Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?

What a question? by bogaboga · 2014-09-20 15:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is owning a share of, say, Apple, conceptually the same as owning a share of Alibaba?

How can this be the case? In a few instances: -

If one is looking for return on investment, then it's probably the same.

If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction, owning shares in Alibaba and startng this effort is almost a guaranteed exercise in frustration, for Alibaba is a company with capitalist "genes" which have a tinge of socialist, heavy-handed characteristics.

I should add that this isn't bad at all.

Re:What a question? by Etherwalk · 2014-09-20 15:37 · Score: 2

If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
But then, if one is looking for that any has a realistic chance of success, one is too busy to be reading this.
Re:What a question? by Nemyst · 2014-09-20 16:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Alibaba, socialist? The only thing socialist about it is that the Chinese party calls itself communist. Alibaba is a privately owned but state-blessed corporation with heavy state support. The communist party has a hand in pretty much every large Chinese corporation these days, and in the end they have the final call, and they'll be a lot more meddlesome than even the most pedantic of state regulators in the US.

Plus, you can't even buy shares for Alibaba, you only get shares for a Cayman Islands shell corporation which has a contract to receive the profits from Alibaba proper. You get absolutely no decision-making power, no influence, and frankly little in the way of actual worth.
Re:What a question? by hey! · 2014-09-20 18:02 · Score: 1

You are confusing "state capitalism" with "socialism".

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:What a question? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-09-20 18:08 · Score: 1

state-blessed corporation with heavy state support.
Yep. Socialist.

And yes, as sad as it may be, the same is true, to a lesser extent, of some US corporations these days.

The "Communist" party isn't Communist. It's just bad Socialism, just like every other regime in history that called itself Communist.

Just calling yourself that doesn't make it so.
Re:What a question? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-09-20 18:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Referring to state crony capitalism as "socialism" does not make it that.
The current setup in China is more accurately described as "Fascism-Lite".

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:What a question? by NoKaOi · 2014-09-20 18:49 · Score: 1

If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
And how many shares would you realistically have to buy of Apple in order to have an influence on company direction? Do you think that's applicable to anyone reading this?
Re:What a question? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-09-20 19:25 · Score: 2

Referring to state crony capitalism as "socialism" does not make it that.
I wasn't referring to crony capitalism, although I admit I could have worded it better. Mea culpa; it is reasonable to think that's what I meant from what I wrote. But it isn't actually what I meant.

To be clearer: EPA for example is "crony capitalism" by way of "market capture". Obamacare is a rather huge attempt at socialism.

The current setup in China is more accurately described as "Fascism-Lite".
I wouldn't quite say that either. It is totalitarianism wearing padded gloves. When China's leaders really got it through their heads that their economy was genuinely starting to fail, big time, they introduced "incentives": allowing businesses to be just a little bit capitalist. When that worked, they allowed a little more.

But make no mistake: the central leadership still rules things with an iron fist, and controls the economy. That's socialism (which, truth be told, isn't that different from fascism, after all). They just know which side of their bread the butter is on, and allow "capitalist" activity where it suits them.
Re:What a question? by Rich0 · 2014-09-21 00:51 · Score: 2

If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
And how many shares would you realistically have to buy of Apple in order to have an influence on company direction? Do you think that's applicable to anyone reading this?
Well, the ownership thing DOES matter insofar as the interests of all shareholders are aligned.
Suppose the CEO of Apple decided to sell all the company's assets and pay the resulting funds to himself as a bonus. The shareholders would be legally able to prevent this, and even though any individual only votes a tiny fraction of the total, their interests are basically all aligned.
If a few people running Alibaba decided to do the same, there would be no legal recourse, since the "investors" don't actually own anything. It is like "investing" in a company via kickstarter - they get the money, and you only get a promise.
The same is true of buying stock in companies that have a majority shareholder.
Re:What a question? by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-09-21 01:59 · Score: 1

The communist party has a hand in pretty much every large Chinese corporation these days, and in the end they have the final call
I think you do not rightly know what socialism means.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:What a question? by liquid_schwartz · 2014-09-21 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unless you are from Tibet or practice Falun Gong, then it's fascism heavy
Re:What a question? by Wycliffe · 2014-09-21 14:02 · Score: 1

The same is true of buying stock in companies that have a majority shareholder.
Not quite. There are minority shareholder laws which prevent such things as creating a new company and selling all your assets to them for a dollar.
Those laws only go so far though. They don't prevent you from creating a new company and selling all your assets to them for their fair market value.
So basically, minority shareholder laws don't prevent majority shareholders from screwing over the minority shareholders but they do prevent majority
shareholders from COMPLETELY screwing over minority shareholders.
As a side note, many investment sites like the motley fool actually like when management owns a significant portion of the company as it
means that they actually have some skin in the game and are less likely to screw the stockholders over in other ways.

Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 15:45 · Score: 1

Uh, no. - - - In the story, Ali Baba is a poor woodcutter who discovers the secret of a thieves' den, entered with the phrase "Open Sesame". The thieves learn this, and try to kill Ali Baba. But Ali Baba's faithful slave-girl foils their plots; Ali Baba gives his son to her in marriage and keeps the secret of the treasure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Re:Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company? by fustakrakich · 2014-09-20 18:04 · Score: 1

...Internet-based e-commerce businesses...
Oh my god! They are vaporware! What a great scam this one is. Eat your heart out, Nigerian Prince!

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company? by Osgeld · 2014-09-20 21:09 · Score: 1

in more simplistic terms hong wong sells you a box of crap that they broker the trade, you go sell your 5$ android watches for 50 in the mall tween the toliet and the food court hoping you make that 100,000$ a month rent selling crap to tweens, and you cant count on stock being available from hour to hour let alone for any amount of time to make any serious headway
the only winner is the broker, Alibaba is the broker

Comparable? Not really. by caladine · 2014-09-20 16:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

When someone buys a share in Apple, they actually get an ownership share in Apple.
When someone says they're buying a share in Alibaba, they actually buying shares in a VIE called Alibaba Group Holdings Limited which was incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The VIE has contractual rights to Alibaba China's profits, but not anything that resembles ownership.
It's not the same thing as share of Apple at all.

Re:Comparable? Not really. by phantomfive · 2014-09-20 16:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I read an article recently on exactly that topic, which is probably worth quoting:

The market is fully capable of pricing the fact that Alibaba stockholders don't actually own a direct claim on Alibaba's Chinese assets and can't elect its board. Truth be told, shareholders don't "own" any company; they own whatever rights are specified in the share agreement........

True comfort for shareholders comes not from legal boilerplate, but from incentives. Alibaba founder Jack Ma could take the $22 billion raised Friday and stiff his foreign partners. That's a risk. But his self-interest is otherwise. He wants a strong stock as a currency for acquisitions. He wants stock options to motivate his increasingly global management team. He wants easy liquidity for himself and other insiders. .....

when investors begin to worry about the actual rights specified in a share agreement, it usually means something has already gone seriously wrong.
Alibaba is probably as good as any stock. If things go wrong, things go wrong.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Comparable? Not really. by Animats · 2014-09-20 16:45 · Score: 4, Informative

When someone buys a share in Apple, they actually get an ownership share in Apple.
Apple, yes. Google or Facebook, no. Google and Facebook have two classes of stock. The class with all the voting rights is in both cases controlled by the founders. The publicly traded shares cannot outvote them, even if someone bought all of them.
Until recently, multiple classes of stock were prohibited for NYSE-listed companies, which tended to discourage doing this. (The classic exception was Ford, which has two classes of stock, the voting shares controlled by the Ford family. This predates that NYSE rule.)
This matters when the insiders make a big mistake and the stock starts going down. There's no way to kick them out.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by thegarbz · 2014-09-20 17:29 · Score: 1

Given how much say you have in the running of a company as a shareholder who didn't invest $billions into said company, I'd say the experience is quite comparable.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 17:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

No one except hedge funds buys stocks to own voting rights anymore. That would imply caring about the company. Today we chase momentum and hope to make a quick buck buying the f'ing dip, stupidly hoping to front-run the algos that already scanned the news and traded before the headlines even reached us. Stocks are now basically commodities, except that commodities eventually have usefulness, while stocks just represent some abstract value to the extent that someone else might be stupid enough to purchase them.
Sometimes, late at night, I think it's all worthless. Maybe it would be more responsible just to buy farmland or raw materials. Capital markets aren't places for people but for bots.
Captcha: religion
Re:Comparable? Not really. by fustakrakich · 2014-09-20 18:08 · Score: 1

Alibaba is probably as good as any stock.
Heh, I would not consider that a high recommendation. The small timer might get lucky, if they know when to cut and run. The rest are washing their money.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Comparable? Not really. by kamapuaa · 2014-09-20 19:32 · Score: 1

Sure, it's a lot of luck to day trade stocks, you might as well go to Vegas. However, over time the US economy and stock market has consistently gone up. Just buying and holding a broad spectrum of stocks or a good mutual fund has long been a way for average investors to make a pretty good return, just for doing nothing with their money.
If you simply bought an incredibly boring total market mutual fund 5 years ago and held on to it, your money would have doubled already.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by ponos · 2014-09-20 20:50 · Score: 1

The market is fully capable of pricing the fact that Alibaba stockholders don't actually own a direct claim on Alibaba's Chinese assets and can't elect its board. Truth be told, shareholders don't "own" any company; they own whatever rights are specified in the share agreement........
You are right of course. Personally, I'm a bit bothered by stocks that don't give dividends (as a rule!) or voting rights. I know it's common and Alibaba is not the only example. Investing without any kind of control and without expecting dividends (I don't know if it's the case for Alibaba) only seems to reinforce the perception that stocks are some sort of casino. I prefer the vision of stock ownership as holding a small piece of a real business: contributing to decision-making and getting a part of the profits just like you would if you owned a percentage of the restaurant next-door. I feel that this would reinforce much more responsible corporate behavior and saner investment strategies. It's a pity that many technology companies operate this way.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by ponos · 2014-09-20 20:52 · Score: 1

Until recently, multiple classes of stock were prohibited for NYSE-listed companies, which tended to discourage doing this. (The classic exception was Ford, which has two classes of stock, the voting shares controlled by the Ford family. This predates that NYSE rule.)
Thanks for sharing this information. This explains some things.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by khallow · 2014-09-20 22:51 · Score: 1

Alibaba is probably as good as any stock. If things go wrong, things go wrong.
Only if you ignore risk. One could say the same of getting out of bed and sky-diving. Things could go very wrong in either case, but getting out of bed is far less likely to leave you a pancake.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by tlambert · 2014-09-21 02:51 · Score: 1

When someone buys a share in Apple, they actually get an ownership share in Apple.
Apple, yes. Google or Facebook, no. Google and Facebook have two classes of stock. The class with all the voting rights is in both cases controlled by the founders. The publicly traded shares cannot outvote them, even if someone bought all of them.
Until recently, multiple classes of stock were prohibited for NYSE-listed companies, which tended to discourage doing this. (The classic exception was Ford, which has two classes of stock, the voting shares controlled by the Ford family. This predates that NYSE rule.)
This matters when the insiders make a big mistake and the stock starts going down. There's no way to kick them out.
It also matters when someone has built something of value, and then becomes publicly traded, since it keeps the financial vampires from descending on the company and sucking the blood out of it, leaving a husk which dies in 6 months. That's what's currently going on with the OliveGarden proxy fight, where a funds group has acquired a large position in the company, and now wants to spin off the real estate holdings to a separate company (taking about $1B in the $2.5B value portfolio as a one time dividend, and putting in their own sock puppets on the board to short-term pump the stock by changing employee mix, etc.).
The problem with Google and Facebook maintaining one class of stock is ISOs/RSUs. Stock given as incentives to employees, after the vesting period, can be sold on the open market, and if that stock position becomes larger than the founders, then the people who made the decisions that created the large value in the first place are no longer in control, and Gordon Gecko (or Carl Icahn) can come in and do what's best short term for the shareholders, rather than what's best long term for the shareholders, company, employees, and customers.
Who do I trust more to make the best decisions not totally motivated by short term profit, Carl Icahn, or Larry, Sergey, and Eric?
Yeah, there's long term downside risk to the stock as a straight financial instrument (along with significant historical upside), but you know what? I don't really feel the need to destroy things just because that's they path to my highest ROI over time.
For better or worse, I'd rather have the founders, not Wall Street, making the decisions that guide the future of the thing they built.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by phantomfive · 2014-09-21 04:21 · Score: 1

but getting out of bed is far less likely to leave you a pancake.
That hasn't been proven

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Comparable? Not really. by khallow · 2014-09-21 08:40 · Score: 1

Alibaba isn't a boring mutual fund. Instead, it's more exciting. Just make sure you count your fingers and toes when it's over.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by tlambert · 2014-09-21 13:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, there's long term downside risk to the stock as a straight financial instrument (along with significant historical upside), but you know what? I don't really feel the need to destroy things just because that's they path to my highest ROI over time.
Which leads the question, how do we force management to stop aiming at short-term decisions that destroy companies/greater profits over the longer period?
My personal suggestion? Keep investors away from decisions impacting the day to day operations of the company. One good way of accomplishing this is having two classes of stock, voting and non-voting, and keeping the voting stock in the hands of people who care about the long term interests of the company. :)
Re:Comparable? Not really. by lpress · 2014-10-03 01:18 · Score: 1

It's not the same thing as share of Apple at all.
The post discusses the nature of Chinese corporations, not the structure of this particular stock deal.
Re:Comparable? Not really. by lpress · 2014-10-03 01:19 · Score: 1

The post discusses the nature of Chinese corporations, not the structure of this particular stock deal.

Not a smart investment by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 16:02 · Score: 1

I wouldn't buy shares in Alibaba in the US. You aren't getting actual shares in the company, you are getting shares in a shell company that has a contract with the real one to share profits. China prohibits directly spinning a portion off to the US markets.

Re:Place of Business. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 16:14 · Score: 1

If a US company listed in the US decided to screw its shareholders, it and the board can be held accountable in US courts.

LOL, when has that ever happened

weak consumer protection by harvey+the+nerd · 2014-09-20 16:33 · Score: 2

a lot of fraudulent mainland C trading companies use Ali-B to rip newbies off

Oh hell no by slashmydots · 2014-09-20 16:38 · Score: 2

No! Not even Paypal has that level of customer support. They don't give a flying fuck about security or verifying their sellers. Every other seller is a scammer in the electronics section. They openly provide them with your e-mail so you get fraud spam selling RAM and SSDs forever. That would be a major violation of security in 1998 let alone 2014. They're so hell bent on money money money and all their e-mails from the company themselves are misleading scams. The whole gold certification is a joke. I can't even begin to compare them to any US company.

Re:Oh hell no by phantomfive · 2014-09-20 17:31 · Score: 1

I read your paragraph twice and I literally have no idea what you are talking about

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Oh hell no by rdtripp · 2014-09-20 17:57 · Score: 1

I understand completely. Theft is blatantly encouraged. At least with a US company theft is the exeption rather than the rule and the thieves are a bit less direct about it or try to purvey some sort of legitimacy.

Re:Different? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 16:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Don't blame me, I bought stock in Amazon!

Re:Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-20 16:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't know anything about it, do you?

Basically if you buy "Alibaba" stock you actually bought stock in a Cayman Islands holding company that is somehow related to the actual Chinese company, since China does not allow foreigners to own stock in Chinese companies. It was a weird/complicated enough arrangement that apparently the Hong Kong stock exchange declined to offer it, and the NYSE was the second choice. It's unlikely of course, but if the Chinese government wanted to "close the loophole" investors could be out $20B+ in a day.

So, no, it's not conceptually the same thing at all...

Stocks & IPOs by Richy_T · 2014-09-20 16:51 · Score: 1

It all went wrong when government tax policies caused companies to stop giving dividends and rely on growth in price to reward investors. It makes it tricky to judge value and means you're relying on "greater fool" strategies instead of sound investment practices. Throw in inflation, pushing prices up and you have a recipe for disaster (in fact, valuing stocks that way allows for much more inflation than they'd otherwise be able to get away with since they can just keep dumping money into the stock market and everyone thinks they're better off. Until the correction).

Place of Business. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-20 16:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

If a US company listed in the US decided to screw its shareholders, it and the board can be held accountable in US courts.

If a foreign company listed in the US decided to screw its shareholders, recourse is far more limited.

It's true. For example, a Chinese company would be far less likely to be held accountable for all but destroying the economy, and receive millions of dollars from the US government as punishment.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-09-20 17:02 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Place of Business. by tlambert · 2014-09-20 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a US company listed in the US decided to screw its shareholders, it and the board can be held accountable in US courts.

LOL, when has that ever happened

It's happened many times; it's called "malfeasance" or "misconduct", and it's punishable as criminal fraud.

This is why corporate board members these days are all about "fiduciary responsibility", even if they have to club baby seals to death in the shallow waters where they are coated in oil from the Exxon Valdez.

Really? by InfiniteZero · 2014-09-20 17:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

> a complex fabric of personal, corporate and government organization relationships

Are we talking about China, or America? At that high level, the line between corporations and the government becomes blurry, no matter which country you live in. Just look at Standard Oil, Boeing, Halliburton... The list goes on.

Re:Really? by JimSadler · 2014-09-20 19:35 · Score: 1

And if we are now at the point at which a failure of the economy in China would trash the American economic system what can we do about it?
Re:Really? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-20 22:13 · Score: 1

It just seems like sour grapes to me. Some people are upset that a Chinese company with a real business now holds a fairly arbitrary record instead of Facebook which doesn't even know how to make money without annoying and selling its user's personal data.
More over China seems to have become the new Big Bad for America. The USSR went down the tubes, bin Laden is dead... But China is another easy target and handily also communist.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Really? by lpress · 2014-10-03 01:34 · Score: 1

At that high level, the line between corporations and the government becomes blurry, no matter which country you live in. Just look at Standard Oil, Boeing, Halliburton... The list goes on.
For sure, but are there differences in degree? For example, in Chinese dominated Singapore, the government is an explicit shareholder. I wonder if anyone has done a study of explicit ownership of stock by US companies --- e. g., does Haliburton own stock in Standard Oil?

Not like Ebay or Amazon by rdtripp · 2014-09-20 17:49 · Score: 2

Have dealt with Alibaba twice. The first time was with a legit vendor and was fine. The second time was with a bad vendor and got shipped misrepresented junk. Alibaba sided with the vendor and cost me 200.00 USD. Dramatically different than dealing with US based similar companies. Non-existant customer service and will screw you over in a minute. Will never buy through them again.

Re:Not like Ebay or Amazon by CrashNBrn · 2014-09-21 06:56 · Score: 1

Haven't dealt with Alibaba, or its smaller subsidiaries... though I was tempted quite a few times. Ebay is probably fine for physical goods, but a crap-shoot for software. Ebay prices really don't impress me, as once you factor in shipping, bidding or even insta-buy - it's almost always been a better deal to just buy from Amazon and get it in 1-2 days. Just wish we could buy from Amazon.uk for a few things.

Amazon customer service is the best I've encountered ever, anywhere. They respond to inquiries and suggestions within 12 hours. Returns are never refused, even for reasoning like, "didn't like it, wasn't suitable."

US investors don't have shares in Alibaba ... by perpenso · 2014-09-20 17:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

You seem to be speaking of Alibaba the Chinese retailer, so you are off on a tangent since that is not what US investors are putting their money into.

What US investors are buying is interest in a Cayman Island “variable-interest entity”. Stockholders won't have the usual influence on corporate governance or management, such as it is. My understanding is that Chinese law doesn't allow foreigners to own a Chinese strategic asset. So this Cayman Island entity was created.

http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...

Re:US investors don't have shares in Alibaba ... by khallow · 2014-09-20 19:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

I agree. Asking the question indicates ignorance of this arrangement. My view is that owning a share of this would indicate poor investment judgment and be a strong signal to me to stay clear of the entity in question.
Re:US investors don't have shares in Alibaba ... by antifoidulus · 2014-09-21 12:54 · Score: 2

My understanding is that Chinese law doesn't allow foreigners to own a Chinese strategic asset.

Yes, which is exactly why China's campaign to make the yuan a major world currency is laughable. People aren't going to buy a currency just so they can buy consumer goods from you, they are going to want to invest it, and current Chinese law pretty much makes that impossible to do in any sort of meaningful fashion. China is trying to "have it's cake and eat it to" by throwing it's weight around like one of the big boys but still being ultra-protectionist like a developing economy. Sooner or later this is going to catch up with them, and it's not going to be pretty.

--
Monstar L
Re:US investors don't have shares in Alibaba ... by lpress · 2014-10-03 01:14 · Score: 1

I agree. Asking the question indicates ignorance of this arrangement.
I am asking about the nature of Chinese corporations, not the structure of this stock deal.

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-20 18:02 · Score: 1

...if the Chinese government wanted to "close the loophole" investors could be out $20B+ in a day.

Whatever action the Chinese government takes on this will totally depend on who the investors are. Besides this whole stock market thing is just a way for pirates to launder their money. And there's really no such thing a "US" or any other "national" company in this business. It's all "investing without borders".

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

NYSE:BABA Cayman Islands variable-interest entity by perpenso · 2014-09-20 18:06 · Score: 1

Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE: BABA) is a publicly traded Hangzhou-based group of Internet-based e-commerce businesses, including business-to-business online web portals, online retail and payment services, a shopping search engine and data-centric cloud computing services.

That business is **not** what is traded on the NYSE under BABA. What is actually traded is a Cayman Islands "variable-interest entity". It seems that foreigners are not allowed to own shares in the business you describe.
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...

Truth in advertising by fustakrakich · 2014-09-20 18:10 · Score: 1

China builds the world's largest washing machine.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Governmental ?? by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-09-20 19:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

libaba is tightly woven into a complex fabric of personal, corporate and government organization relationships

Tim, before you post that article, have you run a thorough check on the submit ?

I am not in anyway affiliated with Alibaba and do not own even one share of Alibaba, but TFA has gone overboard with its accusation that Alibaba of having "governmental organization relationships"

Although I am no longer a Chinese citizen, I did come from China and am very familiar with China

If you say Huawei, another Chinese company, have "government organization relationship" with the Chinese Communist Regime, then I agree. But not Alibaba

The truth is that Google, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco and many more American companies have MORE "governmental organization relationship" with the US government - especially with alphabetic agencies such as CIA and/or NSA - than Alibaba with the Chinese Communist regime

Just because Alibaba happens to be a company from China doesn't give anyone the right to spread all kinds of baseless accusations - and I am really sick and tired of the mindless anti-Chinese bashing that has been going on since the listing of Alibaba

Do you know that the more you guys bash all things Chinese the more you guys are showcasing your idiotic/racist side to the world?

This world isn't only USA vs China as there are other players - and your childish display will only convince those third-party players that America is not a trustworthy party

The more you guys bash the Chinese online the more you guys are ruining the whatever reputation that is left of the United States of America

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Governmental ?? by Reziac · 2014-09-22 04:47 · Score: 1

I don't know anything about Alibaba as a company, or about their stock arrangements. But I do know that over the years the website has worked to become more buyer-friendly and to earn buyer trust. My main concern about this is that they don't go overboard with growth and ruin what so far seems to be a good thing.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Governmental ?? by fustakrakich · 2014-09-24 06:55 · Score: 1

Let's stop the charade please. ALL large companies have "government organization relationship", throughout the world. Some relationships are a little closer than others, but far more often than not, the people intermingle making deals and making babies like anywhere else. To claim that this one is somehow different is specious, at best. Business and government are a single entity. Plain old money is its blood, actually our blood is its real currency, just like the Aztecs. Save us all the platitudes, and observe nature at work.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Style by nleven · 2014-09-20 19:53 · Score: 1

Hong kong stock exchange is okay with VIE. Tencent, for example, is listed in Hkex through VIE. The real problem is that Hkex is still reluctant to waive its 'one share one vote' rule. But, Alibaba's founder clearly wants to control the decision power. This kind of dual-class structure is common in US, but is forbidden in HK.
VIE is nothing new here. Granted, VIE is a risk, but it's a well-known and manageable risk.

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-20 19:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

The state serves the business that props it up. When it fails, it is replaced, hopefully with as little property damage as possible. There's nothing "conspiratorial" about it, it just business. Don't be trying to bring all the emotional baggage into it. And if you think that business with Russia is any less than usual, you really bought a bag of magic beans. Just ask Exxon, if you don't want to believe me. Your fantasy marketplace doesn't operate the way you think it does, and that all the documented corruption as simply "isolated incidents", when in fact it is its very essence. It is not corrupt, it is natural, operating on the very same savagery. It is the "Serengeti in Manhattan".

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-20 20:23 · Score: 1

The state serves the business that props it up. When it fails, it is replaced

Except China (what we were talking about) has mostly worked exactly the *opposite* way.

Just ask Exxon, if you don't want to believe me.

Yeah, really? Did you have a chat with "Exxon" over coffee about this? See - this is the kind of silliness that I was talking about. Hyperbolic conspiracy statements without any actual facts.

Re:Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-20 20:34 · Score: 1

Borders do matter, but not in the way you believe they do. The flight of capital from Russia isn't due to what Putin plans to do or not, but because of the risk of perceived sanctions by the West.

No, that's exactly what I said and meant. *Obviously* the sanctions or threat thereof were the direct cause! That part of your comment doesn't really even make any sense.

There are, however, also some foreign investors, who think this is a buying opportunity.

Uh yeah, that's no different from any other investment. Ever heard of a short sale? But obviously many more investors are bearish here so their economy has plummeted. Again no insight here...

Incidentally, that is why Putin isn't getting a lot in terms of effective sanctions from Western Europe

No, there is ONE big reason Western Europe hasn't come down harder (and they have actually put up a fair amount of sanctions as well, just not enough to make Russia respond in a way that causes a major depression there) - Russian natural gas. The balancing act is to make sanctions mild enough for Russia to continue supplying gas while still causing a noticeable punitive effect on their economy. Right now US & Euoipe is doing a half decent job at that - several of the Russians I know are getting pretty annoyed at Putin because it's affecting their or their family's daily life a lot more than some proxy war in Ukraine.

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-20 20:48 · Score: 1

Business and state are one, regardless of the form it takes.

Did you have a chat with "Exxon" over coffee about this?

Kinda... And now they say they are shutting down the rig for the winter (or have Rosneft keep it running), while the US government picks up some political hay during election time with its "sanctions" dog and pony show. This is the ebb and flow of currency from one market to another, traders make their money, and then it flows the other direction. Rich Russians are making a killing also.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Not sure by ponos · 2014-09-20 20:57 · Score: 1

This IPO is interesting because it's a test case for how well China can provide a code of laws assurance to the worldwide investor. So far, so good. But the Chineese system has a similar habit of disenfranchising shareholders, and in this case, it could happen in the blink of an eye.

It's too early to say how it would function in an hypothetical situation. Clearly, that question will have to be settled in the coming decade: what happens when a Chinese company does not behave well? For the moment, people are just hoping for a quick buck, just as with most IPOs.

Re: Style by LostMyBeaver · 2014-09-20 22:15 · Score: 1

I kinda agree with both of you thanks to your example.

The Russian market took a nose dive because of borderless trading. If it were a closed system, outside investors couldn't have affected it so much.

Basically, the value of the shares have absolutely nothing to do with the companies or their performance. It's all about trends in squiggly lines. If a panic starts in either direction, more and more people trade and increase volumes. Everyone tries to buy low and sell high, but gambling related panic causes traders to lose nerve and sell low sometimes to cut losses hoping to buy back in before it rises again.

The panic is generally triggered by news stories which are written by people who don't understand the business they're writing about (for example, Amazon who is treated like a sales website only) for people who understand even less and don't care. It just makes them rush to see if the share will rise or fall.

In short, you're both kinda right. But if anyone suggests there is any more logic to the stock market than to a roulette wheel, they're full of crap.

Re: Style by peragrin · 2014-09-20 23:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Russian market was also being propped up by those external investors. a closed system wouldn't have grown very big to begin with. hence why the Soviet Union couldn't keep up with the USA in military spending the USA had a world Economy and the Soviet union and the Warsaw pack, partially as not even full trade was allowed between them.

The USA didn't become a world trade powerhouse because of it's isolationist policies, but because we traded with just about anybody and sold anything including our own grandparents.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

Re:Style by flyneye · 2014-09-21 00:39 · Score: 1

I interpret the question to have an answer as follows;
Owning a share of Alibaba is a sound investment that will produce good returns for both company and investor, but, owning a share of Apple is aiding and abetting an enemy of the people, rational thought and good computing.
I wonder that he could not have come up with a better example than Apple, except that his conscience was pricking him that something with this concept was horribly wrong.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:Style by flyneye · 2014-09-21 00:54 · Score: 1

" but if the Chinese government wanted to "close the loophole" investors could be out $20B+ in a day."

Hardly a sound thing to do if one wanted such a huge business in their economy to thrive. This scenario is akin to a runner shooting himself in the foot before a race. The $20B+ wouldn't matter as much to them as the bad press would end the confidence in a business that currently enjoys the position of being a source for
industry worldwide. Imagine, U.S.Steel absconding with their investments or ANY of the large companies on our markets, with the blessing of our government.
Where would that company be tomorrow? Not selling steel, that's for damn sure. That would be the job of a trusted competitor.
Conceptual thinking, like environmental modeling, is usually the victim of having included far too little criteria to land an answer anywhere near accuracy.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:Style by lpress · 2014-09-21 01:50 · Score: 1

Are all Slashdot comments self-referencing?

Re:Style by lpress · 2014-09-21 01:56 · Score: 1

You missed my point -- I was wondering if a US company is and sees itself as more isolated and independent of others than a typical Chinese company -- wondering about cultural differences, not about the Cayman Island structure of the offering.

Simple answer: by Rick+Zeman · 2014-09-21 04:49 · Score: 1

No. Alibaba is fascistic.

Re: Style by liquid_schwartz · 2014-09-21 05:00 · Score: 1

It's working out great for the 0.1%, for the 99.9%, not so much.

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-21 05:23 · Score: 1

"Sanctions" are merely a method of stimulating cash flow from market to market, like any other trade deal, if you don't have "favored nation" status, you are being "sanctioned". This is how prices are determined. The fantasy of "supply and demand" doesn't even come up in meetings. It is tidal, cyclical in nature, like seasonal weight gain and water retention. Please get the silly politics out of your head, *Mr. Beal*. If you would like to know why the Russians appear a bit "pissed" these days, this should point you in the general direction of what makes the world go 'round. The Obama administration is amongst the most accomplished ever to the people that matter. I can assure you they have no complaints about his "foreign policy".

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

There's only one thing Alibaba needs to fix by Khyber · 2014-09-21 06:10 · Score: 1

It is a great fucking company. I use it for sourcing all kinds of things. The biggest problem is that their clients quite often have a poor grasp of English. Example, I'm currently looking for a small fan. I need it to ATTACH to a T8 LED and maintain roughly the same profile.

All I get are either quotes for 80mm computer fans, or T8 LED tubes. I even include a picture of the device I have in operation, with a rigged 80mm fan and plastic ducting strapped to the end of the T8 LED tube. It's like they ignore the picture, ignore everything, and only focus on key words. This leads to some of the shittiest customer service I've ever received. I want a fan, not a light. I already have the light, can't you see in the picture?

There are some foreign companies on there with excellent English skills. Those almost always get my business because the transaction and sourcing experience is so much easier.

If Alibaba could fix that one glaring issue, they'll be eating everyone's lunch.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Style by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-09-21 09:12 · Score: 1

The hope is that Alibaba's status as a Cayman Islands shell will allow it to develop a black tulip, which will not only be significantly more valuable than all the other tulips,but will be tradable on social media. And because Alibaba owns its own credit subsidiary, you will be able to buy them on thin margin, putting up very little of your own money.

Re: Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-21 17:01 · Score: 1

The panic is generally triggered by news stories which are written by people who don't understand the business they're writing about...

On the contrary, they know exactly what they're writing about. There are no accidents in this business. They trigger the panics on demand, like a water faucet. The people who run these markets are taking no more risk than any Las Vegas Casino does.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Style by jandersen · 2014-09-21 20:01 · Score: 1

...if the Chinese government wanted to "close the loophole" investors could be out $20B+ in a day.

Here's a TLA for you: FUD. Most countries in the West could in principle do the same, and forbid foreign investors in national companies - and the reasons they don't do it are the same that tell us that China wouldn't do this either. They are, as I think I may have mentioned in the past, not idiots.

A giant sucking sound - will be the last thing by aurizon · 2014-09-22 04:38 · Score: 1

many companies all over the world hear as their business goes down the drain.

Traders in the distant past found good far far away, in distant lands and imported them to USA/Europe etc and often made huge profits. By control over sources by distance or contractual right or a royal decree, these traders became the huge mercantile traders of the olden days, when stuff went by camel or sailing ship etc.

Fast forward to the era of the container ship, computerized customs clearing and full information via the web. You can now order a 10 pound amount from Alibaba for $10 a pound, delivered to your door by UPS for $100 plus local freight and the small duty (under 5%). The local guy who used to buy 10,000 pounds and import it, store it and break it down to 10 and 25 and 50 pound lots to buyers is totally screwed. He can no longer ask for $30 per pound - or more. repeat this with the 5000 differnt products he imports to his warehouses and sells and hie reason to exist vanishes, along with his employees, his warehouses etc.
All that remains is a container yard and each container holds hundreds of pre-sealed and addressed boxes, with all import papers done online, with each imported earning the complete trust of US customs by never making an error in prior inspections of random boxes = very low cost and delay in the process.
This is part of the great commercial leveling that is underway (and has been underway for the past 50 years, with electronic communications and container freight and relaxed trade barriers).

So stuff gets cheaper, jobs here go away, and jobs in other places happen. The only way to fix this it we all get the same wages for the same work all over the world - which is slowly happening. After all, why should guys in China work for less than we do? we are all men and women of equality?

Re:Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-22 15:39 · Score: 1

Freezing billions of dollars of Russian capital is a weird way of stimulating cash flow.

And is it any coincidence that those countries that make up most of the US increase in arms sales are the same Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait) that now have the balls (or the firepower) to stand up to ISIS and join the offensive today against one of the most evil and barbaric militias of the last few decades?

And economic foreign policy that led directly to allied military action - one that the Republicans have been clamoring for twice as much as the Democrats? I'm sure Fox News will find a way to turn it all into a negative but at least they'll have to get creative.

But anyway, for some reason I'm going to take with a grain of salt a random slashdot poster's explanation of what comes up in US cabinet meetings.

Re:Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-22 15:51 · Score: 1

Are you saying you are a Russian citizen? Or just a Russian apologist? Well, if your livelihood is being impinged by the rest of the world reacting to your dictator invading other countries and lying about it, maybe you should get some balls and speak out against Putin instead of just attacking US sanctions, etc.

Gotta say my Russian friends and coworkers are all pretty embarrassed and against Putin at this point. I guess being in the US they are not scared of imprisonment.

Business and state are clearly highly linked in Russia (Putin claims he is worth what, $200k but he's probably the richest man in the world based on stock in plundered /"privatized" Russian utilities, etc), but not in the US. Wackjob conspiracy theorists like to say this without any real evidence, but it's a pointless trite answer that rarely spurs any useful discussion.

Re: Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-22 16:00 · Score: 1

Jesus Christ, you watch too many bad movies! Yes, so every boom and bust was triggered on demand by the all-encompasing US government? (or is it the Illuminati? Or Colonel Sanders from a cryostasis tank?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That explains why we have had half a dozen minor or major recessions in the last 40 years - if I were President apparently in control of every minute event in the Western world, I know I'd love to have a legacy of driving the economy into the shitter.

There is only one type of person worse than predicting the future economy than an economist: a conspiracy theorist.

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-22 17:30 · Score: 1

Well, you certainly have gone off the deep end...

Are you one of those people who go around saying that if you don't like Obama, you must be a republican?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-22 17:32 · Score: 1

Dream on, the man needs you :-)

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re: Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-22 17:39 · Score: 2

Who said anything about the US "government"? The government is muscle, that's it.

Hey, you're perfectly welcome to stick to your grade school fantasies all you want. If you want to see everything as a "conspiracy", that would be your issue. I see none at all. I only see nature at work, as she always has.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-22 17:53 · Score: 1

Business and state are clearly highly linked in Russia...but not in the US...???!!

While I'm piling it on, are you nuts?! You don't see our little revolving door in every appointed position that exists? And who launders their money in political campaigns? You don't think those people expect a return on their investment? And worse still the dumbasses who only vote for the guy being pushed in their face? Man, you are right, further discussion is truly impossible. I think I've met another Chuck Todd..

And you don't think Putin is also profiting from the market shift? Oh Muurrrderr! The only people that will suffer are the Russians and those living around the area.

Damn! I'm still laughing at the first part of your post. You get a +5 Funny from me. I like your style... you fit right in with the rest of the crowd.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Style by Dahamma · 2014-09-23 19:33 · Score: 1

Well, you replied to 3 of my posts without a single more shred of fact than I asked for besides "ZOMG ISN'T IT OBVIOUS!?" - I'll just reply once: any hard evidence for absolutely anything you have ever said? Or has The Man suppressed all of the proof except what's in your head?

Re:Style by fustakrakich · 2014-09-23 20:43 · Score: 2

Yeah, I guess you're one of those types that don't believe that water is wet, or that humans live and work under the same influences as everything else in nature without proof. Most of the evidence you want can be seen on Animal Planet. And then please try to distinguish us from the rest. Yes, it is that obvious. If you still don't want to believe me, go visit Walmart on your average Black Friday. Your veneer of civility is extremely thin and translucent, to say the least. The system is driven by instinct. The "intellect" is there to serve. Or maybe you're the fish, asking, "What the hell is water?"

What "evidence" are you looking for? Are you not able to deduce anything from your own observations?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Slashdot Mirror

Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?

88 of 126 comments (clear)