People want a correction in us indices so badly, that they seem certain that China ==> USA contagion is a certainty.
Which probably means contagion is not in cards.
But corrective action would be unsurprising.
“I want a correction therefore contagion is inevitable”
Not how it works, friends…
On China, key questions 4 me:
- are non Chinese cos w/ significant ops in China as vulnerable to regs as Chinese cos have been so far?
- at what point do policymakers consider that recent domestic regulatory agenda may harm other priorities, e.g. financial market development?
- are recent regs diminishing china’s long term competitiveness? Let’s suppose noblest of intentions - to promote competition in oligopolistic industries. to enhance labor rights. To reduce edu costs + improve quality of life for students/families so that ppl have more babies. if
- if i were in the politburo , I would be discussing whether the way they’re going about things helps or actually hurts achieve these and other objectives .
Because markets are voting very clearly.
My cursory observation: I see minimal risk of direct contagion to USA. This seems more China shooting itself in the foot.
I just wonder if it’s ONLY shooting itself in the foot - which can be reversed - or if this is suicide.
Also, policy errors create opportunities for USA:
I am willing to bet a lot of $$$ there are more Chinese in China and SE Asia today than 6 months ago that would want to immigrate to the USA. And for all the right reasons.
If I were USA policymakers rather than loling at China shooting itself in the foot, learn from them: promote competition in oligopolistic industries. enhance labor rights. reduce edu costs + improve quality of life for students/families so that ppl have more babies.
But wisely.
My last question/observation - if/when Chinese equities bounce, it may be telling which stocks/sectors recover more/less, which don’t, etc.
“For a while, Hwang hedged the portfolio by shorting individual stocks. Some of those short positions, like Under Armour, performed exceptionally well. But others, particularly Tesla, did not.”
“So Hwang retreated from the individual shorts and emphasized broadly shorting the market.”
Told you so
The article quoted above independently corroborates most of what I wrote in my thread. And it too leaves us wondering what happened over the last 1-2 years (which is where I am curious):
The archegos coverage is improving but there’s a key question that remains unanswered:
How/why/when did a guy whose portfolio was concentrated FAANG for many years (and before FAANG was an acronym) - my guess is 2012-2019 -
pivot into levered long highly shorted stocks?
We did diligence on Archegos 6 years ago - which is why I find most of the archegos coverage/comments laughable. None of you ever talked about them until last Friday. Armchair “experts” (meaning, quacks) all over.
Do the math- if their starting AUM was few hundred million $s and was concentrated FAANG - and had insanely long holding periods, maybe in some cases doubling down or averaging up - you then get to your few billion.
Why do some of these people - for example, tech bros - write twitter threads or blog posts on why they’re moving to Florida/Miami?
It’s a free country - live/move wherever you please - but why make a public declaration? I have a few guesses
1. If they’re moving away from high tax jurisdictions like California they want to signal as loud as possible. should they get audited, they have additional “evidence”
2. They’re trying to encourage others - who are on the fence - to move there. “Network effects” etc etc