SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Julius Wong who wrote (174228)7/5/2021 6:01:24 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217754
 
Didi reacting well enough to proto-calamity finance.yahoo.com and so far hanging very tough



To: Julius Wong who wrote (174228)7/6/2021 5:59:59 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217754
 
Re <<DIDI>>

Oops, developing case of who knew what when and who pulled trigger on IPO either having told or not told those bankers, and and and

Would recommend that Morgan Stanley lawyer-up

bloomberg.com

China Cyber Watchdog Asked Didi to Delay IPO on Data Concern

6 July 2021, 16:21 GMT+8
Chinese regulators asked Didi Global Inc. as early as three months ago to delay its landmark U.S. initial public offering because of national security concerns involving its huge trove of data, according to people familiar with the matter.

The message was conveyed in meetings between the ride-hailing giant and regulators including the Cyberspace Administration of China, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing a sensitive matter. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier that officials were worried about Didi’s data potentially falling into foreign hands as a result of the greater public disclosure associated with a U.S. listing.

Didi ultimately went ahead with the offering, raising $4.4 billion in the second-largest debut by a Chinese corporation in U.S. history. Two days later, the watchdog announced a cybersecurity probe of the firm and banned it from adding new users. The clampdown, which also ensnared two other Chinese tech companies that recently listed in the U.S., raises questions about what Didi knew of regulators’ intentions before the IPO and whether it should have been more forthcoming in disclosures to investors. Didi’s shares plummeted 28% in the U.S. pre-market Tuesday, as traders returned after a long break.

The probe into China’s ride-hailing leader stunned investors and industry executives, hammering the Hong Kong shares of peers from Tencent Holdings Ltd. -- one of Didi’s largest backers -- to Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Meituan. Investors worry that the latest security-based probes opened a new front in Xi Jinping’s broader campaign against China’s internet giants that began in November with the collapse of Jack Ma’s Ant Group Co.’s $35 billion IPO and subsequent antitrust investigations into Alibaba and Meituan.

“This is the first high-profile use of China’s cybersecurity review mechanism. It also raises questions about the firm’s personal data collection practice,” said Xiaomeng Lu, senior analyst, geo-technology for the Eurasia Group. “But more importantly, the timing of the action right after Didi’s record IPO suggests that Beijing is uncomfortable with large tech companies’ New York listings during a time of escalating tech tension between the two countries.”

The CAC didn’t immediately respond to a faxed request for comment. Didi said on Monday it was unaware before the IPO of the Chinese watchdog’s decision to suspend user registrations and remove its ride-hailing service from app stores. The company didn’t respond to a request for comment when asked whether regulators suggested it delay its IPO.

What Is Didi and Why Is China Cracking Down on It?: QuickTake

For more on China’s latest crackdown
Didi Shows China’s Tech Giants Must First Answer to Beijing China Widens Probe Beyond Didi, Roiling Global Investors Big Tech Crackdown Seen Hurting China’s Pipeline for U.S. IPOs What Is Didi and Why Is China Cracking Down on It?: QuickTake For Didi, the U.S. Is a Wonderland of Amateurs: Shuli Ren

Unlike previous probes initiated by the country’s anti-monopoly watchdog, the investigations unveiled since last Friday originate from the powerful internet regulator. While it doesn’t have legal jurisdiction over overseas floats, the CAC has broad leeway to investigate and enforce laws around the national security implications of the data that Didi and other consumer apps hoover up. That power stems from Beijing’s over-arching goal of ensuring it has control over access to that data -- which like oil is now designated a strategic national resource -- and preventing any single private firm from becoming powerful enough to challenge its authority.

Didi is the highest-profile target of new legislation -- the so-called Cybersecurity Review Measures that took effect last June -- intended to police internet security at “critical infrastructure” firms. The CAC announced similar reviews into shipping apps operated by Full Truck Alliance Co. and recruitment firm Kanzhun Ltd. immediately after Didi’s.

“The message from regulators to Chinese tech companies is, ‘you may list overseas only so long as your house is in order within China,’” said Kendra Schaefer, head of digital research at consultancy Trivium China. “Didi’s house was not in order. They were well aware they were under scrutiny. All signs point to the fact that the CAC and likely also SAMR have been gearing up toinvestigate user data violations at many tech companies.”

Read more: Didi Shows China’s Tech Giants Must First Answer to Beijing



More firms are expected to get caught up in the campaign. Some projections show China will hold a third of the world’s data by 2025, giving it potentially a massive competitive advantage in areas like artificial intelligence that will drive the modern economy.

The move against Didi and its peers adds a new dimension -- cybersecurity -- to a clampdown that has so far focused on fintech and antitrust issues. The Communist Party-backed Global Times said in a Monday column that Didi’s data hoard posed a threat to individual privacy as well as national security, particularly since its top two shareholders -- SoftBank and Uber Technologies Inc. -- were foreign.

What’s next in the tech world?Get the inside scoop on the latest gadgets and product reviews from Apple to Google and beyond.

Sign up to this newsletter

Beijing’s targeting of recent U.S. listings may chill the pipeline of overseas IPOs that have enriched Wall Street and private Chinese firms alike. That could in turn fuel concerns of an economic decoupling between China and the U.S., at least in sensitive areas like technology, as both Xi Jinping and Joe Biden take steps to limit the flow of capital and expertise between the two superpowers. Helping tech companies sell shares in New York has been a lucrative business for firms like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, both of which were key underwriters of the Didi IPO.

One company poised to test sentiment soon is Hong Kong on-demand logistics and delivery firm Lalamove, known as Huolala in China. It filed confidentially for a U.S. initial public offering last month, according to people with knowledge of the matter, and is seeking to raise at least $1 billion.



Even before the CAC’s crackdown, Didi had been under close scrutiny from regulators since a pair of murders in 2018 that founder Cheng Wei has called the firm’s “darkest days.” It was among 34 firms told by the antitrust watchdog to conduct self-inspections and rectify abuses, while the transport ministry had ordered ride-hailing companies including Didi to review their practices relating to driver income and pricing.

“Chinese internet and technology companies must learn to cope with tougher scrutiny. For a while, it may be difficult for companies to make reasonable predictions and responses to cyberspace supervision and law enforcement,” said Xia Hailong, a tech lawyer at Shanghai-based Shenlun law firm. “It takes time for both sides to reach common ground, and how to properly handle government oversight will also become an important issue for the entire Internet industry.”

— With assistance by John Liu, Coco Liu, Zheping Huang, Dong Cao, Evelyn Yu, Kari Soo Lindberg, and Colum Murphy

(Updates with Didi’s pre-market plummet in the third paragraph)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: Julius Wong who wrote (174228)7/7/2021 6:44:42 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217754
 
Re <<DIDI>>

It did not take long to weaponise DIDI for use against CCP, even as DIDI itself can arguably be characterized as a weapon against DNC, created in China, financed by America, and now used by GOP

ft.com

Republican senator Marco Rubio lambasts ‘reckless and irresponsible’ Didi listing

Hawkish senator’s intervention could point to renewed efforts to turn screws on Chinese IPOs in US

7 hours ago
‘American investors?.?.?.?have no insight into [Didi’s] financial strength because the Chinese Communist party blocks US regulators from reviewing the books,’ Marco Rubio told the FT © ReutersA leading China hawk in the US Congress has lashed out at Chinese listings in the US in the wake of the botched initial public offering of ride-hailing app Didi Chuxing, as the debacle attracted scrutiny in Washington.

Marco Rubio, Republican senator from Florida, told the Financial Times in a statement that it was “reckless and irresponsible” to allow Didi, which he described as an “unaccountable Chinese company”, to sell shares on the New York Stock Exchange.

He added that Beijing’s regulatory crackdown, which triggered a brutal share price decline in the wake of the IPO, “further underscores the risks” for US investors in Chinese companies.

“Even if the stock rebounds, American investors still have no insight into the company’s financial strength because the Chinese Communist party blocks US regulators from reviewing the books,” Rubio said. “That puts the investments of American retirees at risk and funnels desperately needed US dollars into Beijing.”

Rubio’s comments highlighted how the troubled Didi IPO could stoke efforts in Congress to tighten the screws on Chinese listings in the US.

Last year, former president Donald Trump signed legislation imposing tougher accounting standards on Chinese entities that sell shares in the US after a groundswell of support from lawmakers.

The law in effect bars companies from listing in the US if they fail to submit to audits from the Washington-based Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for three years.

But China critics in Washington believe the legislation should serve as the starting point for a broader decoupling of capital markets between the countries.

“This fiasco will only strengthen the resolve of many on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to demand greater US investor protection with regard to Chinese companies in our capital markets,” said Roger Robinson, a former chair of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Robinson, who is now chief executive of RWR Advisory Group, a Washington-based consultancy, added that the episode served “as a fresh reminder to Wall Street of the capriciousness of [the communist party’s] market interventions and the party’s total disregard for the cascading downsides”.

Washington’s focus on Chinese listings in the US was raised after regulators charged Luckin Coffee, the Chinese coffee shop chain, with defrauding investors, forcing the company to pay a $180m settlement. This year, Luckin filed for bankruptcy protection in the US.

But while US regulators took a leading role during the Trump administration in raising alarm bells about Chinese listings in the US, the Biden White House has not yet reacted to the botched Didi IPO. The US Treasury department declined to comment, as did the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Additional reporting by Kiran Stacey in Washington

Sent from my iPad



To: Julius Wong who wrote (174228)7/21/2021 11:49:57 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217754
 
In case you missed below, something to keep in back of mind

economist.com

China’s “dreamchild” is stealthily winning the battery race
Now comes the hard bit: geopolitics
Jul 17th 2021



IN AMERICA, IF you want to dominate an industry, you channel your inner Elon Musk and shout about it. But CATL, the Chinese company that makes batteries for some of Mr Musk’s Tesla electric vehicles (EVs), is different. When your columnist first contacted it in 2017, the brush-off was swift. “We want to concentrate on our products only and do not accept any interviews at present.” These days it is only marginally less blunt. “Unfortunately, we are sorry that it’s hard for us to arrange [interviews] at the moment.” The temptation is to give it a dose of its own medicine and ignore it.

And yet in 2017 the firm, founded only six years earlier as Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd, vaulted from being the world’s third-largest battery-maker to its biggest. It has since reached a market value of 1.3trn yuan ($200bn), more than the second, third and fourth producers—South Korea’s LGChem, Japan’s Panasonic, and China’s BYD—combined. In recent days its rising share price has made its 53-year-old founder, Zeng Yuqun, richer than Jack Ma, a much-better-known Chinese tech baron. Given Mr Ma’s blackballing by the Chinese government, for Mr Zeng to have kept his head down now looks shrewd.
The world will hear a lot more about CATL in the future. That is because one of the justifications for its high valuation is that it is about to move beyond the Chinese mainland, the world’s biggest EV market where it accounts for about half of lithium-ion-battery sales, to Europe, Indonesia and possibly even America. Its profitability far exceeds that of its global peers. Its technology has become at least as good as theirs, giving it the clout to outcompete them and contribute meaningfully to a worldwide clean-energy revolution. And yet it is also what Sam Jaffe of Cairn ERA, a battery consultancy, calls the “dreamchild” of China’s government-industrial complex. That makes it a potential flashpoint in the torrid world of technology geopolitics.

CATL’s low profile starts with its provenance. Mr Zeng created it in the backwater of Ningde, a subtropical city better known for tea than tech, in Fujian province where he grew up in a hillside village. But he has long had high ambitions. In 1999 he founded Amperex Technology Ltd (ATL), a maker of lithium-ion batteries for portable devices, which he sold to TDK, a Japanese firm, in 2005. One of his big clients was Apple, maker of the iPhone.

Seeing the potential for EV batteries, which China was keen to turn into a strategic industry, Mr Zeng led a spin off from ATL in 2011, severing links with its Japanese parent company—possibly to please the Chinese authorities, says Mark Newman, a battery executive who formerly covered the company as an investment analyst. When it listed in 2018, CATL had a small percentage of direct and indirect state ownership. More important, the government had its back. For years China used subsidies to favour domestically produced batteries for electric cars and buses, kneecapping South Korean competitors such as LG Chem and Samsung SDI. CATL, one of two top-tier Chinese producers, benefited most. The other, BYD, made cars as well as batteries. For that reason, many rival carmakers in China—including foreigners such as Tesla and BMW—gave it a wide berth and turned to Mr Zeng instead.

It is unfair, however, to ascribe CATL’s success purely to economic nationalism. According to James Frith of BloombergNEF, a consultancy, when CATL was faced with the winding down of subsidies in 2019, it quickly leapfrogged its South Korean rivals to produce the latest high-nickel batteries, which run for longer than the cheaper lithium-iron-phosphate ones that had been China’s staple. Chinese carmakers are bolder than their Western counterparts (apart from Tesla) in adopting innovative chemistry, he adds, which gives CATL more freedom to experiment. It also gets more for its investment in China than rivals do elsewhere and has a cheaper workforce, which makes its operating margins, just shy of 15%, the best in the business. Strong profits provide more cash to invest in expansion. Neil Beveridge of Bernstein, an investment firm, expects its capacity roughly to quadruple to 500 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery cells a year by 2025. That is an amount similar to what is promised from all of the world’s gigafactories today. Only Mr Musk sets more outlandish targets.

Zeng and the art of market-share maintenanceMost of CATL’s expansion will come in China, where it has a growing export business. But by the end of this year it is also expected to start production at its first offshore factory, with capacity of 14GWh in Erfurt, Germany, from where it will supply carmakers like BMW, Volkswagen and Daimler. Its move overseas appears to be motivated by a desire to retain its market leadership as EV sales outside China accelerate. Its South Korean and Japanese rivals have a bigger global presence. Simon Moores, a battery consultant, thinks a subsequent step will be into America.

Yet energy—even the clean stuff—is dirty business, muddied by geopolitical rivalries and economic jingoism. There are already fears in the West that CATL’s profitability in China will enable it to offer cut-price products abroad, reopening wounds caused when China’s subsidised solar panels swept the world in the 2010s. Moreover, advanced batteries, like semiconductors, are increasingly discussed in terms of an arms race. Europe and America are offering big inducements for locally made batteries and adjacent supply chains in order to catch up with China. They see a strategic vulnerability in being too reliant on a Chinese supplier.

As a result, CATL will have to be clever. Already it has more alliances with global carmakers than any other battery firm; jointly building factories close to their operations around the world would buy it political support. It will need to counter geopolitical paranoia by stressing the importance of cheap batteries, both for EVs and clean-electricity grids, in the fight against climate change. More transparency wouldn’t go amiss, either. It is a fine line between being coy and acting as if it has something to hide. ¦

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Superpower surge"



To: Julius Wong who wrote (174228)7/22/2021 7:27:42 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217754
 
Re <<Don't buy DIDI>>

You were right. If actually de-listed would do wonders for 0388.HK (HKEX)
Team China showing Team USA how to train Big Tech to behave.

bloomberg.com

China Weighs Unprecedented Penalty for Didi After U.S. IPO

July 22, 2021, 6:37 PM GMT+8

Chinese regulators are considering serious, perhaps unprecedented, penalties for Didi Global Inc. after its controversial initial public offering last month, according to people familiar with the matter.

Regulators see the ride-hailing giant’s decision to go public despite pushback from the Cyberspace Administration of China as a challenge to Beijing’s authority, the people said, asking not to be named because the matter is private. Officials from the CAC, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Ministry of Natural Resources, along with tax, transport and antitrust regulators, began an investigation on-site at the company’s offices, the cyberspace watchdog said in a statement.

Regulators are weighing a range of potential punishments, including a fine, suspension of certain operations or the introduction of a state-owned investor, the people said. Also possible is a forced delisting or withdrawal of Didi’s U.S. shares, although it’s unclear how such an option would play out.

Deliberations are at a preliminary phase and the outcomes are far from certain. Beijing is likely to impose harsher sanctions on Didi than on Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which swallowed a record $2.8 billion fine after a months-long antitrust investigation and agreed to initiate measures to protect merchants and customers, the people said.

“It’s hard to guess what the penalty will be, but I’m sure it will be substantial,” said Minxin Pei, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Didi’s stock dropped more than 3% in premarket trading.

Didi, the CAC, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Didi’s IPO looked at first like a great success, raising $4.4 billion after several troubled years. It turned co-founder Cheng Wei into a billionaire and rewarded long-time backers SoftBank Group Corp., Tiger Global Management and Temasek Holdings Pte.

But the CAC pounced just days later, announcing a cybersecurity reviewbecause of the company’s data practices and then banning Didi’s app from the country’s app stores. Its shares quickly plunged below the offering price.

China Blocks Didi From App Stores Days After Mega U.S. IPO

China’s regulators largely supported the idea of an IPO, but they expressed concerns about Didi’s data security practices since at least April, the people said. In one example of concern, Didi had disclosed statistics on taxi trips taken by government officials, one of the people said, although it’s not clear whether that specific issue was raised with the company.

Regulators urged Didi to ensure the security of its data before proceeding with the IPO or to shift the location to Hong Kong or mainland China where disclosure risks would be lower, the people said. Regulators didn’t explicitly forbid the company from going public in the U.S., but they felt certain Didi understood the official instructions, they said.

One person involved in the meetings, when asked why Didi didn’t act on suggestions from regulators, referred to a proverb that you can’t wake a person pretending to sleep.

Xi Elevates Obscure China Watchdog to Take On Didi, Big Tech

The CAC itself has come under scrutiny because of the Didi IPO, with a top Party official having questioned why the agency hadn’t blocked the company’s offering, one of the people said.

Some regulatory officials expressed in private that they think Didi may have rushed its IPO out before China unveiled a new web security law, which could have hurt its valuation, one of the people said. Just days after the offering, China proposed new rules that would require nearly all companies seeking to list in foreign countries to undergo a CAC cybersecurity review.

“Beijing wants the internet sector to understand that cybersecurity and data security are now among the government’s top priorities, and individual companies’ profit can be sacrificed when cybersecurity and data security may be exposed to risks,” said Feng Chucheng, an analyst with consultancy Plenum in Beijing.

For more on the Didi saga:
China’s Didi Crackdown Is All About Controlling Big Data
Xi Elevates Obscure China Watchdog to Take On Didi, Big Tech
Didi Duo Lose $1.5 Billion as Shares Plunge on China’s Crackdown
How Chinese Ride-Hailing Giant Didi Ran Into a Storm: QuickTake

Xi Jinping’s government is trying to strike a delicate balance between reining in the power of China’s tech giants without inflicting serious damage on a critical sector that has bolstered economic growth. The crackdown began last year when Beijing forced Jack Ma’s Ant Group Co. to call off what would have been the world’s largest-ever IPO.

That was followed by antitrust investigations into giants from food-delivery pioneer Meituan to Alibaba, also founded by Ma. Beijing has said it wants to stop powerful tech companies from abusing their power and crushing innovative upstarts.



Didi began discussing IPO plans with its bankers at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. late last year, said people directly involved. The company weighed whether to go public in Hong Kong or the U.S., and was seeking a valuation of as much as $100 billion.

By March, they had homed in on the U.S. because the listing rules were more amenable and the company expected a better valuation from investors familiar with its American counterpart, Uber Technologies Inc.The Hong Kong exchange also questioned Didi’s compliance with Chinese regulations. It didn’t have licenses to operate in certain cities and many of its drivers lacked a household registration, or hukou, for the cities where they lived, part of municipal requirements for providing on-demand ride-hailing services there.

The process turned unusually chaotic in June as Didi and its bankers raced to the finish line, said people directly involved. As the company prepared to make its first public filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, its own bankers weren’t sure when the documents would land. The filing ultimately hit about 3:45 a.m. China time the morning of June 11.

Didi’s government relations team handled discussions with the CAC and its regulators, and management relayed the content of those talks to its bankers, the people said. Didi knew the CAC had concerns about its data practices, but executives did not think the agency had forbidden them to proceed, the people said.

Cheng, President Jean Liu, investors and their bankers faced the choice of erring on the side of caution or proceeding with an offering that would fill the company’s coffers and enrich all of them. On June 28, they gave the green light.

Didi told its bankers it was allowed to go public provided the company keep a very low profile, one of the people said, adding that the bookrunners were told by the company there would be no press release to announce the IPO. Didi didn’t even publicize to its own employees its impending New York listing -- a landmark for the still-young company -- until the last minute. Near midnight on June 30, the company posted an announcement on an internal forum, another person said.

On Thursday, July 1, Didi’s shares surged about 16%, signaling robust investor demand. By Friday, Didi’s management began to relax and celebrate.

That evening, after 7 p.m. China time, the CAC posted a notice on its website: The agency would begin an investigation into Didi to safeguard national security and protect the public interest.

Later that night, Didi issued a public statement saying it would fully cooperate with the government review.

— With assistance by Edwin Chan, Peter Elstrom, Coco Liu, Vinicy Chan, Manuel Baigorri, Lulu Yilun Chen, Jamie Tarabay, and Zheping Huang

(Updates with Didi shares in the sixth paragraph)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE

Sent from my iPad