But b. is very credible. Jack has been criticized by state media as he piled negative comments to the regulators and traditional lenders - and frankly the regulators were right. Ant essentially needs no deposit to lend, relying on big data and not any traditional financial safety instruments. It's been overlooked for a while but when you get the big benefit of living outside of regulations you shut up and take what you get, and not making a public fuss about how 'every bank is stupid for following regulations'.
As someone who lived in China for 9 years, these kinds of arguments are always really vacuous. Perhaps just say Ant isn't like Amway and has a low fraud rate (for China, anyways), which is probably enough to deflect the pyramid scheme argument without resorting to an authority fallacy.
hmm...
It's appealing to an authority to say (or, to demonstrate from experience) that it is false authority.
Not necessarily deposits but reserves; the whole European financial crisis of 2008+ was over the question of "what IS the minimum reserve level for systemic safety?"?
> relying on big data and not any traditional financial safety instruments
This is the Boeing 737-MAX approach: it's not intrinsically safe, but we can cover its shortcomings with software.
I have been to China. As a foreigner I was not able to use any digital cash technologies (such as WeChat or Alipay). Did you have a Chinese bank account? How were you able to use Ant tech?
Similarly, a lot of government-mandated apps require you to enter a state ID number which foreigners are not issued. The worst was living there through the coronavirus lockdowns and travel restrictions, because every town had its own special corona app to prove you had a green health code, but hardly any towns supported registration with a foreign passport. I presume that's changed now (i don't live there any more), but it's China, so there will undoubtedly be a new hazy private/public partnership gimmick app that makes things awkward for foreigners.
The guys sister visited for a few weeks and the first thing he did was take her to a bank and open an account. Which she was able to do as a foreigner.
I don’t know if that has changed recently.
I eventually was able to open an account, but i had to show proof of residence (apartment lease), proof of residence registration (obtained from local police), work permit and employment contract. Even opening a second account a couple years later (required because many employers in China will only pay into one specific bank) and speaking fairly fluent Chinese i had to go through the same song and dance.
He now left China for good over various reasons and now makes anti China for a living (whom I’m sure is easy for anyone to find) but I remember that one distinctly being fairly recent. Upon second thought he may have referenced it in one of the videos of why he left China where one of his biggest complaints is how it’s harder for foreigners to live there than ever at the moment.
I personally don’t know much about the topic sadly. I was planning to go then the pandemic hit.
In ALL other regions ( including Beijing ) it is either weeks / months or literally impossible. ( Because no one knows how to do it )
> Ant is definitely not a pyramid scheme, if you've ever been to China you'd know.
> frankly the regulators were right. Ant essentially needs no deposit to lend
No longer the case after COVID pandemic, Yuan is appericating
> The Chinese government doesn't want such a huge financial entity owned by foreign owners
Ant had been allowed to exist for a long time, I don't see this really as an issue.
TBH, b. is probably the most likely reason. Criticizing governmental authority is a dangerous act even for Jack Ma, especially when your business needs its blessing.
Also Ant's IPO had caused quite a lot of controversy even before this, like selling their own shares through Alipay, etc.
Anyway, I see this an isolated case, where the CN government wants to give Jack Ma a lesson to put him in place.
There won't be any Chinese luckin coffee shaninigans in US exchange by end of 2021, according to new accounting standards https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/markets/us-to-delis.... Also, expect a large wave of Chinese companies delisting in 2021.
Friendly warning: check your mutual and index funds exposure to Chinese companies on US exchanges.
Let me guess, it's going to be the mindless propaganda that you've been brainwashed with via tradional and social media. Let's find out.
> The Chinese government doesn't want such a huge financial entity owned by foreign owners (even though they have claimed they are allowing more foreign entries in financial sectors). Also, China is suffering from dollar shortage/flight (foreign manufacturing moving out, foreign retailers moving in), and this IPO could exacerbate it
If china is facing "dollar shortage", then why would they ban foreign money? Wouldn't they want more dollars? Also, don't people like you claim that china owns us because they own so much of our debt? If so, how can they be experiencing dollar shortage if they own over $1 trillion of US bonds? Also they are not allowing more "foreign entries" in financial sector but they are allowing more foreign entries in retail? Finally, if you think an IPO is going to affect "dollar shortage" issue, then you haven't a clue what you are talking about. What about all the other major tech IPOs, like BABA, which had significant foreign investment. Not to mention all the foreign venture capitalists in china? Why isn't china kicking them out? Has china banned foreign investment/capital?
> This is a big no no right now, especially since Xi's dictatorship is wobbly.
I thought he was an "emperor" for life. Now his "dictatorship" is wobbly? Be consistent. What's next? You are going to call him a mafia boss?
> check out recently delisted Chinese companies in US stock exchanges.
Is it misreporting or is it the trade war?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-limits-id...
If what you are saying is correct, why isn't the other company affiliated with Jack Ma ( BABA ) delisted?
> (if you ask me, why would anyone invest in any mafia pyramid scheme with no guarantee you'll get your money out...)
But you were just complaining that "even though they have claimed they are allowing more foreign entries in financial sectors".
On the one hand, you are whining that the chinese aren't allowing more financial entries into their market. And then you claim that it's a mafia pyramid scheme that nobody should invest in. Shouldn't you be praising china for keeping "foreign entries" out of their "mafia pyramid scheme"? Once again, be consistent. Another student of peter navarro at the gordon chang's school of propaganda.
Right now I am neither arguing whether it is or isn't a national security concern. I just want to highlight that people's general understanding of how things work in China is very poor, and that one should be careful with speculations like that. At the very least I think more people should recognize that the Chinese government and the CCP are not monoliths, and that the distance between "the boss of the company is a CCP member" and "the company is state-controlled" is larger than what many think.
I’ll put it this way: I take an extremely skeptical view of basically anything originating out of China in matters of this sort. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Ant is basically a state run company” and “Ma/Ant aren’t necessarily entirely instruments of the Chinese government” are both true in different contexts. That’s just how screwed up it is.
Your comment is a good representation of what they're thinking of. Your comment basically comes down to "China can do no good". It doesn't matter what China's concrete actions are — in the end, an interpretation for those actions will be found in order to fit the narrative that China is sinister. You are in your full right to do this. But such an attitude has implications for the other party.
Why should Chinese people support western opinions, if they will never be accepted no matter what they do? Sometimes, China is willing to concede on a few issues in order to gain improved relations. But if improving relations is impossible, no matter how many concessions, then why should they concede anything? If one is treated like an enemy anyway, then one may as well become a real enemy, since there is no reputation to be gained.
For example, I've been arguing for a while that one of the reasons why they went ahead with the Hong Kong National Security Law after a year, is because they realized that they can't gain a better relationship with the US by not introducing the security law, so may as well do it and gain more social stability. But many people can't comprehend this idea because they're too stuck on the "China bad" narrative.
I am not arguing that China is all good — of course it isn't, China has lots of issues. But being skeptical of everything?
In this context, excessive cynicism is dangerous. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I fear that some day all this leads to increased polarization, and a hot war.
Xi did arrange himself a lifetime position. And yes, a dictatorship's stability can fluctuate.
He did or the political party did. Also removing term limits isn't the same as giving oneself a lifetime position. Lots of countries don't have term limits. Like Germany for example. Nobody would claim merkel is a dictator.
> And yes, a dictatorship's stability can fluctuate.
Right. His dictatorship is so wobbly that he made himself emperor. Which is it?
There is lot you can criticize china, unfortunately, the nonsense you see on social media really misses the target. Whatever happened to the pathetic "winnie the pooh" nonsense?
Are you are being deliberately obtuse?
It's entirely reasonable that his strength and stability could change from "strong" enough to remove his term limits to "wobbly". Or it could have fluctuated towards even stronger. It doesn't matter, the point is that stability is not a constant so your objection doesn't really make sense.
a. Ant group is partially owned by a large group of elite foreign investors https://www.wsj.com/articles/ant-ipo-promises-8-billion-gain..., who will gain hugely from this IPO. The Chinese government doesn't want such a huge financial entity owned by foreign owners (even though they have claimed they are allowing more foreign entries in financial sectors). Also, China is suffering from dollar shortage/flight (foreign manufacturing moving out, foreign retailers moving in), and this IPO could exacerbate it
b. Jack Ma recently criticized the Chinese banks https://www.pymnts.com/news/ipo/2020/jack-ma-summoned-for-qu.... This is a big no no right now, especially since Xi's dictatorship is wobbly. Also this is what happens when you upset the world's largest mafia - Chinese government and Chinese state owned companies. Just look at what happened to Australia https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-03/china-broadens-trade-..., South Korea https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2017/3/3/14795636/china-sout... US https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/10/26/c... and Japan https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.ht...
c. There is probably a lot of financial misreporting within Ant Group, as it is pretty commonplace for Chinese public companies - check out recently delisted Chinese companies in US stock exchanges. If this IPO is allowed to expand, that's game over for shanghai stock exchange sooner than later.
(if you ask me, why would anyone invest in any mafia pyramid scheme with no guarantee you'll get your money out...)