News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Did a Chinese Peroxide Company Pay $1B for a Talking Cat?. Parent comment

Re:Why Did a Chinese Peroxide Company Pay $1B for a Talking ... by appleiigs on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @06:59PM (#14406153)
Maybe I'm reading a bit too much in it, but the top comments seem to have a bit of discriminatory tone: China = pyramid scheme or money laundering. When 1997, 2007, SF real-estate, unicorns with no earnings, all happen(ed/ing) in the US, in addition to Bernie Madoff. The original article topic is industrial companies buying tech and the arbitraging of valuations.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Did a Chinese Peroxide Company Pay $1B for a Talking ... by msie on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @08:36PM (#14406702)
Yes, I see it too. On the other hand, the Saudi-Softbank deal is viewed as a way to diversify and not to launder money.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Did a Chinese Peroxide Company Pay $1B for a Talking ... by CodeWriter23 on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @09:49PM (#14407033)
I think maybe you are reading too much into it. Adding "value" to a company's bottom line by purchasing assets COMPLETELY outside of the core competency of the company tilts the scales toward cooking the books and away from creating actual value.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Did a Chinese Peroxide Company Pay $1B for a Talking ... by sjg007 on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @10:25PM (#14407175)
Why? Berkshire Hathaway did this in the past. Holding companies can be well diversified.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Did a Chinese Peroxide Company Pay $1B for a Talking ... by rb808 on Wednesday May 24, 2017 @12:05PM (#14411046)
No, I'm saying is: you're right "1997, 2007, SF real-estate, unicorns with no earnings, all happen(ed/ing) in the US" - and now there is a similar thing happening in China too.
[ Parent | on HN ]