Tag Archives: Regulation/Government Policy

Tencent and other gaming stocks tumble after China news outlet labels them ‘spiritual opium’ for teens

Accusations of “spiritual opium” sent shares of the China multinational technology group Tencent and other companies in the gaming industry tumbling on Tuesday amid fears a new regulatory chapter was about to begin.

Tencent
700,
-6.11%
stock tumbled 5% while NetEase
9999,
-7.77%

NTES,
+2.77%
and XD
2400,
-8.12%
each fell 8% in Hong Kong trade.

The losses came after an article in the Economic Information Daily, which has links to China’s state-controlled news agency, Xinhua, said the gaming industry, especially Tencent, was harming the nation’s teens, according to media reports.

While the South China Morning Post subsequently reported the story has been taken down, investors were rattled by fears that yet another regulatory crackdown could be coming. That’s even as the South China Morning Post pointed out the article didn’t appear to represent Beijing’s position on that industry, noting positive comments from an official recently.

China is the world’s biggest videogame and esports market, according to PwC China, with combined revenue reaching $31.5 billion last year. The revenue share of app-based social and casual games in China is forecast to reach 71.8% of overall videogame revenue by 2025, and a chunk of Tencent’s revenue stems from gaming.

A wave of separate crackdowns on technology companies, including Tencent’s music unit, ride-share giant Didi Global 
DIDI,
+0.68%
and education companies, have been hitting China stocks, as well as their U.S.-listed shares in recent weeks.

Read: Ray Dalio says Chinese stocks still ‘important part’ of a portfolio after crackdown

“After the last few weeks, even oblique warnings from authorities are ignored at your peril, and it seems that regulatory risk is alive and well in China still,” said Jeffrey Halley, senior market analyst, Asia Pacific, OANDA, in a note to clients.

Also: Videogames entered the mainstream for good in the pandemic, but the industry faces a rough transition

Tencent appeared to be responding to the potential threat as it announced online time limits for minors who want to play its games, and said it would ban those under 12 years old from spending any money on those, according to a statement on a WeChat account reported by Bloomberg.

Read original article here

Risks of Crypto Stablecoins Attract Attention of Yellen, Fed and SEC

Stablecoins, digital currencies pegged to national currencies like the U.S. dollar, are increasingly seen as a potential risk not just to crypto markets, but to the capital markets as well.

Treasury Secretary

Janet Yellen

is scheduled Monday to hold a meeting of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets to discuss stablecoins, the Treasury Department said Friday. The group includes the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

“Bringing together regulators will enable us to assess the potential benefits of stablecoins while mitigating risks they could pose to users, markets, or the financial system,” Ms. Yellen said in a statement.

Stablecoins are a key source of liquidity for cryptocurrency exchanges, their largest users, which need to process trades 24 hours a day. In the derivatives and decentralized finance markets, stablecoins are used by traders and speculators as collateral, and many contracts pay out in stablecoins.

Stablecoins have exploded over the past year as cryptocurrency trading has taken off. The value of the three largest stablecoins—tether, USD Coin and Binance USD—is about $100 billion, up from about $11 billion a year ago.

Jeremy Allaire,

chief executive of the USD Coin issuer, Circle Internet Financial Inc., said the meeting of the president’s working group is a good thing for stablecoins and that he supports developing clear standards. “I think it’s good news,” he said.

Tether Ltd., the issuer of the tether stablecoin, said it looked forward to working with officials to support transparency and compliance. Binance Holdings Ltd., issuer of Binance USD, said it sees the meeting as a positive move. Having regulators involved will bring more legitimacy and clarity to stablecoins, Binance Chief Compliance Officer Samuel Lim said.

Stablecoins and the companies that issue them have been criticized as not being trustworthy.

“There are many reasons to think that stablecoins—at least, many of the stablecoins—are not actually particularly stable,” Boston Federal Reserve President

Eric Rosengren

said in a June speech.

While the startups issuing these stablecoins including Circle and Tether are responsible for assets that make them sizable players in the traditional capital markets, there are no clear rules about how the assets should be regulated to ensure stability.

Share Your Thoughts

Do you think tether poses a potential financial stability risk? If so, what steps should regulators take? Join the conversation below.

In December, the president’s working group released a statement on the regulatory issues concerning stablecoins. Among other things, it suggested that best practices would include a 1:1 reserve ratio and said issuers should hold “high-quality, U.S.-dollar denominated assets” and hold them at U.S.-regulated entities.

Stablecoins operate on the assumption that their reserves are liquid and easily redeemable. Ostensibly, a stablecoin should at all times be redeemable for national currencies, and the amount held in reserve should equal the amount in circulation: currently $64 billion for Tether, $26 billion for USD Coin and $11 billion for Binance USD.

Stablecoin reserves, however, don’t just sit in bank accounts collecting interest. Circle and Tether manage the reserves to provide some level of income.

Neither Circle nor Tether provides a detailed breakdown of where their reserves are invested and the risks users of the tokens are taking. This lack of information has alarmed central bankers and lawmakers in the U.S. and overseas. Binance has said its stablecoin’s reserves are backed 1-1 by U.S. dollars held in custody by the New York-based crypto services company Paxos.

Both Circle and Tether have separately defended the level of information they share with the markets.

Stuart Hoegner,

general counsel at Tether, said the company has a highly liquid portfolio that has been stress-tested. He said the company has a risk-averse approach to managing its reserves and operates in a way to ensure that its dollar peg is maintained.

“Our transparency allows people to decide whether they are happy holding that token or not,” he said.


‘Bringing together regulators will enable us to assess the potential benefits of stablecoins while mitigating risks they could pose to users, markets, or the financial system.’


— Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen

What the companies have disclosed is that they have invested the reserves in corporate debt, commercial paper and other markets that are generally considered liquid, and in cash equivalents.

Tether, according to a report it released earlier this year, held about half of its reserves in commercial paper—short-term loans used by companies to cover expenses. The credit ratings of the commercial paper and whether it came from the U.S. or overseas couldn’t be determined.

In 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James revealed as part of an investigation that executives of Tether, who also own and operate the exchange Bitfinex, took at least $700 million out of the tether reserve to shore up the balance sheet of Bitfinex.

The case was settled in February. As part of that settlement, Tether agreed to release quarterly reports on the composition of its reserves.

Regulators don’t have to look far for examples of what can go wrong in the world of finance. Money-market funds came under pressure last year during the pandemic-driven selloff and required support from the Fed. Dozens of money-market funds needed to be propped up during the 2008-09 financial crisis to prevent them from “breaking the buck,” or falling under their standard of a $1-a-share net asset value.

Building trust was one of the biggest reasons that Circle decided it would go public, according Mr. Allaire.

“It is about being a public company and being an open and transparent company,” he said in an interview earlier this month.

Write to Paul Vigna at paul.vigna@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Facebook Seeks Recusal of FTC Chair Lina Khan in Antitrust Case

WASHINGTON—

Facebook Inc.

sought the recusal of Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan from the agency’s deliberations on whether to file a new antitrust case against the company, arguing she couldn’t be impartial because of her long history of criticizing it and other big-tech firms.

“Chair Khan has consistently made public statements not only accusing Facebook of conduct that merits disapproval but specifically expressing her belief that the conduct meets the elements of an antitrust offense,” the company said Wednesday in a formal recusal petition filed with the FTC.

“When a new commissioner has already drawn factual and legal conclusions and deemed the target a lawbreaker, due process requires that individual to recuse herself,” Facebook said in the petition.

An FTC spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Ms. Khan has said previously that she would consult with FTC ethics officials if recusal questions arose.

Facebook’s request comes two weeks after a similar recusal petition was filed by

Amazon.com Inc.,

which is facing multiple investigations at the FTC, and is the latest sign that giant technology companies are favoring aggression over a conciliatory approach with Ms. Khan, who built her career advocating for bold antitrust action to rein in the dominant players in Silicon Valley.

President Biden installed Ms. Khan as the head of the FTC last month, part of a growing administration effort to restrain corporate power.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Google CEO Sundar Pichai stopped short of endorsing changes proposed by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Section 230, a law that spells out who is legally responsible for content on the internet. Photo: C-SPAN

The FTC soon must decide whether to file a new antitrust lawsuit against Facebook after a judge threw out the FTC’s previous complaint as legally insufficient. Because of the approaching deadlines in the case—the judge’s June 28 ruling gave the FTC 30 days to file an amended lawsuit—it could force Ms. Khan to confront the recusal issue on an accelerated timeline.

Ms. Khan has been a prolific writer about antitrust issues, especially as they related to big tech companies. She previously worked for a progressive antitrust advocacy group and was a key staffer on a congressional antitrust panel that conducted a 16-month investigation of large online platforms and last year recommended that lawmakers take steps to rein them in.

The FTC’s vote on a new Facebook lawsuit is likely to be a divided one. Democrats hold a 3-2 commission majority; if Ms. Khan sat out, there likely wouldn’t be a majority to sue Facebook again. The commission’s two Republican commissioners voted against the first lawsuit the FTC filed against Facebook in December.

The FTC, along with 46 states, had alleged Facebook was engaged in illegal monopolization, including by buying up other companies such as WhatsApp and Instagram to prevent them from challenging Facebook’s market position. The company denied the allegations, saying it competed fairly and achieved success because its services are popular with consumers.

In last month’s ruling, U.S. District Judge

James Boasberg

in Washington dismissed the FTC’s case at the outset of pretrial proceedings, saying the FTC didn’t plead enough allegations to support monopolization claims against Facebook. He also said the FTC didn’t have a valid challenge to Facebook’s policy of refusing to grant interoperability permissions to competing apps. The judge gave the commission 30 days to file a new lawsuit that attempts to make more detailed allegations.

Under the governing legal standards for recusal, a company seeking a commissioner’s disqualification on the grounds of prejudgment must show that a disinterested observer could conclude that the commissioner had already judged both the facts and the law in advance of a proceeding.

Ms. Khan gets to decide in the first instance how to address Facebook’s request for her disqualification. Past FTC practices show that, at least in some circumstances, the whole commission can weigh in.

Disqualification requests haven’t seen much success in modern times, but there are older court rulings that vacated FTC enforcement actions on the grounds that a commissioner should have been disqualified.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

FDA Plans to Warn J&J Covid-19 Vaccine Raises Risk of Rare Neurological Condition

U.S. health regulators are expected to warn that the

Johnson & Johnson

JNJ -0.16%

Covid-19 vaccine is linked to a very small incidence of cases of a rare neurological disorder associated with other shots.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to add the warning language to the J&J shot’s label, after finding a handful of cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome among the millions of people who have gotten the vaccine, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Guillain-Barré syndrome is a rare neurological disorder in which the immune system attacks nerves, causing temporary but potentially severe paralysis. The risk is a known one with vaccines, including some influenza vaccines and a leading shot to prevent shingles.

J&J didn’t immediately provide a comment.

The warning would be the latest for a vaccine that federal health officials had cautioned raises the risk of a rare blood-clotting condition.

The risk of Guillain-Barré, however, is very low, the person said, with a rate of about three to five cases per million recipients. The risk in the general population is about 1 in one million.

Some 12.7 million people in the U.S. have gotten the one-dose J&J vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As more U.S. adults get their Covid-19 vaccines, a variety of side effects are emerging. WSJ’s Daniela Hernandez speaks with an infectious disease specialist on what is common, what isn’t and when to seek medical attention. Photo: Associated Press

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a harmless type of common-cold virus called an adenovirus. It is engineered to carry a piece of genetic code instructing the body’s cells to make something resembling the spike protein that juts from the surface of the coronavirus.

Production of the spikelike protein, in turn, triggers an immune response that can protect a vaccinated person from Covid-19.

Another Covid-19 vaccine, from

AstraZeneca

PLC, which isn’t authorized in the U.S. but used in the U.K. and other countries, uses a technology similar to J&J’s. AstraZeneca’s shot also is linked to an increased risk of Guillain-Barré, federal health officials said.

AstraZeneca didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. authorized the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in late February. Its rollout has struggled after regulators ordered a temporary pause in its administration as investigators studied the rate of the rare clotting disorder among vaccinated people.

The FDA recommends use of the vaccine, saying the benefits outweigh the risks. The agency, however, attached a warning to the vaccine’s label about the risk of the disorder and made recommendations for treatment.

The vaccine requires only one dose and doesn’t need to be stored at ultralow temperatures like messenger RNA vaccines do, which makes it a more straightforward and easier shot for vaccinating people, especially in places for which the freezer conditions and patient follow-up for a second shot would be more difficult to achieve.

Write to Thomas M. Burton at tom.burton@wsj.com and Felicia Schwartz at felicia.schwartz@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Global Tax Deal Heads Down Perilous Path in Congress

WASHINGTON—A complex international corporate tax deal that took years to hammer out soon faces one of its toughest tests: the U.S. Congress.

The Group of 20 major economies backed the plan this weekend in Venice, Italy, following the earlier endorsement from a broader 130-country group. The plan, aimed at limiting corporate tax avoidance, would revamp longstanding international rules and is crucial to President Biden’s plans to raise corporate taxes.

“The world is ready to end the global race to the bottom on corporate taxation, and there’s broad consensus about how to do it,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said.

As detailed negotiations continue, other countries will look to see if U.S. lawmakers implement a minimum corporate tax of at least 15% and embrace new rules for dividing the power to tax the largest companies. Congress will stare back, monitoring how quickly other countries create minimum taxes and remove unilateral taxes on digital companies that have drawn bipartisan U.S. opposition.

“The rest of the world is very aware that the administration cannot bind Congress,” said Chip Harter, the Trump administration’s lead international tax negotiator, who is now at PwC LLP. “They are watching very closely.”

Read original article here

President Biden’s Executive Order Opens New Front in Battle With Big Tech

WASHINGTON—President Biden’s sweeping new competition order targets big tech companies in ways that could fundamentally alter how they do business.

But it will fall to government agencies to carry out the order, and they could take years to put its ideas into action. The Federal Trade Commission that already has Big Tech companies in its sights is likely to become a particular battleground.

A core thrust of the order is to encourage regulatory agencies such as the FTC to adopt new rules and policies to rein in the growing size and power of large tech platforms such as Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. That could prove to be a tall order for the FTC, the principal federal regulator of internet commerce. Some observers say the agency—which had its sails trimmed by Congress in the deregulatory era of the 1970s and 1980s—has struggled to keep up with unfair practices online, particularly in the areas of user privacy, big data and tech mergers.

As the White House detailed its executive order, one Democratic FTC commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, said in a tweet, “So excited about @POTUS’s EO on competition; it is an ambitious agenda that will help our markets work better and create a more equitable economy for all people – esp workers, marginalized communities, entrepreneurs, small biz.”

Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association that counts Apple Inc., Facebook and Google among its members, defended the tech industry as competitive and vibrant and took issue with the White House’s action.

Read original article here

Some Chinese Stocks Are Starting to Look Like Bargains. Where to Look.

Investing in China is even trickier than usual these days, leading some to wonder if it’s worth the trouble. And it’s not likely to get easier in the near term, though volatility over the next couple of months could create bargains for long-term investors.

Since scuttling the anticipated public offering of Ant Group last fall, Chinese regulators have been targeting the country’s biggest and most widely held internet companies. On July 2, Beijing struck again, launching a cybersecurity review of

DiDi Global

(ticker: DIDI) and ordering its app to be pulled from mobile stores, as it tightened controls over data security and rules for companies listed overseas.

The move, just days after DiDi had raised $4.4 billion in the year’s biggest IPO, led the stock to lose a fifth of its value on July 6, and rattled other Chinese internet shares. The

KraneShares CSI China Internet

exchange-traded fund (KWEB) has fallen 15% since June 30, as investors braced for more scrutiny of tech companies’ data practices and other regulatory moves.

“We now know this is a regulatory minefield, and those who expose themselves to the sector are taking on a lot of volatility,” says Arthur Kroeber, Gavekal Research’s head of research. “If your horizon is long term, this is going to be one of the growth stories of the next decade and you have to ride it out. But if you are more short term, you may say it’s too complicated and come back in a year when things have calmed down.”

The wave of regulatory measures has created the type of uncertainty that draws bargain hunters. Technology giants like

Alibaba Group Holding

(BABA), whose shares are down 11% this year, are popping up on value managers’ radars. But caution is warranted, especially for investors in U.S.-listed shares of Chinese companies. Regulatory pressures could continue. “It’s probably just the start of the enforcement actions,” says Kenneth Zhou, a partner at law firm WilmerHale in Beijing.

Fund managers have described China’s regulatory drive as a move to gain better control and set up guardrails for fast-growing digital industries and internet titans. It’s also a way for Beijing to deal with escalating U.S.-China tensions, in part resulting from recent legislation in Washington that sets the stage for delisting Chinese companies if they don’t offer more auditing disclosures within three years.

One concern for China’s regulators: the valuable troves of data collected by Chinese tech companies listed in the U.S., creating a possible national security threat.

“Control of data is shaping up to be a major domestic and geopolitical issue, with direct equity market implications for firms operating on both sides of the Pacific,” Rory Green, head of China and Asia research at TS Lombard, said in a recent research note.

Beijing is trying to gain better control of Chinese companies, including those listed abroad. Many of the largest Chinese techs, like Alibaba,

Tencent Holdings

(700.Hong Kong) and

JD.com

(JD), are registered in the Cayman Islands and use a variable interest entity (VIE) structure, allowing them to get around Chinese restrictions on foreign ownership. Though largely ignored by investors, the complex structure is a gray area because, under it, foreigners don’t actually own a stake in a Chinese company. Instead, they must rely on China honoring contracts that tie them to the company.

For decades, China has largely turned a blind eye to the extralegal structure, but it’s paying more attention now. Bloomberg News reported this past week that Beijing is considering requiring companies that use this structure to seek its approval before listing elsewhere. Already-listed companies might have to seek approval for any secondary offerings.

Analysts and money managers say they don’t expect China to unravel the VIEs, which are used by the country’s largest and most successful companies and would take decades to undo. Many are also skeptical that the U.S. will follow through with its delisting threat.

But Beijing could use VIE scrutiny to exert increased control over companies and to push back against U.S. regulators’ calls for more disclosure. Indirectly, the scrutiny will likely bolster Beijing’s efforts to lure domestic companies back home—a drive that’s already led to secondary listings in Hong Kong for Alibaba,

Yum China Holdings

(YUMC), and JD.com.

Analysts also expect the heightened scrutiny to slow, if not halt, the number of Chinese companies coming public in the U.S. in the near term. It could also shrink the tally of U.S.-listed Chinese companies—more than 240 with over $2 trillion in combined market value—that appeal to do-it-yourself retail investors. Any of these unable to secure secondary listings in Hong Kong or China might go private, says Louis Lau, manager of the Brandes Emerging Markets Value fund.

U.S.-listed stocks could see volatility as a result. Increasingly, fund managers and institutional investors—Lau included—have been gravitating toward stocks listed in Hong Kong or mainland China whenever possible. For retail investors, the best way to access these foreign listings, as well as the more domestically oriented stocks that some fund managers favor, is through mutual or exchange-traded funds.

Money managers are better positioned to navigate some of the logistical complications created by U.S.-China tensions, such as the fallout from a recent executive order that banned U.S. investment in companies that Washington says has ties to China’s military complex. The S&P Dow Jones Indices and FTSE Russell decided this month to boot more than 20 Shanghai- and Shenzhen-listed concerns affected by the order.

Other companies could also be banned and face similar fallout, with Reuters reporting on July 9 that the Biden administration is considering adding more Chinese entities to the banned list over alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

As investing in China gets more complicated, the case builds for investors to choose a fund manager who can navigate these complexities and invest locally. Failure to do so could be costly. The

iShares MSCI China A

ETF (CNYA) is up 3% over the past three months, while the

Invesco Golden Dragon China

ETF (PGJ), which focuses on U.S.-listed Chinese companies, is down 14% in the same span.

“Regulation is here to stay. Investors will just have to get used to this,” says Tiffany Hsiao, a veteran China investor who is a portfolio manager on Artisan’s China Post-Venture strategy. “This is capitalism with Chinese characteristics. China is obviously still a Communist state. It embraces capitalism to drive innovation and improve productivity, but it’s important for companies that do very well to give back to society—and Chinese regulators will remind you of that.”

As a result, she says, investors must move beyond the widely held internet titans to find stocks that could benefit from the regulatory scrutiny that the giants face. Veteran investors are stressing selectivity, searching in local markets for companies that are outside the crossfire.

“A company can have great fundamentals and interesting opportunities, but get blindsided by government action, which is increasingly active,” says David Semple, manager of the

VanEck Emerging Markets

fund (GBFAX). “You need a higher degree of conviction than normal to be involved.”

Semple is gravitating toward companies he’s familiar with, in sectors that could get hit by regulation, but with less impact than investors think.

One example: China is targeting after-school course providers, as it tries to lower child-care costs and encourage families to have more children. Nonetheless, Semple sees opportunity in

China Education Group Holdings

(839.Hong Kong), which could make acquisitions as Beijing forces public universities to divest affiliated private ones.

Of the large internet stocks, Semple favors Tencent, the top position in his fund, over Alibaba, another holding. Alibaba faces more competitive pressures, Semple says, and Tencent has an advantage with its Weixin messaging and videogaming franchises, which provide a high-quality, relatively low-cost flow of users for its other businesses.

Tencent also has quietly complied with the government’s requirements, with CEO Ma Huateng keeping a low profile, says Martin Lau, managing partner and a portfolio manager at FSSA Investment Managers, which oversees $37 billion. That’s a positive, given the backlash that met outspoken Alibaba and Ant co-founder Jack Ma.

Many Chinese internet companies’ fundamentals are sound. However, complying with the stringent rules on collecting and safeguarding user data probably will reduce their profits from that area, says Xiaohua Xu, a senior analyst at Eastspring Investments.

Alibaba and other internet companies, including JD.com, are cheap enough to attract value investors. But volatility is likely, with investors recalibrating growth expectations as Beijing rolls out new rules, and reviews past deals. In addition, widely held U.S.-listed Chinese stocks, including Alibaba, could become proxies for investors’ China angst.

Despite the yellow flags, investors have reason to keep China in the mix. “If you are buying growth, the world has twin engines: the U.S. and China,” says Jason Hsu, chairman and chief investment officer of asset manager Rayliant Global Advisors and co-founder of Research Affiliates. But, he adds, the U.S. is more expensive. “And whenever there is risk—and the world sees China as risky, with this deepening that bias—that means opportunity.”

Write to Reshma Kapadia at reshma.kapadia@barrons.com

Read original article here

Bitcoin Fraud Concerns Draw Scrutiny From Regulators

Regulators are signaling they want more control over an expanded cryptocurrency universe that has pushed further into Wall Street activities without the investor and consumer protections that apply to traditional securities and financial services.

The catch: no single regulator inspects crypto exchanges or brokers, unlike in the securities and derivatives markets. Regulators step in only when they believe U.S. law applies to a particular cryptocurrency or transaction, based on the way the asset was sold or traded.

Once a quirky asset that required navigating special exchanges to buy, cryptocurrencies can now be easily purchased on mobile apps from PayPal Holdings Inc., Square Inc.’s Cash app and Robinhood Markets Inc.

“A lot more money is being put into it, there is a lot of trading and the uses seem to be expanding,” said Dan Berkovitz, a commissioner on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. “I see a concern about whether we have a shadow financial system developing, and that should be a question for all of the regulators.”

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler has told House lawmakers that investor protection rules should apply to crypto exchanges, similar to those that cover equities and derivatives. Regulated exchanges are required by law to have rules that prevent fraud and promote fairness. But crypto exchanges face no such standard, Mr. Gensler said at the Piper Sandler Global Exchange and FinTech conference last month.

Read original article here

Didi and Other U.S.-Listed Chinese Tech Companies Tumble Amid Beijing Crackdown

Text size

A Didi Chuxing autonomous taxi during a pilot test drive on the streets in Shanghai.


Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images

U.S.-listed shares in

Didi Global

and other Chinese app makers tumbled on Tuesday after regulators intensified a crackdown on the country’s New York-listed technology companies.

Didi Global (ticker: DIDI) stock fell more than 25% on Tuesday after Beijing’s Cyberspace Administration ordered app stores to remove the Chinese ride-hailing giant’s services from its platforms on Sunday. 

The cybersecurity regulator widened its attack on Monday, launching a review of two U.S.-listed Chinese app makers:

Full Truck Alliance

(YMM), which operates truck-hailing apps; and online recruiting app

Kanzhun

(BZ).

The regulator ordered the companies to stop adding users while the investigations were conducted, The Wall Street Journal reported. Full Truck Alliance stock was 20% lower in New York premarket trading on Tuesday, while Kanzhun was down 9%.

And on Tuesday, China released guidelines through state-run Xinhua News Agency that would revise rules and strengthen supervision for companies listed in overseas markets, according to the Journal. The additional scrutiny could make it harder for Chinese companies to raise money in the U.S.,

A spokesperson for Full Truck Alliance told Barron’s the company would fully cooperate with the regulator during the cybersecurity process, saying, “FTA is conducting a comprehensive self-examination of any potential cybersecurity risks and will continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities.”

The spokesperson added: “Apart from the suspension of new user registration in China, FTA and its mobile applications maintain normal operation.”

The trio of Chinese app makers went public in the U.S. last month.

Ahead of Didi’s initial public offering, which raised $4.4 billion, reports emerged the company was facing an antitrust probe by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) over whether its pricing mechanism is transparent enough and whether it has been unfairly squeezing out smaller rivals.

Didi made its U.S. debut on Wednesday before attracting the attention of another regulator on Sunday. The cyberspace regulator removed Didi’s Chinese services from their platforms, citing illegal collection of personal data, the Journal reported.

“China is cracking down on big tech, but the decision to remove the app from domestic platforms appears to be timed for maximum impact and embarrassment,” said Markets.com analyst Neil Wilson. “China’s Communist Party is bristling at the number of Chinese companies listing in the U.S. this year, but there is genuine concern at the heart of this—regulators are not impressed with the way Didi and other Chinese tech companies handle data,” he added.

Wedbush analyst Brad Gastwirth struck a similar note, writing that “while Chinese regulators are pointing to Didi’s collection of user data as the impetus for their actions, with the move coming right after its US IPO, there is speculation that China targeting Didi because of its decision to list outside of China.”

In a statement, Didi said that users who had already downloaded and installed the app could continue using it, though it would no longer be available in China.

“The Company will strive to rectify any problems, improve its risk prevention awareness and technological capabilities, protect users’ privacy and data security, and continue to provide secure and convenient services to its users,” Didi said on Sunday. “The Company expects that the app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China.”

Kanzhun said on Monday it would fully cooperate during the review process. “The Company plans to conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks and continue to enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology capabilities.”

Perhaps not unrelated, Chinese social-media company

Weibo

(WB) on Tuesday jumped 15% on reports it’s planning to go private.

Write to Callum Keown at callum.keown@dowjones.com

Read original article here

Facebook, Twitter, Google Threaten to Quit Hong Kong Over Proposed Data Laws

HONG KONG—

Facebook Inc.,

FB 0.09%

Twitter Inc.

TWTR 1.60%

and

Alphabet Inc.’s

GOOG 1.86%

Google have privately warned the Hong Kong government that they could stop offering their services in the city if authorities proceed with planned changes to data-protection laws that could make them liable for the malicious sharing of individuals’ information online.

A letter sent by an industry group that includes the internet firms said companies are concerned that the planned rules to address doxing could put their staff at risk of criminal investigations or prosecutions related to what the firms’ users post online. Doxing refers to the practice of putting people’s personal information online so they can be harassed by others.

Hong Kong’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in May proposed amendments to the city’s data-protection laws that it said were needed to combat doxing, a practice that was prevalent during 2019 protests in the city. The proposals call for punishments of up to 1 million Hong Kong dollars, the equivalent of about $128,800, and up to five years’ imprisonment.

“The only way to avoid these sanctions for technology companies would be to refrain from investing and offering the services in Hong Kong,” said the previously unreported June 25 letter from the Singapore-based Asia Internet Coalition, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Tensions have emerged between some of the U.S.’s most powerful firms and Hong Kong authorities as Beijing exerts increasing control over the city and clamps down on political dissent. The American firms and other tech companies last year said they were suspending the processing of requests from Hong Kong law-enforcement agencies following China’s imposition of a national security law on the city.

Jeff Paine, the Asia Internet Coalition’s managing director, in the letter to Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, said that while his group and its members are opposed to doxing, the vague wording in the proposed amendments could mean the firms and their staff based locally could be subject to criminal investigations and prosecution for doxing offenses by their users.

That would represent a “completely disproportionate and unnecessary response,” the letter said. The letter also noted that the proposed amendments could curtail free expression and criminalize even “innocent acts of sharing information online.”

The Coalition suggested that a more clearly defined scope to violations be considered and requested a videoconference to discuss the situation.

A spokeswoman for the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data acknowledged that the office had received the letter. She said new rules were needed to address doxing, which “has tested the limits of morality and the law.”

The government has handled thousands of doxing-related cases since 2019, and surveys of the public and organizations show strong support for added measures to curb the practice, she said. Police officers and opposition figures were doxed heavily during months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.

“The amendments will not have any bearing on free speech,” which is enshrined in law, and the scope of offenses will be clearly set out in the amendments, the spokeswoman said. The government “strongly rebuts any suggestion that the amendments may in any way affect foreign investment in Hong Kong,” she said.

Representatives for Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment on the letter beyond acknowledging that the Coalition had sent it. The companies don’t disclose the number of employees they have in Hong Kong, but they likely employ at least 100 staff combined, analysts estimate.

China’s crackdown on dissent since it imposed a national security law a year ago has driven many people in Hong Kong off social media or to self-censor their posts following a spate of arrests over online remarks.

While Hong Kong’s population of about 7.5 million means it isn’t a major market in terms of its user base, foreign firms often cite the free flow of information in Hong Kong as a key factor for being located in the financial hub.

The letter from the tech giants comes as global companies increasingly consider whether to leave the financial center for cities offering more hospitable business climates.

The anti-doxing amendments will be put before the city’s Legislative Council and a bill is expected to be approved by the end of this legislative year, said Paul Haswell, Hong Kong-based head of the technology, media, and telecom law practice at global law firm Pinsent Masons.

The tech firms’ concerns about the proposed rules are legitimate, Mr. Haswell said. Depending on the wording of the legislation, technology companies headquartered outside Hong Kong, but with operations in the city, could see their staff here held responsible for what people posted, he said.

A broad reading of the rules could suggest that even an unflattering photo of a person taken in public, or of a police officer’s face on the basis that this would constitute personal data, could run afoul of the proposed amendments if posted with malice or an intention to cause harm, he said.

“If not managed with common sense,” the new rules “could make it potentially a risk to post anything relating to another individual on the internet,” he said.

Corrections & Amplifications
Doxing was prevalent during protests in Hong Kong in 2019. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the year was 2109. (Corrected on July 5)

Write to Newley Purnell at newley.purnell@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here