Its gigantic valuation most likely will face a harsh test, one that the fragile domestic market can hardly afford, a risk that worries the administration who has been desperately propping it up that also hopes it can fund China's tech self-reliance. Such listings didn't bode well in the past, with SMIC being the lastest example.

At its core, Ant is more of a lending company, re-distributing money it got from banks at much higher interest rates (typically 15%, some banks offer personal credit loans at around 4%) and leverage. Tho it insists on it's high-tech, in order to boost valuation and avoid financial regulation, but how many more debt can the population pile on itself?

Sidenote: Its business model profits from people that traditional banks snubed, mostly from lower social classes.

In India, we called them moneylenders and it carries a jail term to engage in such activities. Good to see Wall Street and the West lap up such usurious companies.

Indulged in the picture of financial boom, yet forgot the havoc raged by the greed? Modern financial is rarely useful for society. Even the VC community largely becomes rent seekers who monopolize new entrepreneurs, instead of really taking high impact long term bet.

Jack Ma appears mixing modern tech with his own idea about the financial system. Watching his onstage chat with Elon Musk and WAI 2020 shows that he is not interested so much of using tech to innovate, and his true interests might be in using tech to manage and control. Not too surprising for a tech baron raised in a totalitarian country.

Also note that various government funds also are holding stakes in Ant group.

I wonder if some in China are worried about the opposite.

Ant has trouble of some sort and it hits home hard.

I agree about unpredictable regulations, but I thought that was kinda the status quo there anyway.

You probably think US trying to regulate big tech is also self shooting?

It's not, a healthy market need to curtail monopolies. Granted, it's no longer early 20th century and you can't just break them up like Standard Oil because that doesn't make any sense, but regulations are sorely needed across the pond.

No, that's not what I think.

In Ant's case, it is the unexpected nature of the action and lack of transparency that I see as damaging. Not necessarily the action itself. I'm still trying to learn what is going on and why, I haven't made a judgement on the action itself.