Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Well, because they were either not eligible to list in China, or the valuation was too low because Chinese investors were more risk-averse, less savvy. Chinese capital market is just not as deep as the US one. A lot of these companies wouldn't even exist without US VCs ...
Why didn't the Chinese regulator make the concessions to SEC a few years back? Now that the valuation of these companies are under severe pressure, they're essentially capitulating yet SEC is still not satisfied.
That's not entirely true. Many Chinese companies that have gone back to list in China have obtained much higher valuation than both Wall St and HKSE. A few years ago, it is more difficult to list high techs companies with no profits in China but that's no longer the case anymore. The main reasons why many Chinese unicorns want to list in the US are due to name recognition, liquidity, and many angel investors are foreign venture capitalists that want Chinese companies to list in the US.
With or without US venture capitalists, these companies would have existed. It is just that many of them would probably be cobbled up or failed much earlier. US venture capitalists and easy monies just make these companies taking much more risks and burning through much more cash quickly.
Chinese regulators didn't need to make any concessions before because the US didn't threaten to delist Chinese companies. More importantly, China would ask many companies to voluntary delist from the US. So your saying that China is capitulating is just wishful thinking. China would pick and choose which company would be allowed to be audited and which company would simply delist.
Then why don't they go back to list in China now?
Of course, what you're saying is that there are real benefits for these companies to list in the US. And, many of these companies are backed by foreign VCs and they want the valuation and liquidity of the US market.
That's the role of VC with a capital V, isn't it? You need to understand the history and landscape of VC industry in China to know the roles these international investors have played in China's tech startup ecosystem.
Well, the US regulator and Congress have been pressing the matter for some years now, with escalating pressure. Sure, they didn't raise the stake at the highest level right at the beginning, but Chinese regulator should have anticipated the move.
You need to watch your tones, and avoid behaving like a mad dog attacking anyone or anything that is perceived to be of slightest criticism to some bureaucracy or policies of China.
broadsword
Brigadier
If only soft power is needed, not even the Anglo nations would be where they are today. Conversely, the US with their hard power could not win over the Afghans and Iraqis.
Last edited:
Many of them have returned to China already. For companies such as Tencent and Alibaba which foreign investors have significant stakes, these companies were structured in a way that would make them nearly impossible to list in China.
Valuation is none issue. Most of these companies are undervalued in the US. And there are also a lot of benefits for many companies if they listed in HK or China.
What's your point? Huawei and majority of real high techs companies in China have nothing to do with the VC industry. Only internet giants have taken a lot of investment from VC. However, these internet giants are replaceable. Just like how DiDi marketshare is cobbled up by other Chinese firms easily.
You just don't get it. These internet giants thrived due to China not the other way around. If not Baidu then there would be Dudai, if not Alibaba then there would be babaAli. VC just went to China to bet which one would become the unicorn.
So what, the US regulators and Congress can talk all they want. Chinese regulators don't need to give a damn until the US made a real move.
You call me a mad dog which is as rude as you can get in a debate. And dare to ask me to watch my tones. I just don't see how saying you are wishful thinking would be rude. You not only have no manner but have no willingness to see others have a different of opinions.
For the whole ass paragraph that @KYli wrote, you are hyperfocused on one phrase "only wishful thinking" and use that as proof to claim that he is "attacking anyone or anything that..." and he needs to "watch his tone".
Just wondering, when did wishful thinking become an attack? Obviously, the attack is so serious that people need to "watch their tones".
Now, who seems like a "mad dog" that attack people because someone cannot take the slightest of criticism?
What's more ironic is that for someone who asks others to "watch their tones" over saying your statement is "wishful thinking", you are sure fairly easily tempted to not "watch your tones" by calling others "a mad dog" simply over a claim of "wishful thinking".
LOL come on buddy, easy on your pro-America, pro-wall street nonsense and stop being passive aggressive with your holier than thou attitude. I have already noticed that you have been consistently negative with your take on the Chinese economic policies and I even commented on one of your prior posts noticing your rather pessimistic tone. I mean, if that's how you get your fixed by all means but let's not casting aspersions on someone and then demanding for your sterling views to be respected while unable yo exercise the same courtesy.
The article really isn't that fair and somewhat subjective in picking measures for a negative spin. Here in the US, the NASDAQ index is nearly 20% down from it's highs from a year earlier. And recently IPO'd stocks are on a similar decline in price that's below their IPO values - Palantir(-20%), Coinbase(-70%), Robinhood(-60%), Backblaze(-75%), etc - they're all well below their IPO prices.
Last edited: