12 ms·
White House Weighs Limits on U.S. Portfolio Flows Into China
- tibbydudeza 7y agoTime to bring out the duck and cover PSA videos ... US/UK vs China-Eurasian hegemony ... sounds like 1984 all over again.
- asdf333 7y agoi would recommend the documentary "the china hustle" i was skeptical of the documentary before watching, but it is very good
- panpanna 7y agoHow would this affect foreign pension funds that invest in NYSE? Would they just sell their Chineses stocks or move some investment to another country??
- aritmo 7y agoLooks like a proper shakedown.
- gigatexal 7y agoAmerica used to be the free of autocrats but is now run by a faux fascist who is openly jealous of other dictators around the world. What a time to be American. I guess I’ll have my chance to make a change in November of next year. Until then it’s shame all the way down.
- kick 7y agoThis seems reasonable, though the administration is likely doing it for the wrong reasons. Genuine question: Is sentiment more important than correctness, or is the opposite true?
- AsyncAwait 7y ago> This seems reasonable Does it? The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products, it has been preaching the free market mantra for decades. Regardless of everything else about China, they're now starting to make some actually compelling products so the U.S is acting out. I know the argument is that Chinese companies are just an extension of the state, but you could say the same in reverse about the U.S. I just assumed it's going to be more subtle than this, as an EU citizen, this sends a clear signal to me that the EU is only an 'ally' as long as it keeps buying American products.
- tolqen 7y ago> I know the argument is that Chinese companies are just an extension of the state, but you could say the same in reverse about the U.S What
- AstralStorm 7y agoThe US state being an extension of US companies, thanks to all the lobbying, collusion and some underhanded moves.
- pinkfoot 7y agoI think a good argument can be made that Lockheed Martin and Boeing are extensions of the USG.
- chrischen 7y agoThe US and citizens, even without direct stock, are beneficial owners of US companies because they contribute to the economy and livelihood of the local economy... that and National Security Letters.
- simion314 7y agoAlso US started wars , military actions or changed the governments around the world,spied(maybe assassinations - I would apreciate someone if knows of a good example of this) , pushed international law for the interest of the big companies(aka for money) ex the banana wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars Also the government will intervene on the internal market too with money,subsidies, regulations,exceptions to help the big companies, in t he end the state and big companies are in a long relationship and there is no way you can deny this just ways you can try to find arguments that is fair and honest.
- OscarCunningham 7y agoWhy do you think it's reasonable?
- kick 7y agoChina as a country should be punished by the State. It has too many human rights abuses not to. However, I also think this applies to the US. The two punishing one another seems reasonable, but I cannot imagine one or the other cares about something as trivial as basic human rights.
- OscarCunningham 7y agoIn that case I would have to answer >Is sentiment more important than correctness, or is the opposite true? by saying that there's no advantage to punishing China unless the punishment is connected to the human rights abuses. If the US was saying "stop the abuses and we'll lift the tariffs" then that would be good. But they're not, so it isn't. The fact that the governments are committing abuses doesn't make it an inherently good thing that their citizens are being punished.
- basementcat 7y agoWould that just mean the securities will just trade on pink sheets? Or would it be more likely that trading would migrate to a stock exchange in another country?
- stefano 7y agoThe London stock exchange would be an obvious candidate.
- schuke 7y agoThe Hong Kong Stock Exchange offered to buy LSE recently. I wonder if these are connected.
- cyborgx7 7y agoI heard people were moving away from doing stocks in London with Brexit looming. Is this no longer the case?
- riffraff 7y agoI know blackrock will delist quite a few EUR denominated ETFs[0] from the LSE, but what stocks actually mentioned leaving the LSE? [0] https://www.etfstream.com/news/8949_blackrock-delists-43-etfs-from-lse/ https://www.etfstream.com/news/8949_blackrock-delists-43-etf...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ackbar03 7y agoIm sorry but just reading this almost feels like an April Fools joke, except sadly its September
- tanilama 7y agoEmmmm, this is crazy. Capital will find its way just not through US exchange
- azurezyq 7y agoOk, now WH is exploring all creative (and unprecedented) ways to fight against China. I have to say this seems to have crossed a lot of boundaries, either clear or vague ones. And we've also seen WH is doing similar things (though at a different degree) to close partners like Mexico. So let's extrapolate, if there're some conflicts in interests between US and major NATO countries, will WH do the same thing? Make America great again even no one wants to talk to US?
- greatpatton 7y agoSeems that the easy war with China is not that easy. So now the WH is resorting to other means to put pressure on China. This will backfire as the WH is trying really hard to make US less relevant. By actively using weapon that were previously seen as a huge deterrent, you make them a short term problem for China, but they will find a way around them and make them ineffective. The WH is fighting will almost all major economies (apart SA, Israel, and brexit Britain), and it's going to end pretty badly. I will be very surprised if we don't get a market crack before end of next year.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoWhat'll really surprise you is when the central banking system is shut down.
- nosuchthing 7y agoIsn’t bitmain ramping down production already though?
- ulfw 7y agoMost of this Trump idiocy will backfire on the US. Tiny example of today: https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-is-apparently-already-making-5g-base-stations-without-us-parts/ https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-is-apparently-already-makin... How does having no US parts benefit America here exactly? Having one day a non-Android competitor that the largest Android manufacturers of the world (Huawei, Oppo, Vivo, Oneplus, Xiaomi) might use will benefit the US how? Having Chinese homegrown chips one day will benefit the US how? etc etc I get that something might have to be done. This certainly isn't the way.
- cft 7y agoAre there US companies that are listed on mainland Chinese exchanges?
- iron0013 7y agoThread title does not match link title or content.
- riffraff 7y agowhile the title is a bit more inflammatory than the article, it does say that delisting is being considered amongst other options.
- keiferski 7y agoThe growing confrontation between the West and China seems to me to boil down to a philosophical problem: - Should free markets/societies/cultural entities allow participation by all actors, even those which (in their own spaces) obviously don't play by the rules of the entered market/society/culture? - Or, should entry into the entity be restricted to those that themselves (in their own space) follow the rules of the entered culture? It seems to me that there are definite advantages and disadvantages to both approaches and it's probably something that game theorists have addressed. To use a convoluted, over-simplified metaphor of a playground: - If we allow kids (that have different rules in their own playground) into our playground, we run the risk of their rules overcoming or having a negative effect on ours. We also enable them to play with us while having "bad" rules on their own playground - some of which might give them an (unfair) advantage over us on our own playground. However, we get the benefits of having more kids and toys to play with. And, maybe the kids will choose our rules (which we perceive as better) over their own. - If we don't allow them into our playground, we have less kids and toys to play with. We also have no real direct influence on them - they can't see that our rules are better in person, and we can't threaten to kick them out of our playground if they aren't in it to begin with. However, we avoid the risk of having their rules overwhelm ours and we worry less about them having unfair advantages over us on our own playground.
- xxxpupugo 7y ago> The growing confrontation between the West and China seems to me to boil down to a philosophical problem It is not West VS China, it is mainly US VS China. EU and other Asian developed economies might disdain China ideologically, but I don't think they have the appetite to break the status quo this eagerly. And it is nothing philosophical about it. It is geopolitical, and it is human nature. What you are saying are just intellectual seasoning, it may be necessary to intrigue the audience, but not for action. China is a new world power that competes with US both militarily and economically. Post WWII, US had fought with Soviet/Japan on those fronts separately, but China looks like a combination of both, makes it even more threatening and hard to tolerate.
- factsaresacred 7y ago
- fouc 7y agoI'm guessing that Chinese companies are somewhat similar to statutory companies. I've heard that large Chinese companies have strong CCP oversight, with a party member involved that the CEO/founder has to defer to. So the question is - does it make sense for not-actually-public-companies from other countries to be listed on the U.S. stock exchange? It could be potentially misleading otherwise.
- ainiriand 7y agoLockheed Martin is in a similar situation.
- nraynaud 7y agoBoeing is listed in more or less the same conditions. Google is listed and they have strong links with political parties. edit: the more direct answer is that the shares that are listed are free and publicly tradable, there exist other shares that are not available on the marketplace, like Facebook. But those shares are owned by state entities.
- dragonwriter 7y agoAll it means for a company to be a public company is that it has publicly traded equity. A company that is listed on a stock exchange is, ipso facto, a public company.
- thephyber 7y agoThe Alibaba listing in the US isn't even for stock in the Chinese company. It's "stock" in a Cayman Islands holding company that doesn't have any guarantee for stockholders to have any rights in the Chinese parent company.[1] When the US president uses the bully pulpit to insult and threaten American-based multinational companies to suit his political / personal needs at the threat of a DoJ / SEC investigation or FAA license threat, how is that much different than a CCP official doing the same? I would argue it's not nearly as far as my fellow Americans would like to think it is. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/beware-alibaba-ipo-isnt-really-selling-alibaba-2014-05-07 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/beware-alibaba-ipo-isnt-re...
- iscrewyou 7y agoOh boy, this thread needs to be locked down. All the conversation has turned into political short outbursts and I only see one comment actually remotely talking about the topic. Even the thread title is not what the article headline is. Maybe the title is at fault for off-topic conversations.
- nabla9 7y agoNormally the US government has extraordinary power over China in financial sector. But Trump has alienated all traditional allies. Threat to exclude China turns into opportunity for others to exploit the situation. Euronext, London, Toronto, Tokyo and Hong Kong are in the position to gain relative to NASDAQ and NYSE. ps. I think the change of delisting happening is less than 5%.
- wruza 7y agoHow would it change costs of chinese goods (esp. hardware) for a third world, if implemented? Edit: added chinese
- RaceWon 7y agoMore trade leverage and it will also destroy Biden. Brilliant.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoGood. The CCP pretty much owns every Chinese big company. And, they don't let people examine their books. Who's to say that all that American investment money isn't going into grossly or even fraudulently overvalued stock?
- Traster 7y agoThe SEC. If your concern is that companies listed on US stock exchanges aren't correctly reporting their financials thats an issue for the SEC. It's not an issue for a blanket ban on Chinese companies being listed. Preventing Americans from being able to trade their investments easily on a reputable exchange isn't going to help them.
- makomk 7y agoRunning undercover espionage operations in China - which is what it would probably take to work out what's going on, given that the government there is in on it and extremely hostile to whistleblowers - is well outside the scope of what the SEC is capable of. Even the CIA has trouble with it.
- _iyig 7y agoThe SEC has already failed miserably once in this exact role. What reason do we have to believe that even a fully-funded, well-staffed SEC could get the necessary _accurate_ figures out of China, and Chinese companies, to adequately perform this duty? Many Chinese companies have grossly exaggerated assets and earnings to the SEC before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Hustle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Hustle
- atr_gz 7y agoExcept the SEC has given Chinese companies an exemption from normal oversight. I agree that there shouldn't be a blanket ban - but the companies should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. https://www.chinalawblog.com/2019/06/china-and-the-u-s-stock-market-nowhere-to-go.html https://www.chinalawblog.com/2019/06/china-and-the-u-s-stock...
- longcat 7y agosadly the CCP don't play by any rules
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jarym 7y agoOn the one hand - I feel it is totally legitimate that the US take the view that they want a symmetrical arrangement in so far as 'if Chinese firms can access US investors then US firms should be able to access Chinese ones'. On the other hand, this has the feel of trying to bully China into a trade deal that is good for Trump but not for the Chinese. It could also hurt investor confidence in the US. Ultimately, its a tough one and while I think its a horrible path for the US to be pursuing, I understand why they are thinking about it.
- ulfw 7y agoUS Propaganda and sentiment as instigated by this administration against China resembles cold war anti-Soviet sentiment in the 1970s and 80s.
- bjourne 7y agoIt seems like free markets has a lot in common with anal sex. It's all fun if I do it on you, but don't you dare try doing free market on me!
- dang 7y agoPlease don't do this here.
- arisAlexis 7y agoThis is typical tactics from Trump. Whenever there is a meeting he inflicts maximum leverage and stress to the opponent. I wouldn't read much into this honestly. It's a game.
- krapp 7y agoI wonder when Trump will realize he's trying to play checkers on a chess board?
- robomartin 7y agoThe China problem is of our own doing, of course. Up until Trump nobody had any interest in addressing it. I'll just say nobody before him took this on because of the potential for political suicide. Love or hate him (I'm +/- around neutral, hate how he presents the presidency, like most of what he is actually doing when he is not busy saying stupid things) forcing a realignment of China is a good idea. This had to be done 25 years ago, when it would have been far easier to accomplish. Attempting this today is equivalent to not detecting cancer early enough for a simple operation to extract it fully with minimal consequences. Instead, we wait until it has metastasized and nearly have to kill the patient in an attempt to cure him. Notice my use of the word "attempt"...because there are no guarantees. The China problem, I think, can be boiled down to a few important line items: - Intellectual property theft - Currency manipulation - Terrible disregard of the environment - Objectionable labor practices - Predatory practices with foreign entities operating in China - Fraud in regulatory testing and standards (UL/CE/TUV mark from China testing means nothing) - Lackluster of participation in foreign aid (for the second largest economy it is embarrassing) - Asymmetric property ownership laws - Abuse of the global postal system (free shipping from China because the US taxpayers subsidize their packages within the us to the tune of US $500 million per year) There's probably more, though I think these are some of the main points. If any other economy behaved this way they would be universally scolded in around the world. If the US, Germany, France or the UK behaved this way we would have massive marches all over the world. China does this and more and people, for the most part, are either oblivious to it or don't care. The problem with this is that they are sacrificing their own jobs and their kid's futures for their inaction. I think the value of playing with reasonably similar rules is that one entity can't destroy other players by using out of the norm methods to destroy them and then gain supremacy. This is why we have such things as antitrust and monopoly laws. This is why such methods as price fixing and bribery are illegal in the US and Europe. This is why we respect intellectual property, fight for humane labor practices, respect safety testing of the products we use and help less fortunate nations to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and generally speaking. China is almost the diametric opposite of this. And for that they likely deserve a bit of a reality check today. Non an easy problem to fix. Others have allowed this cancer to metastasize for decades. To fix it today you have to be a complete a--hole and go for broke. It looks like the job fits the guy in the White House. Not sure if he will succeed. The other problem is that, in western democracies, leaders and some policies tend to only survive term limits and election cycles, while in China they know they can stay the course for decades.
- djohnston 7y agoNot my VEMAX!!!