Tencent Is World's Worst Stock Bet With $170 Billion Wipeout (bloomberg.com) 55
China's unprecedented crackdown on its technology industry has turned Tencent Holdings from a market darling into the world's biggest stock loser this month. From a report: The Chinese Internet giant had tumbled 23% in July as of Wednesday, set for its worst month ever after erasing about $170 billion of market value. That marks the fastest evaporation of shareholder wealth worldwide during this period, Bloomberg data shows. Nine of the top 10 losers in shareholder value this month are Chinese companies, including Meituan and Alibaba Group Holding. Tencent's shares rebounded by 7.1% on Thursday morning, tracking broader gains in Chinese stocks after Beijing intensified efforts to alleviate concerns about its crackdown on the private education industry. The Shenzhen-based firm is one of the key casualties of an official campaign that targets some of the nation's tech behemoths considered posing a potential threat to China's data security and financial stability. The selloff in its shares intensified earlier this week after Beijing broadened the regulatory clampdown to include other once high-flying industries such as private education.
23% I've made worse bets than that... (Score:2, Funny)
Was kicking ass until Febrary, when for some reason my strategy of impulsiveness combined with ignorance stopped working...
Been crawling back up with safe stocks only giving me a modest return (and a good night's sleep).
It's nice to not wake up and wonder if you betting your life savings based on the rantings of a youtube celebrity may have been a bad decision.
I do miss the good old days back when ignorance was a winning strategy though...
Re: (Score:2)
Run for Congress. It still seems to work there.
Earth to China (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why your economy isn't #1 in the world. Because investors won't put their money into a country when the country can arbitrarily destroy any company it wants overnight.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
You think the USA is immune from chaos? [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
using non-meat products.
Re:[Small] Earth to China (Score:1)
I suspect the Chinese government has decided companies should not be too big to cause problems. I actually think it's the right solution, but for the wrong reasons. In general, I think the path to smaller government leads through smaller companies, but it is safe to wager that Xi doesn't plan to make the Chinese government smaller.
On the general topic I think this cartoon is the best joke I've seen lately.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/co... [smbc-comics.com]
No actual value was lost in the repricing of Tencent shares. Just a ch
Re: (Score:2)
[]. In general, I think the path to smaller government leads through smaller companies,[]
Why?
Consolidation and monopolies are the most profitable way to organize, so if government backs off on regulation, the big will get bigger.
Is freedom free? (Score:2)
You're just restating the problem, but I see the solution as more freedom.
Perhaps the root of the crisis is linguistic confusion in English? Freedom is not free. There are costs such as competition-related inefficiencies, learning-related costs for newcomers creating a business, and even shutdown-related expenses for losers going out of business, even bankrupt. There are even times when freedom gets paid for with blood.
Or are you asking for a summary of my proposed anti-bigness pro-freedom tax system? Even
Re: (Score:2)
Money tends to prevail.
Re:Earth to China (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why your economy isn't #1 in the world. Because investors won't put their money into a country when the country can arbitrarily destroy any company it wants overnight.
This is one of the things that give me hope that democracies and free societies will continue to flourish and dominate the 21st century, despite the recent rise and growing influence of China.
The autocratic system is efficient in some respects - it's easy to get things done when the great leader is only surrounded by fearful yea-sayers. But ultimately it is self-defeating, because you need freedom of thought and unshackled critical thinking to make real progress and create great innovations. But of course the autocrats can tolerate that only up to a certain point, until they are threatened in their illegitimate rule and feel the need to clamp down.
Creative thinkers and entrepeneurs like Elon Musk will not move to a repressive country like China to build their industries that generate progress.
This is why most modern innovations happened during the Age of Enlightenment and continue to happen in the West.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This is why most modern innovations happened during the Age of Enlightenment and continue to happen in the West.
Internet and finance based companies have not innovated as much as their market valuation suppose. The West has been in continual decline as it swaps technological innovation with get rich quick schemes.
Meanwhile, China is placing huge bets on fusion, quantum computing, and AI, and they all seem to be making some progress.
The Western mindset is an apocalyptic one. They think everything is heading towards a finish line and the winner takes all, and nothing can change. In the East, and we're not just ta
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course Winnie the Poohead isn't a great leader, he's seriously paranoid, he's crap at dealing with corruption and he's committing genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk has opened a Tesla factory in China.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Quite simply. The government of China is not fucking about, to big to fail, is to dangerous and to great at threat to the rest of the economy and society.
The drop in prices reflects to big to fail, losing pieces of itself to the rest of the economy, until it is most definitely not to big to fail and it's power in the economy and been safely curtailed to more reasonable levels.
Think your corporation has to the power to dominate government, what organs do you have to donate, no fucking about.
The China econom
Re: (Score:2)
No one in the East cares about being #1. That is some mindset Westerners can't get out of - they have to be #1, and they'll crush anyone who threatens their position.
In China's case, all the CCP cares about is that private grumblings do not escalate into large scale revolts. Which means in part not to let stock markets get out of control. Tencent's stock value, just like all stock value, is meaningless because there is no frickin' way they can actually make
Good. (Score:3)
Stop selling them the rope to hang us with.
PS, You can't legally own anything in China as a foreigner. Never forget.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious - which countries do NOT confiscate your property if you don't pay the taxes due on it?
Or, for that matter, just stop paying for it?
Re: (Score:1)
The incentive of a bank giving you a land mortgage is to give you a lease you can't pay off, because they make more money that way.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I don't have a fully consistent stance on it. In principle, all inherited wealth is baloney because it doesn't reflect merit and snowballs over generations eventually resulting in the vast majority having no opportunity. But how does that not include citizenship? Would I throw open all the borders so 3 billion Chinese and I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure a lot of slave owners felt the same way.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So in China, the benefits of appreciation in land value go to the people, not to speculators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the US context, there are states that grant allodial title but that doesn't change the federal government's ability to use eminent domain. The closest we come is some land held by Native Americans, churches or universities. Even there allodial title ceases if the land is no longer used for the same purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. I think people hear this sort of thing, and it appeals to their sense of land reaching back to days of olde, and they repeat it.
If you read this definition in a book, then please post the title. If you know of a court case or legal journal article, that is even better. If you heard it on slashdot, then you can be sure that it just isn't true.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you read this definition in a book, then please post the title.
Black's Law Dictionary.
> If you heard it on slashdot, then you can be sure that it just isn't true.
What part of ...
Re: (Score:2)
Black's will tell you what a word means, but not what the law is. The reasonable interpretation of your first quote is that "allodial" means "not feudal." Using that definition, all land in the US is probably allodial.
Your second quote [wikipedia.org] provides an unreasonable interpretation of "allodial" to mean something like "untaxable," which is refuted by its only citation. The section of the Minnesota Constitution [mn.gov] cited states: "All lands within the state are allodial and feudal tenures of every description with all t
Re: (Score:2)
Read about Nevada here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The article's factual accuracy is disputed for a reason--probably related to the fact that there are only 16 cites--6 of which are to the Nevada Revised Codes.
My wild-ass guess is that a bunch of northern Nevada militia people petitioned the state to create something called "Allodial Title" that roughly conformed with what their idea of "Allodial Title" was--except that the government can still seize it (but not for taxes).
Re: (Score:3)
You don't own land in America either unless you have Allodial Title.
If you think you own your land see what happens when you stop paying taxes on it and watch how fast it gets repossessed.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. You own it. However, if you don't pay taxes for it (or other taxes), you owe money - and some assets will be taken to cover that. That you own something doesn't mean it can't be taken away to cover debt - taxes, loans, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't pay taxes on something you own 100%.
If you are paying taxes on it then it doesn't belong to you.
Try reading the actually fucking definition:
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be using some definition of 'own' that means 'can't be seized to pay off debt or for any other reason'. Since virtually nothing falls into this category, your definition is meaningless.
New March of Dimes... (Score:1)
i wonder how member of CCP did ? (Score:1)
I wonder how many member inside the Chinese government shorted the stock.
No harm done (Score:1)
It's about control (Score:2)
The Shenzhen-based firm is one of the key casualties of an official campaign that targets some of the nation's tech behemoths considered posing a potential threat to China's data security and financial stability.
No, it's about posing a potential threat to the ability of the Chinese Communist Party to control people in China, even very rich ones. This is all about threatening people in China by ensuring that no-one is too powerful to be independent. Beating up a few to encourage compliance by the others. Company leaders are required to cooperate entirely with the CCP, and the CCP will not allow independent organisation or group actions, or the potential of any of those, by anyone in China.They are particularly inten
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're hitting that nail right on the head otherwise. The good part is that this is kind of desperate and not at all good for their economy. Well, I guess it's good for the kind of economy they want, but since that system doesn't work...
Not that I mind, but... (Score:2)
If they want to cripple their own economy, I can't help but think that's in the best interests of the rest of the world. If the rest of the world and the Chinese people are really lucky, this is a sign that the CCP is on the verge of collapse, lashing out in a desperate attempt to prevent anyone else from having power, hastening its own demise in the
So can we short it? (Score:2)