Tag Archives: Regulation

SEC Chair Gensler Outlines Plans for Crypto Trading, Exchanges, Investor Protection, Bitcoin ETFs – Regulation Bitcoin News

The chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Gary Gensler, has outlined how the SEC plans to regulate the crypto industry. Focusing on investor protection, Gensler discussed concerns the SEC has about crypto trading, exchanges, lending, defi platforms, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Gary Gensler Outlines SEC’s Crypto Priorities

SEC Chairman Gary Gensler outlined the agency’s plans regarding the regulation of cryptocurrencies at the Aspen Security Forum Tuesday. He described:

Right now, we just don’t have enough investor protection in crypto. Frankly, at this time, it’s more like the Wild West. This asset class is rife with fraud, scams, and abuse in certain applications … If we don’t address these issues, I worry a lot of people will be hurt.

He elaborated: “There’s a great deal of hype and spin about how crypto assets work. In many cases, investors aren’t able to get rigorous, balanced, and complete information.”

Regulating Crypto Platforms: Gensler Says Many Are Offering Unregistered Securities

The SEC chairman proceeded to explain that many tokens are offered and sold as securities. “I’ve urged staff to continue to protect investors in the case of unregistered sales of securities,” he said.

Next, the chairman said he believes that crypto trading platforms, lending platforms, and decentralized finance (defi) platforms “can implicate the securities laws,” and in some cases the commodities laws and the banking laws as well.

He also stressed that cryptocurrency trading platforms do not have the same investor protection as traditional exchanges, like the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). In addition, he said that many overseas platforms allow U.S. investors to trade cryptocurrencies using virtual private networks (VPNs), thus bypassing regulations.

Gensler emphasized:

Make no mistake: To the extent that there are securities on these trading platforms, under our laws they have to register with the Commission unless they meet an exemption … If a lending platform is offering securities, it also falls into SEC jurisdiction.

Regulating Investment Vehicles With Crypto Exposure, Bitcoin ETFs

The chairman also addressed investment vehicles that provide exposure to crypto assets, including mutual funds that invest in bitcoin futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).

“I anticipate that there will be filings with regard to exchange-traded funds (ETFs) under the Investment Company Act (’40 Act). When combined with the other federal securities laws, the ’40 Act provides significant investor protections,” Gensler opined, adding:

Given these important protections, I look forward to the staff’s review of such filings, particularly if those are limited to these CME-traded bitcoin futures.

Gensler also addressed the custody of crypto assets, stating: “Custody protections are key to preventing theft of investor assets, and we will be looking to maximize regulatory protections in this area.”

SEC Needs More Resources to Protect Investors

Gensler stressed that the SEC has taken and will continue to take its “authorities as far as they go.”

He also claimed, “The test to determine whether a crypto asset is a security is clear.” Nonetheless, he admitted that “There are some gaps” in regulating the crypto space, elaborating:

We need additional Congressional authorities to prevent transactions, products, and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks. We also need more resources to protect investors in this growing and volatile sector.

The former MIT blockchain professor proceeded to emphasize that the SEC is ready to work closely with Congress, the administration, and other regulators worldwide to oversee the crypto space. He opined:

In my view, the legislative priority should center on crypto trading, lending, and defi platforms. Regulators would benefit from additional plenary authority to write rules for and attach guardrails to crypto trading and lending.

What do you think about Gensler’s comments on regulating the crypto industry? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.



Read original article here

Alibaba Earnings Beat Expectations. Why the Stock Is Dropping.

Text size

Alibaba’s earnings come after weeks of regulatory crackdowns for Chinese tech.


Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images


Alibaba

earnings per share in the last quarter beat analyst expectations even as earnings missed estimates, with the Chinese e-commerce giant announcing on Tuesday that it would increase its share buyback program from $10 billion to $15 billion.

But that failed to woo investors: The stock fell 0.8% in U.S. premarket trading, after

Alibaba’s

Hong Kong-listed shares rose 0.83% before the earnings were released. Like U.S. peer Amazon, the Chinese e-commerce giant’s earnings show that revenue growth has begun to slow—from 64% year-over-year growth in the first three months of 2021 to 34% in the last quarter.

Alibaba notched revenue of 205.7 billion Chinese yuan ($31.8 billion) in the three months to the end of June, which the company reports as its first fiscal quarter of 2021. The revenue figures fell short of analyst estimates of closer to RMB 251 billion, according to the FactSet consensus. 

It was a brighter picture for the bottom line, as adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (Ebitda) came in at RMB 48.6 billion, a decrease of 5% year-over-year but ahead of the RMB 46.7 billion expected by Wall Street. Profit margins were another standout for the e-commerce giant, with an adjusted Ebitda margin of 24% beating estimates.

“For the June quarter, global annual active consumers across the Alibaba Ecosystem reached 1.18 billion, an increase of 45 million from the March quarter, which includes 912 million consumers in China,” said Daniel Zhang, Alibaba’s chair and chief executive. 

“We believe in the growth of the Chinese economy and long-term value creation of Alibaba,” Zhang added. “We will continue to strengthen our technology advantage in improving the consumer experience and helping our enterprise customers to accomplish successful digital transformations.”

Aliaba also announced that it would increase the size of its share buyback program by 50%, to the largest in its corporate history, from $10 billion to $15 billion.

Earnings growth continued at pace for Alibaba’s closely watched cloud computing segment, a stream of sales representing an alternative to its core e-commerce offerings and positioning it as a rival to the likes of

Amazon

and

Microsoft.

 

Revenue in the cloud division rose 29% year-over-year as adjusted Ebitda came in at RMB 340 million, with a profit margin of 2%, marking a stark improvement from a RMB 1.1 billion loss in the 2020 period. In the last quarter, adjusted Ebitda in cloud computing was RMB 308 million with a 2% margin.

Growth in cloud computing was primarily driven by robust growth in revenue from customers in the internet, financial services, and retail industries, Alibaba said.

The company’s earnings come at a tough time for China’s tech giants. The sector has been the subject of a regulatory crackdown that has intensified in recent weeks, and caused the largest monthly fall for U.S.-listed Chinese tech companies since the 2008-09 financial crisis.

Write to Jack Denton at jack.denton@dowjones.com.

Read original article here

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

India Reportedly Investigating Binance in Chinese Money Laundering Case – Regulation Bitcoin News

Indian authorities are reportedly investigating cryptocurrency exchange Binance in connection with an ongoing Chinese money laundering case that raked in more than 10 billion rupees ($134 million).

Binance’s Regulatory Troubles Continue

India is reportedly investigating whether the global cryptocurrency exchange Binance had any role in a Chinese money laundering scheme involving betting apps, local media reported Friday, citing people with knowledge on the matter.

The country’s Enforcement Directorate (ED), a law enforcement agency under the Ministry of Finance, has summoned Binance’s executives for questioning, according to the people who asked not to be identified as the matter is still under investigation.

The case centers around betting apps run by Chinese operators. They allegedly raked in more than 10 billion rupees over the past 10 months. They were suspected of laundering part of the money through local Indian crypto exchange Wazirx, which was acquired by Binance in 2019.

Responding to the news, Binance said in a statement:

We did not receive any summons in June or July of this year. As per available info in the public domain, the summons was directed to only Wazirx.

The exchange continued: “We work closely with regulators, law enforcement and industry leaders around the world to further the security and sustainability of the industry while providing the best services and protection to our users.”

A growing number of regulators worldwide have warned Binance about operating in their jurisdictions without being authorized. They include regulators in Malaysia, Japan, the U.K., Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Thailand, Germany, and Lithuania.

Commenting on mounting regulatory scrutiny, Binance’s CEO, Changpeng Zhao, said that the company is looking for a CEO with a strong compliance background and Binance wants to be licensed everywhere and become a financial institution.

What do you think about India investigating Binance and other regulators warning about the exchange? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.



Read original article here

Hong Kong Regulator Warns About Unregulated Cryptocurrency Trading Platforms and Binance – Regulation Bitcoin News

Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has issued a warning about unregulated cryptocurrency trading platforms, particularly Binance. The regulator said that the crypto exchange is offering the trading of “stock tokens.”

The SFC issued a statement Friday warning the public about unregulated crypto trading platforms. The regulator addressed Binance in particular, stating that the global crypto exchange may be offering trading services in “stock tokens” to Hong Kong investors. The SFC detailed:

The SFC wishes to make it clear that no entity in the Binance group is licensed or registered to conduct ‘regulated activity’ in Hong Kong.

“Stock tokens are virtual assets that are represented to be backed by different depository portfolios of underlying overseas listed stocks,” the SFC detailed.

The regulator noted that “In Hong Kong, stock tokens are likely to be ‘securities.’” For those that are considered securities, “marketing and/or distributing such tokens – whether in Hong Kong or targeting Hong Kong investors – constitute a ‘regulated activity’ and require a licence from the SFC unless an applicable exemption applies,” the announcement explains.

Thomas Atkinson, the SFC’s Executive Director of Enforcement, commented:

Investors should be wary of the risks of trading virtual assets on an unregulated platform. If the platform ceases operation, collapses, or is hacked, investors may face the possible risk of losing their entire investments held on the platform.

The SFC noted that it “has received complaints from investors who experienced difficulties in withdrawing fiat currencies or virtual assets from their accounts opened with unregulated platforms.”

Besides Hong Kong, an increasing number of regulators have issued warnings about Binance, including the U.K., Japan, Italy, Thailand, Lithuania, and the Cayman Islands.

What do you think about the Hong Kong regulator’s warning? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.



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

China’s VC investors look elsewhere as regulation on U.S. IPOs builds

A Chinese day trader plays cards with others at a local brokerage house in Beijing on August 27, 2015, the summer of a dramatic sell-off in Chinese stocks.

Getty Images

On Saturday, China’s cyberspace regulator proposed that any company with data on more than 1 million users must go through a cybersecurity review before listing abroad. The regulator, whose clout in China has grown rapidly, said public comment on the proposed rules would close July 25.

That followed an announcement last Tuesday from the top executive body and Chinese Communist Party’s central committee about cracking down on illegal securities activities, which included greater scrutiny on private equity and venture capital funds, as well as raising money overseas through stock.

“There is no impact at all on exits, investment direction and investment stage” for a firm like ours, Michael Xu, managing partner at China-based CEC Asset Management, said Thursday, referring to the increased securities regulation. That’s according to a CNBC translation of his Mandarin-language remarks.

The only aspect the firm would need to pay more attention to is whether investment projects had any shareholders without a clean record with the securities regulator, Xu said.

Large tech giants like Alibaba and Tencent, who have backed a significant number of companies listed in the U.S., have also fallen under heavy scrutiny in China’s crackdown on monopolistic practices in the last year.

Looking to other IPO markets

Investor interest in China has climbed. Deal value from venture capital and private equity-backed buyouts reached $74.3 billion in the first quarter of this year, according to Preqin. That’s the most for any six-month period since the first half of 2018.

Getting returns on such investments are the priority, said Jeff Wu, a China-focused partner at Silicon Valley-based Pegasus Tech Ventures. In light of the latest market developments, he said he’s looking to exit investments via listings in Hong Kong or special purpose acquisition companies overseas.

However, mainland China has struggled with its own effort to keep tech IPOs at home. Authorities launched the Star board in Shanghai in July 2019, featuring a registration system for IPOs, rather than regulatory approval.

That registration-based IPO process has stalled. As of June 20, EY said more than 500 companies were on the Chinese securities regulator’s waiting list to go public on the Star board and a tech-focused stock board in Shenzhen called the ChiNext.

“Chinese investors are not sophisticated enough yet, and the legal environment is not mature enough to accommodate such a registration process,” said Zhu Ning, a professor of finance at Tsinghua University.

Read more about China from CNBC Pro

He noted that so far, Chinese securities law is “far less punitive” than it is in the U.S., and that recent securities regulation is “consistent with Chinese authorities’ continuous efforts to improve the requirements and standards of listing.”

“It’s important investors keep in their mind, China is still an emerging economy. No matter how fast-growing it is, the institutional background is still not the same,” he said.

Increased Chinese government scrutiny on local companies listing in the U.S. comes as tensions between the two countries are wearing away at economic and financial ties that have built up between over the last few decades.

Under the Trump administration, the White House began to call for less U.S. investment in Chinese assets. Since President Joe Biden took office in January, his administration has retained a tough stance on China.

Consulting firm Eurasia Group said in a note over the weekend that fallout over Didi’s listing will intensify U.S. political pressure for restrictions on Chinese stock offerings. “In short, the spigot of Chinese IPOs in the US will likely run dry,” the authors said, pointing out that several Chinese firms have already canceled plans for IPOs in the U.S.

Previously, Chinese companies had been going public in the U.S. at a record pace — accounting for 15% of the U.S. IPO market in the first half of the year, according to Renaissance Capital.

One strategy Chinese companies have pursued recently is listing in both the U.S. and Hong Kong — protecting against delisting risks while capturing a large pool of institutional investors.

This trend will likely continue, said Ming Liao, founder of Beijing-based Prospect Avenue Capital, which has had plans to list its invested companies in the U.S. He said the firm is “happy” with the latest regulatory developments because they specify the oversight of different agencies.

Regulatory uncertainty persists

While investment funds look for other ways to exit their holdings, the Chinese government’s scrutiny on stock offerings isn’t going away.

Beijing stated in the national five-year development plan adopted in March that authorities aim to “fully implement” a registration for stock issuance and improve the “quality” of listed companies, while strengthening efforts to ensure national security and crack down on monopolistic behavior.

EY Asia-Pacific IPO Leader Ringo Choi said he expects overall uncertainty on IPOs to linger in the short term, as clarification on some policies could lead to other regulations. He noted that in China, one regulatory agency’s actions may compel another department to make similar moves.

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