5 ms·

I don't think we have the details to paint one side worse than the other. Also don't see why a Chinese company can't buy shares in a company. Financial produ

I don't think we have the details to paint one side worse than the other. Also don't see why a Chinese company can't buy shares in a company. Financial products, just like other products, are purchasable by any nationality. If Palantir is doing something that risks national security then they ought to work with the government on that. I don't think we know enough about Palantir to make a judgement there.

jacquesm 10y ago
> I don't think we have the details to paint one side worse than the other. Are you kidding? By any measure that is available China is a country that is inferior to a vast chunk of the world when it comes to civil liberties and political freedom. Palantir or a substantial portion of it in the hands of the Chinese (and, by extension in the hands of the Chinese authorities, direct or indirect) is something that you simply should not want.
- RockyMcNuts 10y ago
  sounds like they would have been buying a minority holding through a TPG fund, and every investor doesn't have access to all the data and tech. so it depends...if a Chinese entity buys Boeing or Lockheed through an S&P fund it's not exactly a big deal
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They're not buying these shares through a fund on the open market but in one large chunk from a direct shareholder. Why assume they'd stop at a minority interest? A Chinese equity buying a sizeable chunk of equity in Boeing or Lockheed would be a huge deal, comparable to the Aixtron acquisition (German chipmaker, deal got blocked by Obama administration on national security grounds). Ditto for Fairchild and Philips. The Chinese directly or indirectly trying to gain a sizeable chunk of a company like Palantir is not just any old stock transaction, it is a strategic acquisition.
    - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
      well, I wouldn't be OK with the Chinese owning an interest in Palantir that gave them insider access, fair enough, but the story is super light on details, including Abramowitz's role, why they fell out, why Jamie Dimon was going to get involved (must have felt they were out of line and there was an important issue involving important people). If the China angle is an issue, then should it be an issue when Palantir gives immigration agents access to CIA files, ergo is involved in arbitrarily denying visas, ergo de facto building the 'Muslim registry'? https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigration-agents-to-access-information-from-the-cia/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigra... http://www.voanews.com/a/african-trade-conference-canceled-after-visas-denied-african-delegates/3770907.html http://www.voanews.com/a/african-trade-conference-canceled-a...
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Yes, Palantir is complicit in all kinds of bad stuff. That doesn't mean you should treat their ownership lightly.
      - hendzen 10y ago
        Jamie Dimon was going to get involved because the buyer of the shares was Highbridge Capital, a hedge fund owned by JPM.
        RockyMcNuts 10y ago
        Highbridge isn't normally going to get Jamie Dimon involved in routine business disputes for relatively modest amounts of money. He's got to run around Davos, wrestle whales and whatnot. You get Jamie Dimon involved when you want to put someone or everyone associated with the deal in JP Morgan's global double secret probation penalty box. Seems like there is a missing piece of the puzzle.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  > By any measure that is available China is a country that is inferior to a vast chunk of the world when it comes to civil liberties and political freedom. Seriously? What does that have to do with investing in the stock market? Palantir isn't the Manhattan Project. Plus, the US is on friendly terms with China. Most of our computer hardware is made there. I don't see how Chinese investing in Palantir somehow hurts our national security. No need to spread FUD or build walls in the stock market. Your comments seem to be in line with Thiel and Trump, who fear other countries, so I can see where you're coming from, I just think it's 1950's style thinking and not reflective of 2017 reality.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Palantir isn't the Manhattan Project. It isn't Coca Cola either.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > Palantir or a substantial portion of it in the hands of the Chinese (and, by extension in the hands of the Chinese authorities, direct or indirect) is something that you simply should not want. I don't see why not. China is a live and let live sort of government. They're not trying to export their civil liberties or political system to other parts of the world. They mainly care about what economic inputs/outputs they share with other countries. Also, why do we care if China have access to Palantir's technologies? I agree that if they have access to the data, that would be a bad thing in terms of national security. But their technology wouldn't be any threat to us.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > China is a live and let live sort of government. Tibetans might disagree with you.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      I see you're not responding to my argument. China rarely interferes with the internal affairs of foreign governments. I don't see why giving China technology it's not likely to use outside of its borders is an issue here. Like I said before, access to data is another thing all together.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > China rarely interferes with the internal affairs of foreign governments. I've been paying pretty good attention to the news the last 3 decades or so and I'm going to have to disagree with you there. They're not as bad as some but they are definitely players.
    - syngrog66 10y ago
      and Hong Kong, and Taiwan
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Apologies for the oversight, you are 100% right and I should have definitely included those.
imron 10y ago
> If Palantir is doing something that risks national security then they ought to work with the government on that. On the other hand, if they are already working with the government on things that have an impact on, or are related to, national security, then it is perhaps prudent not to sell large portions of the firm to foreign buyers.
bluejekyll 10y ago
Since this isn't a public company, and many startups have rules over what is valid or invalid sale of their private stock, isn't Palantir able to say who can and cannot buy the stock? I am not making any claim about why or why not, just that they are currently in a posistion where they can control these things, right? If they were public this seems like it would be a different issue... Also, if the US govt were very concerned about this, I imagine they would step in and block it.
- adventured 10y ago
  Any large position purchase of Palantir by China will have to pass national security approval by the US Government.
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    Source?
    - rtx 10y ago
      Dual use technology restrictions.
      - unityByFreedom 10y ago
        I trust the relevant agencies and courts to determine whether such a sale ought to proceed. No sense choosing a side based on a news article while we are far from the details.
        gech 10y ago
        The whole purpose of your comments then are to kill discussion?
        unityByFreedom 10y ago
        Yes. I wave my magic wand and make it so gech can only contribute one comment. And yes there is pixie dust, in case you're wondering.
travmatt 10y ago
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS, commonly pronounced "sifius") is an inter-agency committee of the United States Government that reviews the national security implications of foreign investments in U.S. companies or operations. Chaired by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, CFIUS includes representatives from 16 U.S. departments and agencies, including the Defense, State and Commerce departments, as well as (most recently) the Department of Homeland Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen... There is already an established consensus that foreign nations can't invest just like 'everyone else'.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  That seems reasonable. I trust them to figure this one out. I doubt that China is on the brink of holding a majority of Palantir, or that they would gain access to its data by investing.

jacquesm 10y ago

> I don't think we have the details to paint one side worse than the other. Are you kidding? By any measure that is available China is a country that is inferior to a vast chunk of the world when it comes to civil liberties and political freedom. Palantir or a substantial portion of it in the hands of the Chinese (and, by extension in the hands of the Chinese authorities, direct or indirect) is something that you simply should not want.

RockyMcNuts 10y ago
sounds like they would have been buying a minority holding through a TPG fund, and every investor doesn't have access to all the data and tech. so it depends...if a Chinese entity buys Boeing or Lockheed through an S&P fund it's not exactly a big deal
- jacquesm 10y ago
  They're not buying these shares through a fund on the open market but in one large chunk from a direct shareholder. Why assume they'd stop at a minority interest? A Chinese equity buying a sizeable chunk of equity in Boeing or Lockheed would be a huge deal, comparable to the Aixtron acquisition (German chipmaker, deal got blocked by Obama administration on national security grounds). Ditto for Fairchild and Philips. The Chinese directly or indirectly trying to gain a sizeable chunk of a company like Palantir is not just any old stock transaction, it is a strategic acquisition.
  - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
    well, I wouldn't be OK with the Chinese owning an interest in Palantir that gave them insider access, fair enough, but the story is super light on details, including Abramowitz's role, why they fell out, why Jamie Dimon was going to get involved (must have felt they were out of line and there was an important issue involving important people). If the China angle is an issue, then should it be an issue when Palantir gives immigration agents access to CIA files, ergo is involved in arbitrarily denying visas, ergo de facto building the 'Muslim registry'? https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigration-agents-to-access-information-from-the-cia/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigra... http://www.voanews.com/a/african-trade-conference-canceled-after-visas-denied-african-delegates/3770907.html http://www.voanews.com/a/african-trade-conference-canceled-a...
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Yes, Palantir is complicit in all kinds of bad stuff. That doesn't mean you should treat their ownership lightly.
    - hendzen 10y ago
      Jamie Dimon was going to get involved because the buyer of the shares was Highbridge Capital, a hedge fund owned by JPM.
      - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
        Highbridge isn't normally going to get Jamie Dimon involved in routine business disputes for relatively modest amounts of money. He's got to run around Davos, wrestle whales and whatnot. You get Jamie Dimon involved when you want to put someone or everyone associated with the deal in JP Morgan's global double secret probation penalty box. Seems like there is a missing piece of the puzzle.
unityByFreedom 10y ago
> By any measure that is available China is a country that is inferior to a vast chunk of the world when it comes to civil liberties and political freedom. Seriously? What does that have to do with investing in the stock market? Palantir isn't the Manhattan Project. Plus, the US is on friendly terms with China. Most of our computer hardware is made there. I don't see how Chinese investing in Palantir somehow hurts our national security. No need to spread FUD or build walls in the stock market. Your comments seem to be in line with Thiel and Trump, who fear other countries, so I can see where you're coming from, I just think it's 1950's style thinking and not reflective of 2017 reality.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Palantir isn't the Manhattan Project. It isn't Coca Cola either.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> Palantir or a substantial portion of it in the hands of the Chinese (and, by extension in the hands of the Chinese authorities, direct or indirect) is something that you simply should not want. I don't see why not. China is a live and let live sort of government. They're not trying to export their civil liberties or political system to other parts of the world. They mainly care about what economic inputs/outputs they share with other countries. Also, why do we care if China have access to Palantir's technologies? I agree that if they have access to the data, that would be a bad thing in terms of national security. But their technology wouldn't be any threat to us.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > China is a live and let live sort of government. Tibetans might disagree with you.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    I see you're not responding to my argument. China rarely interferes with the internal affairs of foreign governments. I don't see why giving China technology it's not likely to use outside of its borders is an issue here. Like I said before, access to data is another thing all together.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > China rarely interferes with the internal affairs of foreign governments. I've been paying pretty good attention to the news the last 3 decades or so and I'm going to have to disagree with you there. They're not as bad as some but they are definitely players.
  - syngrog66 10y ago
    and Hong Kong, and Taiwan
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Apologies for the oversight, you are 100% right and I should have definitely included those.

imron 10y ago

> If Palantir is doing something that risks national security then they ought to work with the government on that. On the other hand, if they are already working with the government on things that have an impact on, or are related to, national security, then it is perhaps prudent not to sell large portions of the firm to foreign buyers.

bluejekyll 10y ago

Since this isn't a public company, and many startups have rules over what is valid or invalid sale of their private stock, isn't Palantir able to say who can and cannot buy the stock? I am not making any claim about why or why not, just that they are currently in a posistion where they can control these things, right? If they were public this seems like it would be a different issue... Also, if the US govt were very concerned about this, I imagine they would step in and block it.

adventured 10y ago
Any large position purchase of Palantir by China will have to pass national security approval by the US Government.
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  Source?
  - rtx 10y ago
    Dual use technology restrictions.
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      I trust the relevant agencies and courts to determine whether such a sale ought to proceed. No sense choosing a side based on a news article while we are far from the details.
      - gech 10y ago
        The whole purpose of your comments then are to kill discussion?
        unityByFreedom 10y ago
        Yes. I wave my magic wand and make it so gech can only contribute one comment. And yes there is pixie dust, in case you're wondering.

travmatt 10y ago

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS, commonly pronounced "sifius") is an inter-agency committee of the United States Government that reviews the national security implications of foreign investments in U.S. companies or operations. Chaired by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, CFIUS includes representatives from 16 U.S. departments and agencies, including the Defense, State and Commerce departments, as well as (most recently) the Department of Homeland Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen... There is already an established consensus that foreign nations can't invest just like 'everyone else'.

unityByFreedom 10y ago
That seems reasonable. I trust them to figure this one out. I doubt that China is on the brink of holding a majority of Palantir, or that they would gain access to its data by investing.