气、供暖、供水、医院、学校等都有可能是通过融资租赁方式投资建设而来的，比如日常出行的飞机、坐的地铁、公交，发电厂的发电机组、自来水的供水管网、医院的CT机等等都有可能是租赁来的，很有可能最终的所有权人是融资租赁公司，这样可以说融资租赁是涉及到生活中的方方面面。离不开融资租赁说的夸张了些，客观来看融资租赁只是众多融资方式中的一种，且其与其他融资方式相比有非常强的业务特性，即通过融物来实现融资，因而适合企业引进动产设备或者以高价值设备来盘活资金。企业应该依据自身行业、发展阶段和融资用途来选择众多股权和债权融资模式。融资租赁公司应该积极推动业务范围覆盖更多新兴领域，企业也应该要依据成本和效率来考量，积极应用融资租赁这种方式，积极创新尝试无可厚非，但也不必强搬硬套。例如向互联网企业这种，以吸引基金等股权投资来扩张或许具有更强的实用性。上市公司可以关注借壳上市的渤海租赁，香港上市的远东租赁，新三板上市的融信租赁，以及被西部资源收购的重庆市交通设备融资租赁有限公司，广汇汽车借壳美罗药业上市后的旗下汇通信诚租赁有限公司。
回答一下题主第二个问题：融资租赁公司有没有上市企业？通过融资租赁业务发展上市的？&br&目前国内A股上市的唯一一家租赁公司叫渤海租赁股份有限公司，是借壳上市的。该上市公司的子公司天津渤海租赁专注于做基础设施租赁，皖江金融租赁是银行系的金融租赁公司（涉及到租赁公司三大派系：内资、外资和金融系），另外通过海外并购纳入了境外某飞机租赁公司、全球第八大集装箱租赁公司。马上完成另一家美国集装箱租赁公司的并购，这一家和原有那家整合以后，将成为全球第一大。
回答一下题主第二个问题：融资租赁公司有没有上市企业？通过融资租赁业务发展上市的？ 目前国内A股上市的唯一一家租赁公司叫渤海租赁股份有限公司，是借壳上市的。该上市公司的子公司天津渤海租赁专注于做基础设施租赁，皖江金融租赁是银行系的金融租赁公司…
1、其实融资租赁不喜欢新的企业，融资租赁以物为载体，实质还是钱。虽然有物在那里放着，虽说承租人不还款，出租人就能收回来变现。但是实际操作中不是理想的那样，存在收回难度大，成本高，变现的金额远低于未收回的租金等问题。新企业的不确定性太大，真不还款了，那就是融资租赁公司的损失。&br&2、鉴于上面所说的，融资租赁公司喜欢那些贬值慢、易处理的租赁物；喜欢那些盈利能力强的企业。题主问的&u&融资租赁那个方向发展潜力比较大？飞机租赁？工程机械？船舶？地产？汽车？&/u& 地产不能融资租赁，船舶风险大，飞机租赁只有几家比较大的融资租赁公司在做，涉足工程机械和汽车的融资租赁公司很多。
1、其实融资租赁不喜欢新的企业，融资租赁以物为载体，实质还是钱。虽然有物在那里放着，虽说承租人不还款，出租人就能收回来变现。但是实际操作中不是理想的那样，存在收回难度大，成本高，变现的金额远低于未收回的租金等问题。新企业的不确定性太大，真…
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录
关注医疗、融资租赁与互联网金融。在租租上面填写技能详情，是不是出租会更容易一些呢？_百度知道“凭技能换租房”逐渐流行_新闻中心_新浪网
“凭技能换租房”逐渐流行
　　房地产时报沈忠民
　　“生活成本太高，合租也不堪重负。”据了解，沪上愿意用技能租房的年轻人越来越多。
　　一位网友发帖说：“上海房租太贵，希望用技能交换，解决住的问题。我很会做饭，工作又比较自由，可以天天给你做。我还会写作、跳爵士舞，有合适的可以联系我。我希望住在世纪公园附近。”一位软件工程师则发帖称：“本人是高级软件工程师，可教你做网站，还可以辅导小孩小学到初中的数理化等，换暂住房一间。”
　　就连个别老外也加入技能租房队伍，他们能利用的技能主要是母语。一位法国人告诉记者：他来中国前就已经在网上发帖征房。过去他经常来中国，能说“洋泾浜”普通话，因此有许多想学正宗法语的网友愿意与他交朋友。而他每次到上海都是住在用技能交换的房子里。
电话：010-程租租约下租家按时缩短LAYCAN期间是否是条件条款
UNIVERSAL BULK CARRIERS
LTD.v.ANDRE ET CIE [2001] EWCA Civ 588
Charter-party (Voyage) - Laycan - Construction - Status of term
narrowing laycan spread - Whether an option or obligation - Whether
compliance with clause a condition precedent - Whether charterers’
failure to nominate port breach of condition precedent to owners’
nomination of vessel - Whether Charter-party
repudiated.英国上诉法庭案例，法庭判定租家程租租约中按照合同时间缩短Laycan期间的规定是针对租家的义务，但不是条件条款，船东不能取消合同。因此，船东没有指定船舶是毁约，在船东没有指定船舶之前，租家没有义务指定装港。
By a charter- party dated Oct. 3, 1996 the owners let a vessel to
be nominated to the charterers for a voyage from the U.S. Gulf to
Malaysia with a shipment of HSS grain. The charter- was on the
Baltimore Berth Grain Form C, 1913 and provided inter alia:
8 Performing vessel to be nominated latest 13 days prior ETA
loadport . . .
9 The Owners to give the charterers. . .10. . .days notice of the
vessel’s expected readiness at the loading port . . .
20 . . .Charterers are to wireless the Master the
loading-port-orders within 48 hours of Master’s application.
26 The orders for the first discharging port to be given latest
when the vessel is 96 hours off Port Kelang . . .
40 . . .Charterers to have the option to “wash out” the nominated
voyage, which is to be declared by charterers latest on the day
when narrowing of laycan is due . . .
42 Laycan on first half December to be narrowed to 10 days spread
32 days prior to the first layday.
A 10-day spread would have made the first layday begin at 12 noon
on Dec. 6, 1996 and any narrowing of the laycan spread had
therefore to occur on or presumably before Nov. 4. That did not
Owners claimed that it was a condition of the contract that the
charterers should narrow the laycan spread but the charterers had
failed to do so and were in repudiatory breach so that the owners
were therefore not bound to nominate a vessel or give any notice of
any vessel’s expected readiness. The charterers claimed that the
provision for narrowing of the laycan spread was an option which
they could exercise or not at their choice and that therefore they
were not in breach of contract at all. Charterers claimed that
owners had without any grounds unilaterally terminated the
contract.The dispute was referred to arbitration and the
arbitrators held by a majority that the clause narrowing the laycan
spread was an option in favour of the charterers and that
charterers were entitled to recover damages on a rising market of
U.S.$304,425 for the owners’ failure to provide a vessel.
The owners appealed the issues for decision being:
(1) Whether the giving by the charterers of a notice narrowing
laycan under cl. 42 of the charter- party was a condition precedent
to the nomination of the vessel by the owners and thus to the
performance of the charter- party.
(2) Whether the giving of such notice was a legal obligation of the
charterers falling short of a condition precedent to performance
breach of which would entitle the owners to damages to be set off
against any damages to which the charterers might be entitled by
reason of the owners’ refusal to nominate a vessel and thus whether
the charterers’ claim failed for circuity of action.
(3) Whether the charterers by failing to nominate a load port were
in breach of a condition precedent to nomination by the owners of a
vessel and thus whether if the owners had been wrong to treat the
charterers’ failure to narrow laycan as a repudiatory breach of the
charters and to terminate on that ground, they could nevertheless
rely upon the failure to nominate a load port as justifying their
termination so as to defeat the charterers’ claims.
-Held, by Longmore, J., that the appeal against the award would be
dismissed.
The owners appealed the issue for decision being whether a clause
narrowing a laycan in a voyage charter- party was in the absence of
words to the contrary always a condition precedent to an obligation
to nominate a vessel.
-Held, by C.A. (Potter and Clarke, L.JJ. and Bennett, J.), that (1)
cl. 42 was almost certainly introduced into the charter for the
benef but cl. 42 was not drafted in such a way
as to provide an opti the words “to be” in the
phrase “to be narrowed” naturally imported an obligation of some
kind rather than an option and cl. 42 did not confer an option on
the charterers but imposed a duty (see p. 69, col. 2);
(2) it was common ground that if cl. 42 imposed a duty it did so on
the charterers and not the owners (see p. 69, col. 2);
(3) given that the charter- party could be performed in accordance
with its terms whether or not the charterers discharged their
obligations to narrow the laycan spread, it seemed likely that the
parties intended that cl. 42 was a condition of the contract such
that any breach of it would entitle the owners to treat the
charter- it made no commercial sense to hold
that the parties intended that the owners should be able to treat
the whole contract as at an end if the charterers served a notice
it made better sense to hold that in such
circumstances the owners had a choice either to treat the notice as
contractual or non-contractual (see p. 72, col. 1);
(4) cl. 42 did not confer an option but an obligation on the
it was not a condition of the contractor a condition
precedent to the performance by either party of any other
obligation in the charter- the question whether a clause
narrowing laycan in a voyage charter- party was in the absence of
words to the contrary, always a condition precedent to an
obligation to nominate a vessel would be answ
the appeal would be dismissed (see p. 74, col. 1; p. 75, cols. 1
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。