Luke

To a degree yes, but its different if I give you money and you invest it in mega-cap quasi asset managers or a multitude of harder-to-understand small caps with tons of upside, everyone can buy Berkshire and do moderately well even from here I guess. You don't need an MBA for that and if you make millions a year for buying Berkshire then IMO you are not being honest with the service you are providing considering the salary you are getting for it. This is not communicated transparently and honestly. Guy charges families a yearly fee if you come in with 500k, I think fee is something like 1.5%. For holding Berkshire and these other asset manager large caps? Seriously?

I don't think that they think that. There should be a healthy balance. But also important top remember, China is pretty evil too regarding inner political control, stepping out of line, detainment camps of minorities and regarding taiwan. I do understand some positions especially inner stability but it also comes with problems, wonder how the trajectory over the longterm will be in this regard, if they open up a bit again after some time. Remains to be seen. Fundamentally at current prices China is bullish.

But then again, i am thankful for these guys to publish really high quality letters readable for free and I think investing with semper etc is still the second best thing one can do with ones money. (first being investing your own money)

Point is, it is morally of lower character to charge money for investing other peoples money while then outsourcing that capital to someone else who invests the money for you. While that's not exactly what guy spier and Semper are doing, they are still half way with the foot in the water. IF you are smart enough to give someone like guy spier your money, shouldn't you be smart enough to just copy him/invest your money into BRK etc? Thats where I wonder, who are their investors? If you are smart enough to not invest in your expensive local bank fund and find intelligent guys like the ones I mentioned, why wouldn't you just skip the middleman? Guy doesn't do any trading, you can find all of his positions online. You can simply copy it and be done. Yes in a crash maybe he does a few things but id say with his style of investing the best really is to do nothing. A mystery!

Whats more realistic is that Trump withdrawals from the geopolitical scene and focusses on America first, getting the country in order, getting manufacturing back on track etc. But I really worry that the US would prefer to go into a war with China to destroy their manufacturing base and window of opportunity to emerge on the worlds stage than fix their own economical issues. Current developments show that they'd rather go into war than accept the problematic situation of winding influence... But then, we are in a new world with new weapons. Trump said that WW3 is more and more likely and I agree, though I think that when that happens humanity will not emerge out of that again and it could be peak homo sapiens this decade. That's why IMO, the US is the most dangerous country in the world.

And "the global south" will not put up to paying these expensive US margins when Chinese produce is available at much better prices and overall a much better deal. It will only be a matter of time till other countries will take the bullet, as much as the US tries to coerce them into not taking non-US-produce. You cant run an empire when so much manufacturing was outsourced and is a lot cheaper than in your homecountry!

I have posted this before: https://asiatimes.com/2024/04/the-myth-of-chinese-overcapacity/ The Global South cannot accumulate capital through imperialism and it should not accumulate capital through the backbreaking East Asian export model. They are in luck because China’s “overcapacity” is exactly how development should work under classical economics. Excess capital in China should flow to developing economies in the form of loans and investments along with capital goods – 5G base stations, railroad equipment, electrical systems, commercial trucks and, yes, cars. This is the entire theoretical basis of President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Without “overcapacity” in China, the Global South would have access to neither capital nor capital goods. Given its current account deficit and capital account surplus, it is mathematically impossible for the West to provide development assistance to the Global South on an appreciable scale. Long-forgotten initiatives like Build Back Better World (B3W) and the Blue Dot Network die on the vine because the US does not suffer from “overcapacity.” Sanctimonious concern over China inundating developing markets with manufactured goods is confused thinking. A development model based on capital inflows requires developing countries to run trade deficits by definition. The inflow will be used to purchase capital goods required for industrialization. This is the Lucas paradox resolved. The Communist Party of China appears to have embraced its Industrial Party faction. The Industrial Party is an ambitious political identity that dispenses with the hoary left-right divide and believes that industry, science and technology will determine China’s future. While not necessarily an economic ideology, Industrial Party precepts have an intuitive understanding of the necessity of China’s “overcapacity” and that it is up to China to reverse the Lucas paradox. Wang Xiaodong, a vocal Industrial Party champion recognized the trends as far back as 2011, exhorting China to globalize its industrialization: China’s Commerce Minister Wang Wentao has dismissed Secretary Yellen’s accusations of overcapacity as groundless, insisting that China’s industries are just more competitive. Both the US and EU are likely to erect trade barriers as China appears unlikely to compromise. When all is said and done, the squabble between China and developed economies is ultimately a sideshow. The real action will be the flow of Chinese capital and goods to the Global South.

China has spawned a tremendous amount of industries in many fields where they got quite competitive or are even ahead. Apple has so much money that they don't use to innovate in new fields but rather ship a only slightly revamped version every year and do the bare minimum to sustain the business, shows that they don't have enough competition yet to be allowed to make that much cash without reinvesting... PDD is a completely different business and I don't think I need to tell you that its the Nr.1 downloaded App in the US, do you see the scale they took in this short amount of time? Do you think keeping a cash pile to defend the business against rich competitors is not smart? Look at Alphabet fines, Meta fines, etc it's in the same size as Chinese businesses and just part of the industry. It's a developing market, I frankly don't understand how you can expect them to run everything like the most developed western country. Still, the progress is marvelous. Can you say one positive thing about China? Is there anything good happening? You are posting a constant stream of negative outlook/statements only, same as most western media. Do you really think that's the full picture here? Dont you see how much development is happening there on all fronts and how their businesses are reaching far beyond many developed western countries? Which other country got that competitive in the car industry the last decade? Or smart technology? Yeah, this is one aspect that needs more fine-tuning. Clearly the US doesn't believe in it either, otherwise, they wouldn't subsidize foreign companies to come and build factories here, etc The myth of the free market is just that, a myth. You always had governments that worked closely together with capital elites which organized production privately. Stealing trade secrets and having that much state intervention is important if you are behind which the US is starting to get into which is why I expect them to do a lot more trade shenanigans against China in the coming years, EVs are only one example. China is the only emerging market that made it up there precisely because of its disregard for Adam Smith. You need to artificially create demand until it's there if you want to enter a new level of technology. Well, monopolies are ruining the economy in many ways, anti-union, underpaying workers, underinvesting in their business, and sending too much cash home to shareholders while bribing governments to not regulate them so they can continue making their investors rich.

Its not only BRK but also Exor, PRX, even Nestle. You don't need to be a genius to hold them and make money longterm...quite pathetic considering they market themselves as genius investors. Never would send them 1ct.

There are multiple reasons, crackdown on monopolies, very heightened hostility from US to China and reversed. Their talent pool is big enough for further excellence so I am not concerned here. The valuation is not what matters, it's the fact that the Chinese government is willing to regulate companies for the good of the overall economy while the US is stalling and will have increasingly more and more monopolies that will harm overall growth and development. Especially if China products are taken off the table, who is there to compete with them? What will drive innovation and capex? Apple already sends almost all the cash back to shareholders instead of innovating so I guess that's what will happen further, also with historically low taxes for corporations and HUGE infrastructure backlog the US could spend on. Absolutely. My point is that we buy companies at similar if not higher quality than in the US at half or third of the multiple, better balance sheets and better investments even. China is the most hated market out there for no understandable reason other than ignorance and conspiracy. Taiwan conflict is here since 70 years, Xi is here since more than a decade, him grabbing control already happened a long time ago when multiples were a lot higher. The problem is the US position and media output that makes investors worry. If you have a really long time horizon and can ignore the noise I think this still is a generational opportunity.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3277436/china-sets-historic-mars-mission-2028-us-plan-remains-limbo?share=CkGpJ5jQeEwhiRT%2FR26%2Fm5aokKeDG6Q5%2F7pctL1xV3gmEznYiPyXF7HerbHsvdeF4TjgwizOuXTHglzSeC1mVE36JpcLpM8XQC%2FkFPn%2FeAoilx6F8H%2BmX0%2Frh%2FxY32a5RDlcR4hP2HdfGZmeVZ%2B5rg%3D%3D&utm_campaign=social_share China sets historic Mars mission for 2028 as US plan remains in limbo In the race for the red planet, China has taken the lead, with its Tianwen-3 mission launch date brought forward two years

I disagree. China produces more same level engineers, doctors etc as western countries do and they are at least of same quality if not even more higher work ethic and smarter (looking at PISA). If you are smart in China and have a good degree from a target uni, your chances to do well are high, you have plenty of billionaires there too and many millionaires too just like the US does. Where it is different is at the political level but are you seriously saying the US does well here? Kamala? Trump? Your "best" people are at the top? How about CEOs? Are they the hardest working best educated guys or are they there due to influence and networks? If you look at Chinas tech CEOs, I see a lot to like, as much or even more than in the US. Regarding the highest political level in China, its hard to say much because its shielded off but I dont think that they are worse than political leadership in the west IMHO. Well, a lot of innovation came from the US and they are still riding that wave but IMO there is a lot more competition coming in from elsewhere and technology can change fast and is a disruptive sector. Literally everything can change in 10-15years and the wind can turn eastwards. At least I see a reasonable case for that. At the same time I am getting paid way more handsomely to wait for a changing wind and I like to be in that place.

The historical record is clear and damning. From 1989, following the fall of the Soviet Union, neoliberal elites in Russia and the West conspired to suppress Russian democracy with violence, in order to divide Russia’s wealth between those who would become known as the oligarchs on the one hand, and Western fund managers and shareholders on the other. It was that deliberate strategy that paved the way for the violent authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin, much as Western neoliberalism and corporate greed was responsible for suppressing democracy in Chile in 1973 and for the bloody regime that followed under General Augusto Pinochet. Properly understood, Vladimir Putin is yet another Frankenstein’s monster of neoliberalism. The West’s suppression of democracy in Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union In the early 1990s, as Russians’ progress towards democracy appeared to be advancing at pace, the vast majority believed the fairest way to distribute the assets of the state would be through workers’ cooperatives. But that ran counter to neoliberal orthodoxy and threatened to deny spectacular profits to foreign investors and a handful of Russians. From the outset, democracy and neoliberalism in the new Russia were set on a course of collision. Influential publications in the West argued that privatisation and “economic reform” should be imposed by force. In 1990, for example, the Economist urged Gorbachev to adopt “strong-man rule … to smash the resistance that has blocked serious economic reform” 2 . In 1991, the Washington Post proposed General Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile as the model: “Pinochet's Chile A Pragmatic Model For Soviet Economy”. As a reminder of what that implied: in 1973, the CIA backed General Augusto Pinochet’s violent coup in Chile against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende, in order to open up Chile’s resources to US corporations. Pinochet crushed democratic resistance with murder, internment and torture on a massive scale. Such publications foreshadowed what was to come. The US backed Boris Yeltsin in planning a programme of radical economic reform to be forced through so fast the Russian public wouldn’t know what hit them. According to Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist at the World Bank at the time: “Only a blitzkrieg approach during the ‘window of opportunity’ provided by the ‘fog of transition’ would get the changes made before the population had a chance to organise …” As the asset strippers feasted, millions of Russians lost their savings and by 1992 a third of the Russian population had fallen below the poverty line. 4 The Russian Parliament attempted to push back. Yeltsin declared a state of emergency to bypass Parliament, which Russia’s constitutional court ruled unlawful. The US backed Yeltsin with substantial financial support. On 3 October 1993, Yeltsin ordered the army to surround the Russian Parliament. Demonstrators were machine-gunned - about 100 were killed. On 4 October he ordered the storming of Parliament with tanks, setting the Russian “White House” on fire. The Guardian’s contemporary report carries the headline: “Yeltsin crushes revolt: Parliament taken in tank battle; Opposition parties and newspapers banned”. It records that: “Western leaders … promptly declared support [for Yeltsin’s assault on Parliament]” With all opposition removed, there was no impediment to the fire sale of Russian public assets for the vast and immediate enrichment of a handful of Yeltsin’s political allies (now known as “the oligarchs”) and foreign fund managers and shareholders. Giant oil and metals companies were sold-off for a fraction of their market value. Shell and BP grabbed their lucrative shares. The Wall Street Journal flaunted the extraordinary prizes on offer: “Looking for an investment that could gain 2,000 per cent in three years? Only one stock market offers that hope … Russia.” The political problem with this feeding-frenzy was that it came at the expense of the Russian people, whose security and economic circumstances collapsed. As a distraction, and to stave off rebellion, in December 1994 Yeltsin invaded Chechnya. Yeltsin’s national security chief, Oleg Rabov explained to Sergei Yushenkov, a Russian legislator 6 : “We need a small, victorious war to raise the president’s ratings”. The Guardian wrote at the time: “If, as many are suggesting, Yeltsin was reckoning on a short, sharp Falklands-style war to boost his authority and popularity, he has misjudged, and now risks igniting the North Caucasian region and provoking a clash between Orthodox and Muslim.” Approximately 80,000 civilians were killed in this first Chechen War (about 40% of them children). The consequences of this horrific bloodshed would pave the way for the rise of Vladimir Putin. In September 1999, Russia was hit by a number of terrorist attacks attributed to Chechen militants. Putin was put in charge of the response, launching the second Chechen war later that month. Al Jazeera estimates that 300,000 people have been killed in the two Chechen wars. As Yeltsin succumbed to alcoholism, Putin was anointed as his natural successor - he took power without elections in December 1999. Reflecting on this grim history, Wayne Merry, chief political analyst at the US embassy in Moscow between 1990 and 1994 admitted in 2000, with what now seems like understatement: “The US Government chose the economic over the political … Unfortunately, the choice was to ignore popular will and to press on with the policy. And I think there was a huge cost on the long-term development of rule of law and constitutional government in Russia from making that choice.” We should remember also how the US and UK Governments exploited 9/11 to lead us into disastrous wars, including in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands were killed. The real motivation, as we now know, was to open up Iraq’s nationalised oil industry to Western corporations, such as Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell. Tellingly, former US Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, wrote in his memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." And how the banker induced financial crisis of 2008 was exploited to impose “austerity”, i.e. to wage war on neoliberalism’s favourite targets - our communities and the public sector. And how the Government’s lies and corruption through the pandemic accompanied a bonanza for its friends and corporate sponsors, while it waged war on dissent, including by fining a nurse £10,000 for protesting a below inflation pay-rise and by proposing legislation which threatens peaceful protestors with 10 years’ imprisonment (legislation that would make headlines if introduced in Russia or China). Good geopolitical comments worth reading and thinking about while looking at this war.

Sounds also like that western intelligence could find some people in Russia who could carry out an assassination against Putin, are they on it already? Will Ukraine AND Russia join Nato then and will the next war then be against China from russian borders?

Posted today by the Vice-Chancellor of Germany and Minister of Economic Affairs. Shows very well where the west wants to go with Russia->Regime-Change->Putin into Prison->"democractic russia"->millions hoping to be safed from their government etc Now selensky said he doesn't plant to return the russian regions...imagine what would happen if the west would gain even more support for a direct war against Russia.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3277076/rock-n-roll-internet-are-potential-western-colour-revolution-traps-chinese-textbook?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage Rock ’n’ roll, internet are potential Western ‘colour revolution’ traps: Chinese textbook New college textbook draws on speeches of President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s latest move to tighten ideological control and national security

which aim to cultivate the development and international expansion of high-quality games that resonate with Chinese culture and values. https://asiatimes.com/2024/09/video-games-are-the-next-front-in-us-china-tech-war/ Has anyone played Black Myth Wukong already? Exceptional Game.

The result of this fierce competition will be an incredible edge and advantage in development for the survivors IMO. If China wouldn't have had protections themselves its them who would never would have had a chance against US companies. Its always about who controls technology, resources, etc if you are behind you want to get an information edge and use tariffs etc. Reality is that now the playing field is in favor of Chinese companies which is why the US needs to have all this "make America great again" talk. Yes, exactly how Western foreign policy worked previously. Contrary though I think once China has that developmental control, they can and will do more than just extract resources from those countries an do more actual development. I am personally just rooting for a more multipolar world where companies are not concentrated at 60% in the US. Would be great to see more from Asia but also Africa, have good human development and diversity. A world where its not "buy SP 500 and chill" but "buy world etf and chill".

I ordered a bunch of nice shit on temu, 8€ 44 in 1 tool that would cost 50€ made in Germany, swiffer replacement that costs a tenth of what the brand takes here, just amazing! But you can never make bargains! Gotta pay that 30% tax to the 35x PE family business!

So what China is doing now of course makes absolute sense, go into developing economies, help them build their infrastructure so they can all become consumers and buy China stuff! Thats the essence of the American dream! (well, now its Chinese! ha!)

So we gotta protect the teslas, exors, apples, amazons etc because their projected earnings don't price in that they get any competition or lower margins and if that happens, well, we will implement lawsuits, tariffs, maybe start a war against that country, coerce them etc

I think everybody in the western world would preorder an EV at the right price. It might be at a 2% margin for a Chinese player but at global scale that's still a lot of cash. But you cant guys! Because some shareholders and family owners don't want it! (of course they could just go bankrupt and then I work for a Chinese company that does everything better but they don't tell you that!)

BUT YOU CANT SUBSIDIZE YOUR COMPANIES (except if we do it its okay because whatever). BUT YOU CANT OVERPRODUCE (because all our capital backers will lose money and be angry) Chose your fighter, would you rather be an ally with a country that has a huge industrial base for all sorts of things everyone needs, at cheap prices or would you want to be an ally with a country that has highly concentrated monopoly firms that will eat your own countries lunch, buy your politicians and squeeze the maximum price out of everyone's pocket? Thats why countries side with China, especially developed countries that want to rise up...because rising up is hard when everything is protected to death by patents and politics and you can make 30% margins selling toilet paper

What the financial media calls overproduction is just gaslighting. China is not allowed to participate in a market where the market participants find the right price for what is produced. Id gladly take a cheap EV but I am not allowed to buy it at the right price, henceforth china sits on lots of production it can't sell to me, a market participant looking for things. Everybody knows that once China is allowed to fully compete globally, 90% of industries will be immediately commoditized because there is (and soon wont be) no moat in cars, appliances, food, clothing etc (except for luxury nieches). That of course can not happen because the SP 500 trades at 30x earnings and would collapse, billionaires wont be billionaires, China would have even more control, capitalism as we know it changes from the financial engineered high margin system led by the US to a consumer oriented actual free market economy where the country that works the hardest, offers the best product and prices and hence earns the most money!

Bought a lot of Hang Lung Group