29 ms·
Xi Jinping personally halted Ant's IPO after Jack Ma snubbed government leaders
- terfuful 6y agoBeen wondering if "free market economy" still works the way we expect when other nations might not share the same core principles in governance ... checks & balances ... etc
- KorematsuFred 6y agoFree market economy works to the extent it is free. The benefits of the market economy are somewhat exponentially proportional to how free that is. India is far from a free market economy. However some modest reforms in 1990s have given 100s of millions a hope that they can reliably have 3 meals a day and a roof over their head even with almost no skills.
- Darmody 6y agoYou can't play Monopoly and win if one of the players has his own rules and a money printer.
- rapsey 6y agoAre you talking about the US or China?
- m-p-3 6y agoSounds like it can apply to both.
- Darmody 6y agoI was thinking about China but it can be applied to anyone. Free market without every one following exactly the same rules is not free market, or at least is not what I understand as free market.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoWe've never had 'exact same set of rules'. Leave dictatorships aside and just tell me what is 'free market' suppose to do when two legitinate democratic authorities have different rules? In EU we don't grant software patents, and don't have the patent trols problem, we have different consumer righs, no mandatory arbitration, etc. In germany they have roads without speed limits, etc. A product destines for success in EU might fail in US and vice versa.
- Darmody 6y agoYou're right, but the EU is not that different from the US. In general terms we could say we're playing by the same rules. And there are no special rules for Europeans and other for foreigners. If you try to run a business in, lets say, Germany. You have the same rules and the same obligations as any other German. That doesn't happen in China.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 8note 6y agoAs long as they always have to pay you rents, youd still be the winner, no matter how much they print. Passing go more to get free money doesn't get you a win
- ajay-b 6y agoWho would've thought Communists would've made the best capitalists? China is a "managed economy" and about as far from "free market" as North Korea[1]. Does it work the same way? I don't think so. We know that corruption and graft have become the norm in China[0], not the exception, so I would contend it works nothing like a free market economy. [0.] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/opinion/no-roads-are-straight-here.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/opinion/no-roads-are-stra... [1.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_China
- White_Wolf 6y agoThere is no country that doesn't have a managed economy. Trade deals, subsidies, gov sponsoships, immigration restrictions, etc. All these are form of economy management to protect the tax sources and (try) to balance the out/in cash flow. In an ideal world they would not be needed but in todays day and age when countries are not developed equally they are necesary to protect your tax sources and keep the cash flow in the internal economy instead of it being sent somewhere else.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago> There is no country that doesn't have a managed economy. True, but there's "more managed" and "less managed", and the difference matters. It matters to your ability to make money, and it matters to the economy's ability to actually produce what people want.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago'Unmanaged' markets must tolerate market failures, companies going bancrupt, disruption in supply chain, etc. There are systems that have to be managed, because if there is a market failure, outcomes will be disasterous. Thats food and water supply, nuclear, essential medicines, energy grid, oil, real estate (?), etc.
- prewett 6y ago"Free market" just means that the prices are determined by the market, not by government-sponsored monopolies, artificial scarcity, regulation, tariffs, restricted information flows between buyer and seller, etc. It is in contrast to England pre-1700-ish where various groups had a monopoly ("patent") to sell goods, also government-imposed tariffs on some goods. Free market does not mean that the players within the market have liberty other than the price to buy or sell at. So a truly free market under a dictatorship should still act the same way, it's just that dictators have a way of not liking free markets.
- mhh__ 6y agoThat depends on whether you believe free market implies a slightly-but-not-quite tautology definition (the market is whatever the market is the market etc.) or in a more Friedmanite-sense ("Capitalism is a prerequisite but not a guarantee for freedom")
- disown 6y agoThe free market economy doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale told by the news industry to the uneducated masses. Whenever you hear the news say the US has always been a champion of free trade, just know they are lying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... There is no such thing as "free market economy". Every economy is a protected economy. It's just a matter of degree. Go ask huwaei, iran, venezuela, zimbabwe, cuba, etc about "free market economy". All markets are manipulated and controlled nationally/geopolitically. The price of oil isn't determined just by the "market", it's decided by the FED, subsidies, war, etc. The only core principle shared by all nations is to lie, cheat and steal as much as possible. And things ultimately work out. The idea of governance, checks and balance, rule of law, etc are just frivilous distractions. Not to mention propaganda like "democracy" or "western values". Surely saudi arabia is a shining symbol of democracy and western "values".
- Darmody 6y agoNot surprising at all. Contrary to what most people I know think, I think Xi Jinping and company are really scared. And the more scared they are, the more authoritarian they become. They are afraid of Taiwan because Taiwan is the living example that China can prosper without the CCP. They are afraid of Hong Kong because it's an example of resistance to the regime. They are afraid of religions because no matter how much you punish someone, you won't be able to make them worship you instead. They are afraid of wealthy people because they can taste freedom and they can vision a China without the CCP. And so on...
- systemvoltage 6y agoRecently, the most notable is Xi has not congratulated or acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory.
- selectodude 6y agoJust did today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/biden-election-china-trump/2020/11/13/b25961f4-2586-11eb-9c4a-0dc6242c4814_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/biden-elec...
- systemvoltage 6y agoThanks for the correction.
- arcticbull 6y agoA lot of leaders held off until some of the uncertainty is resolved.
- ajay-b 6y agoDo you think China suffers from a collective inferiority complex? By that I mean: Any attack or criticism is fiercely resisted because it challenges the party narrative that the party can do no wrong?
- 6y ago
- vincentmarle 6y agoI don't understand why they didn't list Ant at the NYSE in the first place, were they pressured to list it in Shanghai?
- echelon 6y agoI'll bet Jack Ma wishes it had been listed at the NYSE now. I'll bet future Chinese companies will be asking themselves same question.
- eunos 6y agoAnd got hit by Trump or his successor?
- FooBarWidget 6y agoJust a couple of weeks ago people were worrying about Ant being a "national security threat", and you ask why they'd rather IPO in Shanghai than in a country that sees them as a threat?
- bigpumpkin 6y agoThis is why: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-antfinancial-ipo/u-s-should-try-to-delay-ipo-of-chinas-ant-group-senator-rubio-says-idUSKBN26V03U https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-antfinancial-ipo/u-s-sho...
- sfifs 6y agoBecause given the regulation has been in the works and they knew it, they probably would have to have state this precise risk in their IPO documents for fear of being sued and big investors might have balked?
- tuberelay 6y agoChina only farms out the scammy companies to US exchanges. Luckin coffee, TAL education, iqiyi
- elefanten 6y agoThis incident seems to be a mark in the column of the old argument that authoritarianism is bad for economic growth because of the ever-present potential for capricious action such as this. While we should take the WSJ's preliminary reporting with a grain of salt, the Ant IPO halt was shortly followed by the announcement that Beijing was going to be looking at antitrust and monopolistic behavior by big tech. [0] The 'angered Xi and the old guard' narrative seems very plausible. Also, if anyone's interested, here's a translation [1] of the speech Jack Ma gave that set off the commotion. Interesting bits about what he thinks of incumbent financial powers (or at least, what he says to that audience). It's also interesting to see what relatively mild comments could trigger this kind of reaction when power is so centralized. [0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-11-11/china-s-antitrust-rules-will-threaten-alibaba-tencent-rivals https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-11-11/china-... [1] - https://interconnected.blog/jack-ma-bund-finance-summit-speech/ https://interconnected.blog/jack-ma-bund-finance-summit-spee...
- cynusx 6y agoAuthoritarianism is bad for business, there are plenty of examples where big businesses get "nationalized" or where the founders are forced to sell to a "friendly party official" who then proceeds to run it into the ground. Russia notoriously is very good at this, leading even innovative companies to sabotage their own growth as to not become an "acquisition target" of the ruling elite. There is also the "creative destruction problem" where an innovative company is beating an incumbent, but the incumbent happens to be partially owned by party cadre and leverages its power to shut down the innovator. In my humble opinion, the security and protection of property under the rule of law should be a human right as it's the core driver of economic growth.
- pm90 6y ago> Authoritarianism is bad for business, there are plenty of examples where big businesses get "nationalized" or where the founders are forced to sell to a "friendly party official" who then proceeds to run it into the ground. I think this may be true but I would like to see a better argument for it. It is not hard to find businesses that have been successful specifically due to authoritarian State patronage (e.g. Huawei in China, Chaebols in South Korea).
- ortusdux 6y agoThe latest NPR Indicator podcast did a good job covering this: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/934251081 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/934251081
- myth_drannon 6y agoI like Cory Doctorow's explanation of the situation: https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745
- parliament32 6y agoI like Doctorow, but not enough to figure out how to read a 20-some-thing-piece twitter-thread-shitpost.
- dimator 6y agohttps://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/ https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
- SECProto 6y agoI'll be a bit blunt here: you read each sentence/tweet then scroll down a bit. Twitter isn't the best medium for everyone, but while you or I might prefer a HN link to a blog post, the twitter thread will have much broader reach.
- snypher 6y agoIt's just a bad format having to read past a profile picture 47 times.
- germinalphrase 6y agoI would love someone more knowledge than me to red-team that narrative.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoI can't speak on the China stuff, but the initial comments about the origins of money are quoting from David Graeber's work without saying so. That's all true, though Cory is giving a bit of an oversimplified version.
- pfortuny 6y agoThat is the Rule of Law at play. Now, I am not saying that the US or the EU are exemplars of it. But at least...
- brobinson 6y agoThe PRC has rule _by_ law not rule _of_ law. There's an enormous difference.
- cynusx 6y agoIn what world is this the rule of law and not just arbitrary bullying of the ruling elite?
- Udik 6y agoAfaik, the Chinese government is worried because of the size of the debt managed by Ant (45 billion) in comparison to their own capital (450 million, 1%). The whole risk is offloaded to good old banks which are then exposed to an excessive risk. The government is planning to change the law to set a minimum threshold of 30% of capital over managed debt, and this is the reason the IPO was withdrawn: the law is about to be made much more stringent and this changes the valuation of the company entirely.
- freewizard 6y agoThis aligns with what I've heard, and it's not surprising for Chinese govt to let an industry grow by itself then suddenly put a hard brake on it by imposing a set rules with its heavy hands. The difference is this time the victim is much larger and visible than anyone in the past. This mode of operation was not started by Xi, but no doubt Xi's gov't made it less transparent and more brutal to the business and investors.
- 8note 6y agoThat sounds like general government? Is this different from banning lead from gasoline?
- bigpumpkin 6y agoThis deleted $150 billion off of Ant's valuation. Yet the bigger news in China tech this week was the new proposed Anti-monopoly rules that wiped $280 billion off the market. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/12/morgan-stanley-chinas-draft-anti-monopoly-rules-impact-on-internet-firms.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/12/morgan-stanley-chinas-draft-...
- duxup 6y agoThis is one of those weird cases where: I could see legitimate regulatory concerns regarding Ant Group that would prevent an IPO. At the same time this could be a much more personal fight too. The question is of motivations and it's hard to know about any of that.
- narrator 6y agoThis is why rich people want to leave China. They know that they may be rich now, but they can be cancelled on a moments notice with no recourse to due process. This is a problem has with China internationalizing the yuan and getting rid of currency controls. If they do, all the rich people will leave. One solution to this is to make the whole world under China's effective control, or make the whole rest of the world much less attractive to live in than China. How do they do it? Hmm... Maybe something that happened this year which hasn't really affected China much in the last couple of months that seems to somehow be messing up the whole rest of the world perhaps?
- goatinaboat 6y agoThey know that they may be rich now, but they can be cancelled on a moments notice with no recourse to due process They’re in for a surprise when they make it to the Land Of The Free(tm) then
- preommr 6y ago> Hmm... Maybe something that happened this year which hasn't really affected China much in the last couple of months that seems to somehow be messing up the whole rest of the world perhaps? Are you insinuating that the coronovirus was spread deliberately?
- narrator 6y agoYeah, there's a mountain of evidence to suggest that, especially since China is now totally unaffected by Coronavirus (no masks, lockdowns, nothing), and the history of advocating use of biological superweapons by Chinese military strategists going back 20 years, and the long history of Zhengli Shi publicizing how proud she was of doing gain of function research on SARS, but that would be a very long copypasta.
- Aperocky 6y agoAnts lending business has doled out 1.8T on 36B of cash from Ant itself. That's 50 times the leverage they financed through ABS, Asset Backed Securities, or in this case more accurately described as Debt Backed Security. We knew all about these 'financial innovations' in 2008. The new regulation limits the leverage cap from infinite to about 15, closer to bank's 10. This limits risk, and is considered a reasonable move. A truly desperate move would be to allow these bubbles to go ahead and IPO. Which almost happened, everything will be fine and dandy for a while, until it's not. Whether it's due to Xi's insecurity or not, I'd say that China dodged a bullet here.
- mediaman 6y agoLending out vast sums against a small reserve is not necessarily bad, depending on how the deals are structured. In the US, banks issue credit in the form of credit cards. But they don't hold on to it. They create special-purpose entities (SPE) which then buy credit card debt, funded by bonds sold to investors. The banks do not hold on to much of the credit card debt. The yield of these bonds issued by the SPE is commensurate with the risk of default of the credit cards. In this case, the bank issues billions and billions of credit without the reserves to handle high defaults. But it's OK, because they sell off the debt, so it can no longer directly consume their reserves. Any losses on that credit card debt affects the value of the collateral backing the bonds issued by the SPE, not the bank. So the investors of the SPE are on the hook, but not the bank. These bonds backed by the SPE are not rated AAA. So the real question is regulating the leverage of the investors buying the SPE bonds. But that can be handled separately, and need not restrict Ant's ability to issue microloans and then sell them off to securitized pool trusts.
- Aperocky 6y agoIt's not necessarily bad, but it can sometime be bad, and that's why there's a leverage cap to it. The new regulation did not ban ABS, it only stipulated that Ant have to have X amount of collateral before selling them.
- dillondoyle 6y agoThat sounds exactly like 2007 lol. The ratings risk assumptions and who rates them. not valuing 'unlikely' tail risk because 'no way people won't pay their mortgages' or the 'no way a virus will have force over 30% of the population functionally un/underemployed with no assistance.' And who owns the bonds? What happens when pensions, investors are hit? And who sells the derivatives and CDO 'insurance' and the meta CDO of CDO bets on the debt? My guess would be lots of bank on bank, institution on institution incest. And presumably they have to keep these assets on book at least for a bit in order to structure the tranches or whatever the credit card version of that is. I love the film Margin Call, this scene is great: "Well... sir... if those assets were to decrease by just 25 percent, and remain on our books... well... that loss would be greater than the current market capitalization of this company." "the music appears to be about to stop and we are going to be holding the biggest bag of stinking shit ever assembled in the history of capitalism?" "the music, so to speak, just slowing, if the music were to stop, as you put it, then this model would not be even close to that scenario. It would be considerably worse." " and I'm afraid... standing here tonight... that I don't hear... a... thing... just silence.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- justicezyx 6y agoTo add a bit more details I heard of: * The clamp down on fintech has been on the agenda for a long time. Rooted in lessons learned from western crisis, the most recently, 2008 financial crash. The P2P disaster happened since 2018 [1]. The short boom and bust cycles in Chinese stock market [2]. * Totalitarian government controls all major aspects of economy is by design its right and purpose. * Jack Ma made the speech not because he is sure of Ant IPO, but because he was angry that the IPO is bound to fail one way or another. So he was pissed off and made a rant speech. Listen the speech yourself, he is making grandiose claims, but meanwhile his version of innovation is nothing but copying the risky financial schemes that already caused disaster before. That's a true rant, the quality of thoughts is the lowest among all of Jack Ma's speeches which are already quite low when comparing him to others with similar status. * Ant financial indicates a strong collusion between Jack Ma and Ant and some powerful people in CCP & government. Ant IPO price is 68.8, the stock serial number is 688688. In Chinese, 6 is pronounced same as 顺 (meaning everything goes according to one's own wish), 8 is same as 发 (in Cantonese, meaning getting rich). This means that Ant was getting preferential treatment that is way beyond normal expectation. * Among many stakeholders of Ant, one can easily found many brokers of powerful hidden figures in CCP. For example, Zhao Wei's mother. Zhao Wei, who were barred from stock market because of previous misconduct [4,5], whose husband Huang Youlong was a driver of the corrupted CCP member Xu Zhongheng. Zhao Wei and Huang Youlong married shortly after Xu Zhongheng were prosecuted [6]. It was widely rumored that Zhao Wei was Xu's mistress, and Zhao Wei and Huang Youlong ensnared or inherent Xu Zhongheng's embezzled fortune. [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Collapse-of-China-s-disgraced-P2P-sector-offers-important-lessons https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Collapse-of-China-s-disgrace... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_Chinese_stock_market_turbulence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_Chinese_stoc... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGzgpArH5AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGzgpArH5AI [4] https://www.rayradar.com/2020/10/31/ant-group-makes-a-feast-taishan-meeting-big-guy-zhao-wei-and-nursery-are-all-winners/ https://www.rayradar.com/2020/10/31/ant-group-makes-a-feast-... [5] https://fr.reuters.com/article/us-china-zhaowei-trading-ban-idUSKBN1DA0T1 https://fr.reuters.com/article/us-china-zhaowei-trading-ban-... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Zongheng https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Zongheng [7] https://sg.news.yahoo.com/zhao-weis-husband-denies-ties-031900119.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA2YRVg-4j4R-iMRdxoUVOzvhSjiNFd0VanPvUjgg4b9ofh-r1JkOVqLOvqKNIHWcpY745DlmT6uGMJ6YVfMT-VEtNMWKAF4U5vdAcQsnCLt3ShZwKratcAgzT5EJhHqlalZeSz4Hrjv7frAfhHmDj1yyvBz5cverIHEz1jKFTL6 https://sg.news.yahoo.com/zhao-weis-husband-denies-ties-0319...
- root-z 6y agoI'm a bit confused about this article because it first states that Xi personally halted the IPO and then says "It was unclear whether Xi or another government official was the first to suggest the IPO suspension". The reality and its implications aside, I don't find this article very informative.
- sushshshsh 6y agoSomeone can first dream up the idea, and then Xi can order it right?
- jhvkjhk 6y agoYou are not the target reader. The target reader will just read the title and then believe it.
- markus_zhang 6y agoThe article follows the expected lines that hint Xi is kind of a dictator and is afraid to face any challenge from outside (which obviously satisfies the taste of my HN readers), but fails to ask the real question. The real question that begs for explanation: The new lending law doesn't come out from nowhere. It was not drafted overnight, and was not drafted without the consultation of the target of regulation -- in that case, I'm also sure (but without hard proof as I'm just nobody) that Ant was one of the companies that the government inquired. So the real question is: Did Ant know about the regulation when it files for IPO, and if so, why didn't it disclose it? A second question is: Ant and similar countries have been growing for years and years. Why does the government slam down the regulation in this year? This might not be a legitimate question though, as regulations usually come far behind, so it might be reasonable for the government to act slowly in this case. But still, I believe it's about time that some anti-monopoly law fells on head of companies such as Ali and Tencent. They are wayyy more powerful than they appear to be.
- Aperocky 6y agoThe new regulations are sorely needed, previously they only covered actual banks and not self proclaimed 'fintech' companies. Ant gets to bankroll its lending by packing loans it just made into bundles and sell it as security with yields of 5%-6%, whereas the actual interest on these loans are around 14%-18%. There's no brake on this system and they can lend out practically infinite amount of money and transfer all risks to banks/asset management firms and consumers. There's no chance that Ant can proceed through IPO with this new regulation as the profit structure of the business has fundamentally changed.
- markus_zhang 6y agoAbsolutely. My take of the events is that Ant and other major players were able to slow down the legislation all theae years (because they have a world of cash) and when it eventually managed to get out Ant tried to push through IPO as soon as possible. That was probably one of the fastest IPO.
- sah55 6y ago
- gorbachev 6y agoThere's no way to run a business long-term in China without kissing CCP's ass. I've been arguing for a while it is impossible for western companies to ever be successful (in the long run) in China, because eventually something happens that will pit the company against CCP. Make no mistake about it, CCP will win that battle. If it's not some free speech battle (see NBA), then it's a Chinese competitor land grabbing your stuff with encouragement from CCP pushing you out.
- hans789 6y agoCan’t say that for sure. Apple, AWS, Microsoft, Walmart, AT&T, GE, KFC, McDonalds, Starbucks, these all US businesses are wildly successful in China. Some of them are in China for 30+ years!.
- zarkov99 6y agoThis is the future for the globe if China overtakes the US as the dominant power. This is why its so critical for the free world for the US to treat China as an opponent rather than a trading partner.
- chenpengcheng 6y agothis is ignorance.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- platinumrad 6y agoYeah, it sure is tragic when a gazillionaire is stopped from collecting ever growing economic rents in perpetuity. :(((
- nabla9 6y agoSummary of the article: It's totally unclear what happens but here is some speculation. This is just like during the USSR. Sovietologists were reading and and over-interpreting the signals. Now Chinatologists create narratives that try to fill the holes of our knowledge. Details of Chinese government decision making and internal power struggles are not available to the outsiders. Even the intelligence agencies have hard time figuring what happens. And Chinese like to deceive.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Aperocky 6y agoThere's a major difference. Soviet observers were actually analyzing the signal themselves. Most people here get that signal after it's been marinated and fermented in the cesspool of bias.
- underseacables 6y agoWhich begs the question: At what point will China ever be ready for free and fair markets ?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ativzzz 6y ago"free and fair" is a very vague description depending on your economic and political leanings. You could argue the U.S. is not one, nor has one ever truly existed. Is it free and fair to regulate the financial industry? Depends if you're working in the industry or not
- yibg 6y agoI find it interesting the same headline and story can be interpreted as either: 1) Chinese government is totalitarian and corrupt and creating arbitrary rules for people and things they don't like and 2) Chinese government and regulators are doing their job, and this IPO and Ant in general are the ones rent seeking and playing it loose. I suspect partially how it's interpreted depends on your political slant and how ones views China.
- jhanschoo 6y agoOne of the ways a government is corrupt is when it creates rules that it waives for its friends but enforces for its enemies.
- smabie 6y agoI mean, regardless of whether they are making the right decision, that decision shouldn't be made because Ma insulted government officials. Corruption is corruption regardless of if the result is just/correct. The officials don't care about helping the people (or at least that's not their primary concern), rather they hate being made to feel impotent.
- yibg 6y agoDo we know that's why they made the decision? The article makes the claim, but others claimed the updated regulation has been in the works for a while, and it was Ant trying to speed the IPO ahead of it.
- joejerryronnie 6y agoI thought Jack Ma was smarter than this. He stepped down as Chairman of Alibaba precisely to avoid running afoul of the party. Yet he then disparages the party ahead of Ant’s IPO? Wondering how long until Ma is charged with fraudulent behavior and subsequent arrest.
- alexmingoia 6y agoI am wary of reading articles about China’s politics written by people who cannot read or write Chinese, and have never been to China.
- mitha 6y agoInteresting stuff to read. Keep it up <a href="https://www.dumpsreseller.com/page/ete-to-pdf">ete https://www.dumpsreseller.com/page/ete-to-pdf">ete to pdf</a>
- shade23 6y agoThe reuters article [0] offers more details on this. Perhaps these speech was a catalyst for this action, but scrutiny of the organization seems to be something that has long been in the agenda of the Chinese government. [0]-https://www.reuters.com/article/ant-group-ipo-suspension-regulators/how-billionaire-jack-ma-fell-to-earth-and-took-ants-mega-ipo-with-him-idUSKBN27L2GX https://www.reuters.com/article/ant-group-ipo-suspension-reg...
- known 6y agoXi gave Ma the taste of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy
- lyrachord 6y agoTitle party thing!
- lazylizard 6y agohe took a stick n poked the bear with it. was he surprised the bear got angry and bit him?
- connar3231 6y agowhile the bear was feasting honey
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThis always happens in China when billionaire's there "overstep their bounds" and criticize the party. I wouldn't want to be Jack Ma right now. This may not end well for him. Those billions are his only as long as Xi wants him to have them.