Interesting. Maybe that's why the Chinese government has recently been trying to stop this practice and force this companies to pay their suppliers on time and fairly. I think this was a let down by Chinese regulators, they shouldn't have allowed such a blatant malpractice to carry on for so long without consequences for this companies engaging in such acts.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Fact Free Claim #1. Central Huijin has been stepping in many times in the past years. Stop making up claims.
If you bothered to read, the article I linked clearly stated the following:
Now, if you actually did any analysis, and read the December 2024 Politburo readout, you will have read that the Politburo Readout first time mentioned "stabilizing stock market and real estate market" as a prelude to the CEWC in 2024.
Stop living in the past. Get with the program.
I had never claimed there were ever going to be opening of credit to real estate developers. You can define a bazooka however you want, but I had never claimed that a "bazooka" (as defined by you) was ever going to be used. Why do you continue to stick to this mistaken claim that I said this:
I wrote explicitly what I thought stimulus was necessary (as I previously stated clearly, LGFV debt resolution), and something the central government actually did do.
Please stop making up shit.
I am responding only because you claimed I said something I never said.
Last edited:
And you know what could have resolved this at the outset? Actually stating that you don't believe that and then stating what you do believe. I have been under the impression that you do expect a fairly large resumption of credit to developers as a result of you constantly advocating for stabilizing RE on this forum and elsewhere.
What program? What do you think the center's program is?
I am not going to bother responding to your questions, because the last time I wrote to you what I thought the central government was going to do in 2024 ("resolve LGFV debt issue"), you simply accused me of writing something else ("turn on credit taps for developers").
Just now you've yet again ignored my statements wrt. Central Huijin.
Are you seriously incapable of recognizing a distinction between pointing to something they've already done and making a prediction about what they will do? I am asking for the letter, and have already done so myself.
In the absence of an argument on your part about what they are trying to do this is completely irrelevant; I have already stated what I meant wrt stock market stimulus and it's obvious Huijin's recent activities do not meet that threshold.
Do you bother to read? Like at all?
Again, if you bothered to read. Central Huijin officially announced that it will 'steadfastly stabilize the capital markets' and will continue to buy ETFs.
The PBOC also decided to give infinite liquidity should Central Huijin need it:
Again, do you read?
At this point you're just doing what you accuse me of doing. This is a complete non-sequitor; I already said they made efforts to stabilize markets and clarified what I meant about stimulus in both senses multiple times.
What program for the love of god? What are they optimizing for? This is what I am asking for.
I will read articles if they are actually relevant to my argument.
Last edited:
@hereforsemithread - until you apologize for mistakenly accusing me of stating that the government was going turn on credit taps for developers, answering any of your questions is a liability, because I cannot be assured that you won't turn around and make up shit about what I said in the future.
Take this line back. I specifically stated what I thought the priorities were - specifically LGFV debt relief - something the central government did indeed do. Why do you continue to make up shit about me?
I apologize for misinterpreting your emphasis on stabilizing RE as advocacy for extending more credit to developers, and for forgetting the exact details of a conversation we had 18 months ago. Now can you tell us what you think the central government is trying to do, in a broader macro context? Please?
No.
Last edited:
I never said you have to remember, but don't make up shit if you can't remember the details.
They make it very clear they'd like to see markets (real estate and equity) stabilize. That is the point of a market stabilization fund. Meaning they are okay with it staying flat or going up, but they will put a floor in if it goes lower. If you are aware of the concept of risk in equity markets what the central government has done is to significantly enhance the risk adjusted returns of investing in A shares.