by CHEN Xiaotong
LeTV, once a high-profile tech conglomerate that collapsed after overextending into hardware and electric vehicles under founder JIA Yueting, has defended a plan to deploy up to 180 million yuan (about US$25 million) into stocks and bond reverse repos. The company said the move has been "misread," countering criticism that a firm with 23.8 billion yuan in outstanding debt should not be committing cash to financial investments.
Now delisted and traded on China's over-the-counter market, LeTV said at least 150 million yuan will go into new-share offerings on the Beijing Stock Exchange and treasury bond reverse repos, described as low-risk instruments that offer yields above bank deposits. Another 30 million yuan will be invested conservatively, with at least 80% in CSI 300 constituents and at least 50% in bank stocks.
In comments to Jiemian News, the company said the backlash stems from a misreading of its financial position. LeTV noted that its available cash is too small to materially affect its liabilities and that, after keeping minimum working capital, its repayment capacity "would not exceed 1.5%." Deploying funds into short-duration, low-risk assets, it argued, could generate incremental returns, whereas fragmented repayment would be largely symbolic.
LeTV's financial crisis dates back to 2016, when rapid diversification—from online video to smartphones, smart TVs and an ambitious EV program—triggered a liquidity crunch. The turmoil led to regulatory penalties, including a 240 million yuan fine in 2021 for a decade of accounting irregularities. Its shares were removed from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in 2020 at 0.18 yuan per share. By 2024, the company reported 23.76 billion yuan in liabilities against only 1.855 billion yuan in assets.
LeTV continues to appear in enforcement records. In July, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court issued a 10.07 million yuan enforcement order against the company. In August, LeTV and LeTV Holdings were named in another case involving 92,600 yuan tied to a patent agency dispute.
The company maintains that preserving—and potentially modestly growing—its remaining liquidity is a more pragmatic approach than making repayments too small to influence its overall debt burden. The controversy underscores enduring skepticism toward a company whose rise and collapse remain among the most scrutinized failures in China's tech sector.
