Jack Ma returns to China after leaving the country for a year

[beijingwalker]

Jack Ma returns to China after leaving the country for a year​

 

[beijingwalker]

Western and Indian media constantly accuses China of "diappearing Ma", but he was not even in China.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

no safer haven than China right now for big capital.

 

[iamnobody]

And Modi fans were saying that Jack & AliBaba were going to shift to India

 

[beijingwalker]

Where is Jack Ma? based on these trolls

TRENDING ON TWITTER: Where is Jack Ma? Alibaba Founder Jack Ma Has Been Missing For 2 Months

Where is Jack Ma? Alibaba's billionaire founder is reportedly missing following China's crackdowns on his companies Chinese billionaire Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba and Ant Group, is suspected missing, Jessica Yun reported for Yahoo Finance. The 56-year-old businessman has not been seen...

defence.pk

Jack Ma's disappearing act fuels speculation about billionaire's whereabouts

Jack Ma's disappearing act fuels speculation about billionaire's whereabouts BEIJING (Reuters) - Alibaba founder Jack Ma’s absence from public view in the past two months, including missing the final episode of a TV show on which he was to appear as a judge, has fueled social media speculation...

defence.pk

 

[etylo]

This guy is a clown that tried so hard to please and suck up to the American Mafia boss Trump. The west just loves this kind Chinese and he is an embarassment for China.

 

[PakFactor]

Jack Ma returns to China after leaving the country for a year​

He got his software updated.

 

[Zsari]

Jack Ma returns to China after leaving the country for a year​

What got Jack Ma into trouble is his demand for deregulation in the financial industry. And guess how deregulation worked out for the banks in the US.

 

[8888888888888]

Why was he even prosecuted ? Were the people after him want to be paid in bribes so that he would not be harmed, it doesn't look like he committed any crimes.

 

[Libexer]

And Modi fans were saying that Jack & AliBaba were going to shift to India

The Reality is a little more nuanced.

 

[jhungary]

What got Jack Ma into trouble is his demand for deregulation in the financial industry. And guess how deregulation worked out for the banks in the US.

It's not the deregulation get the US banking industry, actually, if we can even call that a "Problem" when SVB and the other one collapse (I don't remember the name on top of my head and not going to look it up, I will just say the other bank from now on)

It's the inherit risk of investing, people seems to forget bank don't just put your money in a vault, they use it to invest. And that's is what bank do across the world, be it the US, the UK, or even China. On the other hand, FDIC is basically the best deposit insurance in the world (It reaches the largest portion of every deposit and cover the most money, compare to China's Deposit Funding Management Scheme, FDIC offer 250k insurance (to DFMS's 500,000 RMB ~100,000) and cover 80% of all deposit (to DFMS 50%) In this case, both SVB and the other bank have 100% bail out from FDIC.

What got the issue going is how Bank invest their money, most bank in the world uses a balance of short- and long-term investment portfolio. Basically, what we called Agency and Bond. Both were supposed to cover each other which if one fail short, then the bank can use the other to compensate and hence get the money floating. In the case of both SVB and the other bank, they choose more short-term large gain approach (the other bank choose crypto) so when the interest rate rises 80-% of SVB bond goes down, and they can't withdraw it until it reaches maturity, which would mean you are basically looking at a fruit to grow bad, and you can't touch it until it turns bad.

Would better regulation help? Sure, it does, but then it would most likely applies to everything, the problem is bank is getting too greedy on hedging a short bet, and they would know better as they are not weekend investor like we do and even if there are more regulated, it would just be the same because they will still go with more risky and better payout investment, until every bank become a state or federal entity, otherwise regulation is rather pointless.

 

[ziaulislam]

Jack Ma returns to China after leaving the country for a year​

Hopefully tech sector will regain it part in the economy..recent crack down will end I hope

 

[Zsari]

It's not the deregulation get the US banking industry, actually, if we can even call that a "Problem" when SVB and the other one collapse (I don't remember the name on top of my head and not going to look it up, I will just say the other bank from now on)

It's the inherit risk of investing, people seems to forget bank don't just put your money in a vault, they use it to invest. And that's is what bank do across the world, be it the US, the UK, or even China. On the other hand, FDIC is basically the best deposit insurance in the world (It reaches the largest portion of every deposit and cover the most money, compare to China's Deposit Funding Management Scheme, FDIC offer 250k insurance (to DFMS's 500,000 RMB ~100,000) and cover 80% of all deposit (to DFMS 50%) In this case, both SVB and the other bank have 100% bail out from FDIC.

What got the issue going is how Bank invest their money, most bank in the world uses a balance of short- and long-term investment portfolio. Basically, what we called Agency and Bond. Both were supposed to cover each other which if one fail short, then the bank can use the other to compensate and hence get the money floating. In the case of both SVB and the other bank, they choose more short-term large gain approach (the other bank choose crypto) so when the interest rate rises 80-% of SVB bond goes down, and they can't withdraw it until it reaches maturity, which would mean you are basically looking at a fruit to grow bad, and you can't touch it until it turns bad.

Would better regulation help? Sure, it does, but then it would most likely applies to everything, the problem is bank is getting too greedy on hedging a short bet, and they would know better as they are not weekend investor like we do and even if there are more regulated, it would just be the same because they will still go with more risky and better payout investment, until every bank become a state or federal entity, otherwise regulation is rather pointless.

One of the regulatory requirements is to keep a large stack of cash reserves, instead of loaning everything out, so if there is a bank run, these banks could very well survive. Unfortunately, the regulation that banks were placed under after 2008 was undone by exactly the lobbying effort of these banks, SVB & Signature bank among them. SVB for one didn't have risky investments, it simply holds too many long term US treasury bonds and fell victim to Fed's interests raise.

 

[jhungary]

One of the regulatory requirements is to keep a large stack of cash reserves, instead of loaning everything out, so if there is a bank run, these banks could very well survive. Unfortunately, the regulation that banks were placed under after 2008 was undone by exactly the lobbying effort of these banks, SVB & Signature bank among them. SVB for one didn't have risky investments, it simply holds too many long term US treasury bonds and fell victim to Fed's interests raise.

Federal Deposit Insurance require all bank to keep 30% of all deposit in Federal Bank, that's why we can have FDIC prop up to 250k where no other country could match, I don't see how you can increase that limit. Both SVB and Signature failed INSPITE of that.

As I said, normal banking practices is you have a mix and balanced investment, SVB failed because they put 80% of their investment in bond, which is directly against that policy, then it would consider risky (it was called Systemic risk in the field)
, even if the investment itself is not. Because you are putting all your proverbial egg on one basket

Would oversight help pointing out those error? Yes, but would it help? No. Simply because unless you regulate what the bank can invest or what they can't or have a set menu of their investment made, at best you can point it out to the bank, "hey, your investment portfolio is unhealthy". But can FTC or The Fed done anything? No. Especially both bank are state entity, not Federal Entity.

Again, bank got greedy, lost all their investment, and don't have anything to compensate, that's why they failed, and unless there is foul play involved (like embezzlement or financial fraud) they should be free to do what they want to do, even if that is too risky for anyone standard, in this case, none of the two bank are engaging in illegal activities, that's why you really should ask your bank what they are investing before you dump a lot of money on them, or asked to see their portfolio, if they lie to you, that's illegal, and then the Fed can take action.

 

[Zsari]

Federal Deposit Insurance require all bank to keep 30% of all deposit in Federal Bank, that's why we can have FDIC prop up to 250k where no other country could match, I don't see how you can increase that limit. Both SVB and Signature failed INSPITE of that.

As I said, normal banking practices is you have a mix and balanced investment, SVB failed because they put 80% of their investment in bond, which is directly against that policy, then it would consider risky (it was called Systemic risk in the field)
, even if the investment itself is not. Because you are putting all your proverbial egg on one basket

Would oversight help pointing out those error? Yes, but would it help? No. Simply because unless you regulate what the bank can invest or what they can't or have a set menu of their investment made, at best you can point it out to the bank, "hey, your investment portfolio is unhealthy". But can FTC or The Fed done anything? No. Especially both bank are state entity, not Federal Entity.

Again, bank got greedy, lost all their investment, and don't have anything to compensate, that's why they failed, and unless there is foul play involved (like embezzlement or financial fraud) they should be free to do what they want to do, even if that is too risky for anyone standard, in this case, none of the two bank are engaging in illegal activities, that's why you really should ask your bank what they are investing before you dump a lot of money on them, or asked to see their portfolio, if they lie to you, that's illegal, and then the Fed can take action.

FDIC set a minimum of 1.35% reserve ratio for insured deposits, while Dott Frank Act requires minimum of 1.35% reserve for all deposits. That actually makes a big difference as we found out that 88% of all deposit in SVB are uninsured, as in deposit above the FDIC 250.000 limit. Both SVB and Signature are instrumental in their lobbying effort that removed the Dott Frank Act requirement for medium to small banks.