Shanghai stock exchange suspends Ant Group's A-share IPO(de.reuters.com)
de.reuters.com
Shanghai stock exchange suspends Ant Group's A-share IPO
https://de.reuters.com/article/ant-group-ipo/shanghai-stock-exchange-suspends-ant-groups-a-share-ipo-idUSP8N2HK04R
76 comments
There's a regulatory draft that requires small business lenders like Ant to warehouse 30% of the loans they originate vs the 2% that they currently have on balance sheet. This draft was disclosed after regulators met with Jack Ma and other Ant executives. No clue why this was only done now but this significantly changes valuations.
I remember reading Jack Ma is on record describing large Chinese bank business models as analogous to pawn shops and in general criticizing regulators. Probably had something to do with it.
If you listen to his whole speech, he's making a lot of very generalized criticisms on China's financial regulatory systems, which as a whole aren't inaccurate. But you're left wondering at the end how does it specifically relate with what he's concretely asking for (which presumably is just increasing the specific rate at which "JieBei" short-term debts can be repackaged and re-securitized). In other words, it just seems like a big obfuscation and dance around to ask for neoliberalism without saying the word and strawmanning the flip side as obsolete "pawn shop mentality".
Granted, regulatory hurdles this late in the process seems super opaque and vindictive. But on the flip side, leveraging debt at this level seems like a massive systemic risk to the social order considering the risk ratings on the repackaged security will be equally opaque within the Ant debt product offerings. It's fascinating seeing this as China more or less writing Glass-Steagall on the fly the day before the IPO. Despite it looking like 2 kids fighting over an ice cream, I think it'll be massively consequential in A) demonstrating leveraging on new forms of financial instruments like ML-driven peer-to-peer lending based on massive amounts of Ant/Alibaba consumer data, and B) it being a fork in the road on China setting a precedent on neoliberalism or politics controlling capital.
Granted, regulatory hurdles this late in the process seems super opaque and vindictive. But on the flip side, leveraging debt at this level seems like a massive systemic risk to the social order considering the risk ratings on the repackaged security will be equally opaque within the Ant debt product offerings. It's fascinating seeing this as China more or less writing Glass-Steagall on the fly the day before the IPO. Despite it looking like 2 kids fighting over an ice cream, I think it'll be massively consequential in A) demonstrating leveraging on new forms of financial instruments like ML-driven peer-to-peer lending based on massive amounts of Ant/Alibaba consumer data, and B) it being a fork in the road on China setting a precedent on neoliberalism or politics controlling capital.
People argued as those regulation not done in 1 month he is under pressure for 1 year. Finally the rumour of sanction come before the possible election of Biden, they force the card and get that up. Then force back. Thus is the final stand not the cause. He has been silenced fir quite a while now. Not to do that just when money is all in — the share has been subscribed and for this cancel just lost to margin interest alone is us$70m.
Do not blame the messenger.
Do not blame the messenger.
I mean, no one can expect different thoughts from financial gamblers. Jack Ma was totally a non innovative person. Like his whole enterprise so far is following western examples and the playbook. Now he is happily adopting the financial revolution narrative, disguised under the tech innovator facade.
I would love to have something like Alipays integration here in Canada or in any western country.
They truly are doing something with technology that isn’t found anywhere in the west. Part of which is also due to WeChat penetration and coverage. But few western countries let you do so much with just a smartphone as China.
They truly are doing something with technology that isn’t found anywhere in the west. Part of which is also due to WeChat penetration and coverage. But few western countries let you do so much with just a smartphone as China.
The big diffrence is debit card-based and credit card-based, Ant and Chinese banks take no responsibility of these one-off domestic transations and offer no consumer protection, while western banks need to worry about money-laundering and terrorism and risk management. WeChat Pay don't even offer customer support.
It's this special gated environment enabled payment tools, they just process this money and be done with it. Alipay & Wechat and Chinese banks don't care about what is your business doing are they shady or not, unlike Paypal.
It's this special gated environment enabled payment tools, they just process this money and be done with it. Alipay & Wechat and Chinese banks don't care about what is your business doing are they shady or not, unlike Paypal.
China's anti money-laundering law wasn't as strict as US's for sure, but that doesn't mean huge amount of cash flow from one or many accounts to another wouldn't draw red flags.
US banking system works that anyone can use the card even if they just found it on the street, and business owner can charge a card repeatedly for any amount even if the card owner is not present. The room for fraud is huge.
China's debit and credit card alike requires PIN code to send payment, where the owner would be required to confirm the number and enter the PIN code. And it has 2FA as a requirement for online banking, whether that's a text message received on a mobile phone, or a hardware 2FA. There is still room for fraud but a lot smaller.
To say US banks cares and Alipay, Wechat and Chinese banks don't care is kind of absurd. They exist in a almost entirely different financial ecosystem and norms. In the US, fraud protection is necessary otherwise no one would use their cards. While in China, fraud protection still needed, but rarely is the case. Those institutions only did what's necessary.
US banking system works that anyone can use the card even if they just found it on the street, and business owner can charge a card repeatedly for any amount even if the card owner is not present. The room for fraud is huge.
China's debit and credit card alike requires PIN code to send payment, where the owner would be required to confirm the number and enter the PIN code. And it has 2FA as a requirement for online banking, whether that's a text message received on a mobile phone, or a hardware 2FA. There is still room for fraud but a lot smaller.
To say US banks cares and Alipay, Wechat and Chinese banks don't care is kind of absurd. They exist in a almost entirely different financial ecosystem and norms. In the US, fraud protection is necessary otherwise no one would use their cards. While in China, fraud protection still needed, but rarely is the case. Those institutions only did what's necessary.
I don’t believe this for a split second. I’m certain China cares if money being spent somehow harms the CCP. Their monitoring motivations are distinct from the west, but monitoring definitely exists.
You don't have to, it's just the way banking is done in China, sounds ridiculous?
Well, having banks blocking you transaction, and asking what it's for is it legitmate, or Paypal terminating accounts at will is ridiculous in China too, "it's my money none of your business". Also part of the reason why mobile games and micro-transation are so huge, there's no bank asking why are you spending repeatedly on Genshin Impact and do you want to take it back.
It's tied to your national ID for sure, but it stops there.
It's actually good for the CCP, coz corruption is lubricant and everybody is in it, you don't want to track who's behind this money, they don't even disclose how many dozen condos every official owns.
It's tied to your national ID for sure, but it stops there.
It's actually good for the CCP, coz corruption is lubricant and everybody is in it, you don't want to track who's behind this money, they don't even disclose how many dozen condos every official owns.
Is theft via these small transactions common?
It's not uncommon, there are various scams esp around e-commerce review boosting gigs that trick you into paying upfront but into different accounts/scan alternate QR codes, once the money is transfered, it's very hard to get it back if not impossible.
The police don't really pursue these cases as the debit card money is all instant and already gone and often small in amount (won't even register it as a case if the money is less than 450 USD), occasionally they will do a blanket operation and arrest some unlucky scammers to make an example, simmilar to irl thefts.
If your are talking about account hacking, SIM swap is quite difficult in China as basically anything is tied to national ID nowadays (even posting comments online, this does provide security to their business model, not to mention they are aggressively pushing facial recognition on the app level, I have to install a local police station app to unlock front door that regularly scans my face and tied to my WeChat, they are conducting census through WeChat BTW), but there are methods such as basestation jamming to force phones back into 2G and intercept text messages, these are fairly uncommon.
As I've said, many of the hard work has already been done by the state or isn't required at all, it's realy a paradise environment for these payment tools, probably only in China.
The police don't really pursue these cases as the debit card money is all instant and already gone and often small in amount (won't even register it as a case if the money is less than 450 USD), occasionally they will do a blanket operation and arrest some unlucky scammers to make an example, simmilar to irl thefts.
If your are talking about account hacking, SIM swap is quite difficult in China as basically anything is tied to national ID nowadays (even posting comments online, this does provide security to their business model, not to mention they are aggressively pushing facial recognition on the app level, I have to install a local police station app to unlock front door that regularly scans my face and tied to my WeChat, they are conducting census through WeChat BTW), but there are methods such as basestation jamming to force phones back into 2G and intercept text messages, these are fairly uncommon.
As I've said, many of the hard work has already been done by the state or isn't required at all, it's realy a paradise environment for these payment tools, probably only in China.
Banks in US only block payments if they look like they might contravene US laws. China will have different laws, but moving large sums of money without reason is likely to raise flags over there too. According to your post, a Chinese bank will allow me to withdraw a million yuan in cash in one go without asking why and what I need it for. I find that difficult to believe.
No one tracks micro transactions, not in the States or anywhere. AML laws don’t kick in until 10K USD. And of course corruption is a problem in China. It’s also a problem in the States. None of these statements point to a crucial difference in banking. If anything a commercial bank in the US is far more likely to keep your transactions private, whereas a Chinese bank probably hands them over to the government as a pre-arranged periodic data dump.
No one tracks micro transactions, not in the States or anywhere. AML laws don’t kick in until 10K USD. And of course corruption is a problem in China. It’s also a problem in the States. None of these statements point to a crucial difference in banking. If anything a commercial bank in the US is far more likely to keep your transactions private, whereas a Chinese bank probably hands them over to the government as a pre-arranged periodic data dump.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Maybe so. OP's point is that China doesn't force the banks to put burdens on their customers for the sake of this monitoring.
It's a big deal.
It's a big deal.
If I have $100,000 USD equivalent in yuan in a Chinese bank account and try to have it transferred overseas in one go, they will certainly ask me questions. Similarly if I suddenly try to withdraw that amount in cash, I will be queried as well.
Ergo, as long as limits and thresholds exist, the banking systems are equivalent, and all we are left to quibble over is the what (or how much) and the why.
Ergo, as long as limits and thresholds exist, the banking systems are equivalent, and all we are left to quibble over is the what (or how much) and the why.
You simply can't do that, Yuan is nowhere near a freely convertible currency, it's a fundamental difference.
Once foreign money enters China, it's very hard to get it out, the CCP has a ministry dedicated to the control of it. Most of the people don't have the need for it.
What you are saying is irrelevant to Ant and banks in general. Ant doesn't care about foreign markets or your dollars, it's a Yuan-only payment tool operates inside mainland China for Chinese people, simple as that.
Once foreign money enters China, it's very hard to get it out, the CCP has a ministry dedicated to the control of it. Most of the people don't have the need for it.
What you are saying is irrelevant to Ant and banks in general. Ant doesn't care about foreign markets or your dollars, it's a Yuan-only payment tool operates inside mainland China for Chinese people, simple as that.
It is hard get in and get out. A average person have $50k allowance for transferring IN and $50k for transferring OUT.
What exactly is truly innovative about Alipay? What features are missing from the current Canadian payments landscape that you feel Alipay can fill? Just curious.
Nothing is new in Alipay.
They developed an database called oceanbase and thought it would replace IBM's machine and DB2 for banks, they failed miserably because of the deep transactional nature of conventional banking is not working well in their system designed for online payment processing.
That's a out it.
They developed an database called oceanbase and thought it would replace IBM's machine and DB2 for banks, they failed miserably because of the deep transactional nature of conventional banking is not working well in their system designed for online payment processing.
That's a out it.
Sorry, but I'd LOVE to avoid all the "innovative" spying and one vendor lock in you seem to ignore in your enthusiasm.
It doesn't have to be like China.
But we've already got a oligopoly of sorts with in the financial system (in the US heavily reinforced by policy after the last 2008 recession down to 5 mega banks and thousands of smaller banks went under). So it will be more like corporate surveillance.
Which yes privacy laws can protect. Especially here in Canada.
It doesn't have to be that way if we had competent privacy rights protections.
Especially not the way WeChat and Alipay has been integrated with the Chinese government.
But we've already got a oligopoly of sorts with in the financial system (in the US heavily reinforced by policy after the last 2008 recession down to 5 mega banks and thousands of smaller banks went under). So it will be more like corporate surveillance.
Which yes privacy laws can protect. Especially here in Canada.
It doesn't have to be that way if we had competent privacy rights protections.
Especially not the way WeChat and Alipay has been integrated with the Chinese government.
Yeah I'm not sure why I was down voted for that -- literally if you don't have these two "apps" (which the government monitors and censors), you can't function in modern Sino city life. Why we would want that in Canada is beyond me.
I agree with all your points.
I agree with all your points.
And you know this how? There are plenty of people there who get by fine without owning a phone.
Thanks, first I’m seeing anyone report this as the reason.
The 2% they were operating under was a joke (less than 1/3rd Lehman’s capitalization), 30% on the other hand, seems outright punitive if true.
Timing is weird too.
The 2% they were operating under was a joke (less than 1/3rd Lehman’s capitalization), 30% on the other hand, seems outright punitive if true.
Timing is weird too.
This is a little different than what Lehman got in trouble for in the US.
During the financial crisis, the core issue is that banks were making loans off their own balance sheet with reserves too small to cover the losses that eventually occurred. In other words, when borrowers defaulted the bank itself lost money. This made them insolvent and caused the whole collapse.
In the case of Ant on the other hand, they essentially function as a lead generation platform for banks - currently 98% of "their loans" aren't really theirs at all, but rather are funded by their partner banks; if the loan defaults, it's the partner bank's problem, not Ant's.
The reason this change is such a big deal is that forcing Ant to fund 30% of its own loans will require raising an absolutely enormous amount of fairly expensive capital, driving up costs and significantly decreasing the value of the company.
During the financial crisis, the core issue is that banks were making loans off their own balance sheet with reserves too small to cover the losses that eventually occurred. In other words, when borrowers defaulted the bank itself lost money. This made them insolvent and caused the whole collapse.
In the case of Ant on the other hand, they essentially function as a lead generation platform for banks - currently 98% of "their loans" aren't really theirs at all, but rather are funded by their partner banks; if the loan defaults, it's the partner bank's problem, not Ant's.
The reason this change is such a big deal is that forcing Ant to fund 30% of its own loans will require raising an absolutely enormous amount of fairly expensive capital, driving up costs and significantly decreasing the value of the company.
To expand on your comment here’s a good article that explains Ant and how it’s structured plus it’s issues with Chinese regulators by an excellent Chinawatcher.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/many-trails-an...
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/many-trails-an...
Subscribed! I don't run into many people in the west that can have a nuanced view on what's happening in China and the place is just way too big and vibrant to deflect every topic into what's happening in one city or waaay on the other side of the Gobi desert. This doesn't happen on any other topic about any other country, and the other things going on are of keen interest to me.
If the loan is actually written by another bank, why is there any requirement on Ant?
Though my position is that 30% capitalization is actually reasonable and that our current collective level of leverage is unnecessarily unstable.
Though my position is that 30% capitalization is actually reasonable and that our current collective level of leverage is unnecessarily unstable.
Your underwriting standards are going to be different depending on how much skin in the game you have.
Why would partner banks accept trash loans without doing due diligence? Though thinking about the housing crisis, greedy short-sightedness comes to mind. It's amazing how some of the people who claim to be the smartest with money are actually the dumbest and riskiest. Are they actually smart or just lucky they won a bet?
Governments have a history of bailing out the financial system. Lenders take that into account and will take on riskier loans since they effectively have a put on them.
Adding links to a chain makes it weaker, nor stronger.
It's not, the banks lend their excessive cash to a big tech company, Ant then use that money to make small/short-term loans with "big data" credit ratings to individuals unqualified for low-interest bank loans.
That makes sense. Though it seems like it should be inconsistent with "if the loan defaults, it's the partner bank's problem, not Ant's."
I don't think 30% is unreasonable, nor would it require them raising that much cash relative to a company of their magnitude or
Back of the envelope math: Majority of their portfolio is very short term, let's assume 6 months duration which is a 0.5yr weighted average life 300B in annual originations Assume they can get similar leverage as US securitization markets, which would be 95% advance rate (5% "skin in the game" for Ant)
Then the equity required would be: 300B0.530%5% = ~2.25B, and they were planning to raise $30B as part of this IPO
Back of the envelope math: Majority of their portfolio is very short term, let's assume 6 months duration which is a 0.5yr weighted average life 300B in annual originations Assume they can get similar leverage as US securitization markets, which would be 95% advance rate (5% "skin in the game" for Ant)
Then the equity required would be: 300B0.530%5% = ~2.25B, and they were planning to raise $30B as part of this IPO
I don’t think it is punitive. Ant primarily lends to individuals without any collateral. Those are inherently high risk debts and thus needs more safeguards.
The timing is weird because, in my opinion, that Ant rush to IPO after knowing the policy is going to come in effect soon. There were almost 3k fintech (p2p lenders), the government has been restricting the market, now there are 15 of them.
The timing makes sense if it is in response to his recent remarks but the regulation is extremely punitive vs potential outcome if this IPO gets botched.
how do you determine the punitive capitalization ratio for non-capitalist regulation?
From what I can gather from public information, the loan volume is ~$300B/year and growing rapidly. If they have to hold a 3rd of that on their books, that’s a lot of capital they have come up with. And maintain a loss reserve. I guess, they are being asked to become a bank.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-p2p-financial-refugees-face-...
the 2% is not what they have on their balance. 2% of the total loan was from Ant group money, the rest 98% money are from banks and ABS.
Government has been restricting consumer borrowing for a few years now. Consumer borrowing is discouraged. It was easy money for tech companies, almost all tech companies are in this business including Tencent, Baidu, JD, 360 and so on.
the 2% is not what they have on their balance. 2% of the total loan was from Ant group money, the rest 98% money are from banks and ABS.
Government has been restricting consumer borrowing for a few years now. Consumer borrowing is discouraged. It was easy money for tech companies, almost all tech companies are in this business including Tencent, Baidu, JD, 360 and so on.
Alibaba stock is down >8% today, and a bunch of people must have known about this issue in advance. Smells bad.
the news came out before the market opened in the US
Right, and it opened about 9% lower than yesterday's closing, recovering about 1% since then.
Jack Ma had a speech against Chinese financial regulation on last weekend. I guess this must be the main reason ...
This link provides more information: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ant-group-ipo/ant-groups-...
Isn't China shooting themselves in the foot here?
I don't know the details of the situation so I'd be happy to hear from someone who knows more, but this deal could've been a huge win for Chinese financial markets. Down the road, unexpected government action like this could hurt investor confidence and depress the amount of money Chinese companies will be able to raise from foreign investors.
I don't know the details of the situation so I'd be happy to hear from someone who knows more, but this deal could've been a huge win for Chinese financial markets. Down the road, unexpected government action like this could hurt investor confidence and depress the amount of money Chinese companies will be able to raise from foreign investors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
It's an unusual move, but the whole IPO is odd.
IPO at its relative late stage with a gigantic valuation, leaving little for retail investors to gain from. And its whole IPO process is preferential treatment at its finest, almost looked like Jack Ma can do whatever he wanted.
Ant and Ma's condescending posture did draw a fairly big backlash, it's certain pratices border on non-compliance, and Ma's beneficiaries are mostly from the last leadership, these probably helped put a brake on it.
IPO at its relative late stage with a gigantic valuation, leaving little for retail investors to gain from. And its whole IPO process is preferential treatment at its finest, almost looked like Jack Ma can do whatever he wanted.
Ant and Ma's condescending posture did draw a fairly big backlash, it's certain pratices border on non-compliance, and Ma's beneficiaries are mostly from the last leadership, these probably helped put a brake on it.
> IPO at its relative late stage with a gigantic valuation, leaving little for retail investors to gain from.
Isn't this just following a trend for larger and later IPOs?
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/11/6134529/a-new-york-stock-excha...
Isn't this just following a trend for larger and later IPOs?
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/11/6134529/a-new-york-stock-excha...
> The IPO was a sensational draw for China’s retail investors who bid a record $3 trillion, equivalent to the entire annual economic output, for shares in the fintech giant.
:o that sounds quite frothy.
:o that sounds quite frothy.
Yeah, for comparison Apple's valuation is 1.88T, compared to US's GDP of 20.8T.
Americans markets have been booming for the past 10 years, relatively robust and "policed", it also has something to do with the dollar dominance, so they kind of can take these bets?
But it's not the case for Chinese domestic markets.
But it's not the case for Chinese domestic markets.
> It's an unusual move, but the whole IPO is odd.
In the IPO files Ant Group declared itself as a "tech company" under supervision of Ministry of Cyberspace. LOL
In the IPO files Ant Group declared itself as a "tech company" under supervision of Ministry of Cyberspace. LOL
There seem to be at least two large factions in CCP when dealing with Ant Financial. In exaggerated terms:
1. The statists who want strict control over financial giants like Ant Financial. They created the new regulations.
2. The neo liberals who are much friendlier to capitalists. They helped rush through the IPO.
My guess is that neo liberals got wind of the impending regulations, which is the reason for the rushed IPO schedule and Jack Ma’s criticism of Chinese and international banking systems.
My guess is that neo liberals got wind of the impending regulations, which is the reason for the rushed IPO schedule and Jack Ma’s criticism of Chinese and international banking systems.
> Ant Group has recently reported to China’s securities regulator about the significantly changes in regulatory environment, the exchange said, and this major development might make Ant Group fall short of the listing requirement regarding information disclosure
What does this mean? Does this sentence even say anything?
What does this mean? Does this sentence even say anything?
China just put out a new set of regulation that will severely dampen the leverage available to Ant, and thus dampen their revenue and profit significantly. That will in turn lead to significant downvaluing of its stocks.
So, the next step for the Chinese regulators is to suspend the whole thing for the dust to settle.
So, the next step for the Chinese regulators is to suspend the whole thing for the dust to settle.
HKEX followed suit also.
Not just a share but also h share where the world including USA should concern about, as your money might be involved.
How can Jack Ma belong to the Chinese communist party, and also own a huge company? Does communism not mean what it used to mean any more?
Not since the three represents.
The Chinese Communist Party has been transitioning to the idea of state capitalism for decades now.
> How can Jack Ma belong to the Chinese communist party, and also own a huge company? Does communism not mean what it used to mean any more?
- to own a huge company in China, you would have to be a member of the CCP. Otherwise it would be stripped from you and you would be jailed.
- as of 2019, companies over 50 employees have a CCP cell in their office. The CCP is now going after even smaller companies in 2020.
- communism is totalitarianism. That means the society is strictly controlled top-down, from Dragon Families/Xi to the lowest peasant. The families pillage China on a national scale (Three Gorges power generation revenue, etc.), while the CCP has ultimate control of literally everything else.
- China has had tremendous growth, funded by the West, but aggressively-managed by local officials with KPIs, etc.
- the CCP is modelled on the Soviet Union, but on steroids
- It's reported that the top 100 CCP officials have personal wealth of around $2 billion each.
- to own a huge company in China, you would have to be a member of the CCP. Otherwise it would be stripped from you and you would be jailed.
- as of 2019, companies over 50 employees have a CCP cell in their office. The CCP is now going after even smaller companies in 2020.
- communism is totalitarianism. That means the society is strictly controlled top-down, from Dragon Families/Xi to the lowest peasant. The families pillage China on a national scale (Three Gorges power generation revenue, etc.), while the CCP has ultimate control of literally everything else.
- China has had tremendous growth, funded by the West, but aggressively-managed by local officials with KPIs, etc.
- the CCP is modelled on the Soviet Union, but on steroids
- It's reported that the top 100 CCP officials have personal wealth of around $2 billion each.