Political Posts

[John Hjorth]

1 minute ago, Luca said:

Well said, nobody in Russia stole the shares, the US randomly banned selected Russian billionaires, stole some of their assets and blocked shareholders from having access to their rightly owned shares. Everybody blaming russia but they did nothing here haha

 

This is actually true. It is one of many consequences of various sactions, not thought out well, designed and imposed properly, and according to purpose.

 

Well, now back to China.

[Castanza]

  +  = US Gov't/Policy

 

 +  = US Citizens

Edited January 24, 2024 by Castanza

[Gmthebeau]

The federal government is not your risk manager.  Wall Street will sell you anything they can make a buck on.  Buyer beware.

[Castanza]

10 minutes ago, Gmthebeau said:

The federal government is not your risk manager.  Wall Street will sell you anything they can make a buck on.  Buyer beware.

 

Then stop trying to managing my risk by blocking ADRs....Allow me to trade the ADR's I wish and if Russia decided to block my shares then that's my mistake and my risk. Same for China and any other country. Not sure how I can make this more clear for you lol 

Edited January 24, 2024 by Castanza

[Luke]

8 minutes ago, Gmthebeau said:

The federal government is not your risk manager.  Wall Street will sell you anything they can make a buck on.  Buyer beware.

Id expect from my government that they dont destroy my equity I own in other countries. Sanctions never helped, all it did drive Russia further away, permanent resource loss for Europe that desperately depended on them, right into the arms of china that used the opportunity perfectly. 

[Gmthebeau]

1 minute ago, Luca said:

Id expect from my government that they dont destroy my equity I own in other countries. Sanctions never helped, all it did drive Russia further away, permanent resource loss for Europe that desperately depended on them, right into the arms of china that used the opportunity perfectly. 

 

I have not tracked all the issues with this because I would have never invested in Russia to begin with, but I thought besides the US blocking these, the Russians passed a law saying ownership had to be by Russians?  Is that not correct?

[Castanza]

2 minutes ago, Gmthebeau said:

 

I have not tracked all the issues with this because I would have never invested in Russia to begin with, but I thought besides the US blocking these, the Russians passed a law saying ownership had to be by Russians?  Is that not correct?

 

That's not correct. OFAC is the main problem for US investors. Other countries have similar issues. 

 

More can be read about it on the Sberbank thread. 

[Gmthebeau]

5 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 

That's not correct. OFAC is the main problem for US investors. Other countries have similar issues. 

 

More can be read about it on the Sberbank thread. 

 

I believe MSCI came out before the ban and said Russia was uninvestable and removed them from their indexes.  I think people investing in China need to be aware if China fires off a rocket while the stock market is closed they may end up not being able to sell their China stocks either.   In my opinion, it is just best to avoid countries that are not US allies.   The entire China VIE structure basically means you don't own anything other than a piece of paper anyway.

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

This is actually true. It is one of many consequences of various sactions, not thought out well, designed and imposed properly, and according to purpose.

 

Well, now back to China.

Similar thing happened with my CHL holding. Trump already lost the election, yet Munchin somehow decided right after Christmas  2020 to ban  US institutions and person from holding them causing forced selling. The ruling wasn’t even clear at that point, so the brokerages made their own rules because nobody knew what to do.

 

This is the risk you are taking when owning shares from a country that is an adversity to the US. Just look at what happens in WW1 and WW2 with German business in the US. Schering Plough is an interesting history to read on that matter.

 

@Castanza also bought the shares after the invasion to Ukraine deeply discounted, so it was a clear gamble which so far has not panned out.

 

At least to me, it’s pretty clear that if you own Chinese shares and China attacks Taiwan, your shares are going to be very likely frozen for a long time. You can debate all you want what is right or not, but history has shown that in a war, your ownership rights to foreign assets are likely forfeited. Thats nothing new either, but has been true literally forever.

Edited January 24, 2024 by Spekulatius

[Castanza]

23 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

@Castanza also bought the shares after the invasion to Ukraine deeply discounted, so it was a clear gamble which so far has not panned out.

That’s fine and I accept that risk. It’s just my opinion that the biggest risk to your foreign investment shouldn’t be your own govt. 

[Parsad]

11 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

I also seem to remember Russia being a vital ally to the US during WWII....again...inconsistency regarding actions in both the historical and present perspectives. 

 

Because Russia was invaded!  If anyone should know better, it should be Russia.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

10 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

That was decades ago and although linked, it was different than the conflict in 2018-2020....

 

China broke the agreement to maintain the segregation of govt and laws in Hong Kong post handover from the British. CCP worked their way into Hong Kong through legislative annexation. They imprisoned protesters and advocates of democracy since the mid 2000's and additional change in 2018-19 basically removed all freedom or independence of Hong Kong. Simply a different approach. 

 

Many many changes

- Freedom of press gone

- Bogus elections with CCP stooges put in office

- Extradition laws on the books and anti protest/democracy laws put in place to silence any dissident. 

 

Same thing China will likely do with Taiwan imo....China is damn good at invading through means of the nuanced legal process with no small degree of corruption. 

 

 

But Hong Kong was handed back to China...not invaded.  They could do whatever they want with it after that and they did.  Russia invaded Ukraine.  I don't understand how you can't see the difference. 

 

Cheers! 

[Parsad]

9 hours ago, Castanza said:

 

Then stop trying to managing my risk by blocking ADRs....Allow me to trade the ADR's I wish and if Russia decided to block my shares then that's my mistake and my risk. Same for China and any other country. Not sure how I can make this more clear for you lol 

 

Yeah, I have no problem with that.  If you want to take the risk of investing in a foreign country fine.  But if at the same time, that country invades another sovereign nation, and the world decides they are going to sanction that country by confiscating global assets, that is the political risk you are exposed to.  Suck it up!  You accepted that risk as well.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

7 hours ago, Castanza said:

That’s fine and I accept that risk. It’s just my opinion that the biggest risk to your foreign investment shouldn’t be your own govt. 

 

What??!!!  If you have offshore assets, the biggest tax collector is your own government.  

 

Risk is risk...doesn't matter whether if it is economic, political or anything else...nor who instigates the catalyst for that risk.  Caveat emptor!

 

Cheers!

[Castanza]

11 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

But Hong Kong was handed back to China...not invaded.  They could do whatever they want with it after that and they did.  Russia invaded Ukraine.  I don't understand how you can't see the difference. 

 

Cheers! 

 

It's called a soft takeover. Different means to a similar end. Both are bad imo. One chose immense violence and the other chose corrupt legalese and political influence. The only reason Hong Kong didn't continue to get coverage was Covid started to take off.

 

11 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Yeah, I have no problem with that.  If you want to take the risk of investing in a foreign country fine.  But if at the same time, that country invades another sovereign nation, and the world decides they are going to sanction that country by confiscating global assets, that is the political risk you are exposed to.  Suck it up!  You accepted that risk as well.  Cheers!

 

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Because Russia was invaded!  If anyone should know better, it should be Russia.  Cheers!

 

 

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

What??!!!  If you have offshore assets, the biggest tax collector is your own government.  

 

Risk is risk...doesn't matter whether if it is economic, political or anything else...nor who instigates the catalyst for that risk.  Caveat emptor!

 

Cheers!

 

Again, you're missing my simple point by overcomplicating and going well beyond what I said....

 

I'm talking about ADRs and ADRs only. The fact is and supporting evidence shows, the biggest threat to YOU as an American retail investor owning ADRs of foreign companies is the US Govt blocking ownership or freezing assets. 

 

Main Point: Everyone was blaming Russia and China or saying they are the biggest threat to holding ADR shares. When in actuality so far the US govt has been the perpetrator. I'm not whining about it; I knew it was definitely a possibility when I bought the shares (hence the beer sized position). Frankly I expected it. This is also why I don't own Chinese equities even though some look dirt cheap. 

[dealraker]

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

What??!!!  If you have offshore assets, the biggest tax collector is your own government.  

 

Risk is risk...doesn't matter whether if it is economic, political or anything else...nor who instigates the catalyst for that risk.  Caveat emptor!

 

Cheers!

Some forty years ago I began to acknowledge my own false bravado as a sustainable investment model.  For me, as opposed to Parsad (who I both admire and support as to his view here), I'm unable to heavily overweight new positions as to my total investments particularly when it involves selling in a taxable account and paying massive tax.  I did, and it largely came from processing Parsad's message to me, wipe out my retirement account and go to a more condensed portfolio.  The outcome?  Simply fantastic.  

 

But what I am getting to is I think overall the China game is false bravado.  It is fine that Charlie Munger could go here, but few are like he was.   One of my insights as to this is reading British/English history, particularly the Wars of the Roses era of absolute gyrating politics, the behavior of those taking sides and simply how fragile both beliefs and bravo was.  One shout in the field during crisis and everybody ran...and I mean everybody.

 

I got out of debt and the insurance business in 1994 and I pledged on my knees to my inner self never to do it again.  "It" involved getting to know myself.  After acknowledging to myself who I am?  Amazing stuff came.

 

Best with China is to know yourself most of all.  Who are you and what are you going to do with all the mouthing, threats, and crazy beliefs surely coming as to it all.  That said, I'll wager a boom upwards at some point too.  Castanza too though has a valid point that the US jargon is in game too.  That jargon is going to ratchet up intermittently even if those chanting are in business and making money there.  Count on it.  

 

 

Life is great...if you can stand it!

[Castanza]

7 hours ago, dealraker said:

Some forty years ago I began to acknowledge my own false bravado as a sustainable investment model.  For me, as opposed to Parsad (who I both admire and support as to his view here), I'm unable to heavily overweight new positions as to my total investments particularly when it involves selling in a taxable account and paying massive tax.  I did, and it largely came from processing Parsad's message to me, wipe out my retirement account and go to a more condensed portfolio.  The outcome?  Simply fantastic.  

 

But what I am getting to is I think overall the China game is false bravado.  It is fine that Charlie Munger could go here, but few are like he was.   One of my insights as to this is reading British/English history, particularly the Wars of the Roses era of absolute gyrating politics, the behavior of those taking sides and simply how fragile both beliefs and bravo was.  One shout in the field during crisis and everybody ran...and I mean everybody.

 

I got out of debt and the insurance business in 1994 and I pledged on my knees to my inner self never to do it again.  "It" involved getting to know myself.  After acknowledging to myself who I am?  Amazing stuff came.

 

Best with China is to know yourself most of all.  Who are you and what are you going to do with all the mouthing, threats, and crazy beliefs surely coming as to it all.  That said, I'll wager a boom upwards at some point too.  Castanza too though has a valid point that the US jargon is in game too.  That jargon is going to ratchet up intermittently even if those chanting are in business and making money there.  Count on it.  

 

 

Life is great...if you can stand it!

Appreciate the perspective 

[Luke]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3249786/chinas-communist-party-vows-take-new-and-old-challenges-peoples-daily-article-based-xi-jinpings?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage

 

With the words of Xi: 

 

"Thursday’s article said the Chinese Communist Party must draw painful lessons from many other “large parties and parties with a long history” that had failed, but did not offer any specific examples.

“They were once full of vigour and vitality, but some have fallen apart or disappeared, some have weakened and are approaching their end, while some are in deep trouble. These are very regrettable and thought provoking [lessons],” it said."

 

Brian Wong, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Hong Kong, cited Beijing’s tracking of communist powers around the world.

Beijing had kept a watchful eye on events such as the decline and fall of the Soviet Union, the changes in Eastern Europe, and the “falling apart” of revolutionary parties, such as in Cambodia, Wong said.

“On the other hand, Beijing also recognises that the socioeconomic inequalities giving rise to great instability in advanced liberal democracies point towards the need to redress these inequalities [in communist states] and [enforce] internal party discipline.”

 

China’s Communist Party vows to take on ‘new and old challenges’ in People’s Daily article based on Xi Jinping’s speech

[forest81]

Does anyone know if/what Li Lu has regarding investments in China? The only portfolio I can see online is his US one. Does he have a China portfolio? I would have thought he would be loading up at these prices for some pretty amazing company's.

[formthirteen]

25 minutes ago, forest81 said:

Does anyone know if/what Li Lu has regarding investments in China? The only portfolio I can see online is his US one. Does he have a China portfolio? I would have thought he would be loading up at these prices for some pretty amazing company's.

 

https://di.hkex.com.hk/di/NSSrchPersonList.aspx?sa1=pl&scsd=27/01/2018&sced=27/01/2024&pn=li+lu&src=MAIN&lang=EN&g_lang=en

Edited January 26, 2024 by formthirteen

[Gmthebeau]

Interesting video from WSJ about China and their Taiwan ambitions.

 

https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wsj-explains/a-secretive-chinese-force-is-becoming-the-us-militarys-biggest-challenge/B379CBEF-E14C-4501-833C-3E444F37C761

 

[Parsad]

On 1/25/2024 at 6:01 AM, dealraker said:

Some forty years ago I began to acknowledge my own false bravado as a sustainable investment model.  For me, as opposed to Parsad (who I both admire and support as to his view here), I'm unable to heavily overweight new positions as to my total investments particularly when it involves selling in a taxable account and paying massive tax.  I did, and it largely came from processing Parsad's message to me, wipe out my retirement account and go to a more condensed portfolio.  The outcome?  Simply fantastic.  

 

But what I am getting to is I think overall the China game is false bravado.  It is fine that Charlie Munger could go here, but few are like he was.   One of my insights as to this is reading British/English history, particularly the Wars of the Roses era of absolute gyrating politics, the behavior of those taking sides and simply how fragile both beliefs and bravo was.  One shout in the field during crisis and everybody ran...and I mean everybody.

 

I got out of debt and the insurance business in 1994 and I pledged on my knees to my inner self never to do it again.  "It" involved getting to know myself.  After acknowledging to myself who I am?  Amazing stuff came.

 

Best with China is to know yourself most of all.  Who are you and what are you going to do with all the mouthing, threats, and crazy beliefs surely coming as to it all.  That said, I'll wager a boom upwards at some point too.  Castanza too though has a valid point that the US jargon is in game too.  That jargon is going to ratchet up intermittently even if those chanting are in business and making money there.  Count on it.  

 

 

Life is great...if you can stand it!

 

For me, it just goes back to what Buffett says...look for 3-4 foot hurdles, rather than 8-9 foot hurdles.  

 

I can live with missing out on something, but it kills me when I lose money on something that has more risks than I can get a firm handle on, but I put money in it because I thought I understood that risk.

 

I've learned there are a lot of things I do not know and cannot accurately evaluate long-term.  So I choose not to play that hand.

 

Cheers!

[Hektor]

Looks like the Evergrande saga is coming to a close. This might give a glimpse of what happens to rights, particularly those of foreign investors. Will the Chinese stocks take a dive tomorrow?
 

“After multiple delays and even a few faint glimmers of hope, a Hong Kong court has sounded the death knell for what was once China’s biggest real estate firm.”

“What happens next in the unwinding of Evergrande will test the belief long held by foreign investors that China will treat them fairly. The outcome could help spur or further tamp down the flow of money into Chinese markets when global confidence in China is already shaken.”

 

 

http://archive.today/uX5LB

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/business/china-evergrande.html

[Blake Hampton]

16 hours ago, Hektor said:

Looks like the Evergrande saga is coming to a close. This might give a glimpse of what happens to rights, particularly those of foreign investors. Will the Chinese stocks take a dive tomorrow?
 

“After multiple delays and even a few faint glimmers of hope, a Hong Kong court has sounded the death knell for what was once China’s biggest real estate firm.”

“What happens next in the unwinding of Evergrande will test the belief long held by foreign investors that China will treat them fairly. The outcome could help spur or further tamp down the flow of money into Chinese markets when global confidence in China is already shaken.”

 

 

http://archive.today/uX5LB

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/business/china-evergrande.html

You know I had the exact same thought at first, but thinking about it further, will there even be any money left for investors? The Evergrande situation seems especially bad to me. Basically the company took down payments to start massive amounts of developments, without ever finishing any of them. There are currently people who bought homes that probably won’t end up being built. I would think any money still lying around is gonna have to ultimately go to those property owners.

 

I think what’s happening in the Chinese property sector right now is wildly interesting and if anybody has any further insight, I would gladly hear it.

[Libs]

So there's been talk of Russia taking on NATO, which on the surface sounds preposterous, just given the overwhelming power of NATO forces relative to Russia. But what if, instead of taking on all of NATO, they nibbled at the corners, so to speak, in a such a way that the NATO members say to themselves: "I'm not risking our soldiers / WW3 breaking out by fighting for X."

 

In other words, the plan is to destroy NATO by exposing it as toothless. Then, over time, Russia starts to take the smaller / weaker countries.

 

This guy explains it. The example he gives is a remote outpost in Finland with little strategic value to anyone. Technically, it's a violation of Article 5 if Russia takes a small slice. Will that be worth a full-scale war with a nuclear power?

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2024 by Libs
mispelling