China is challenging place, base on the following SEC statement you should carefully review your Chinese/emerging markets investments.
In many emerging markets, including China, there is substantially greater risk that disclosures will be incomplete or misleading and, in the event of investor harm, substantially less access to recourse, in comparison to U.S. domestic companies. This significant asymmetry holds true even though disclosures, price quotes and other investor-oriented information often are presented in substantially the same form as for U.S. domestic companies.
The PCAOB’s Inability to Inspect Audit Work Papers in China Continues. Investors and financial professionals should consider the potential risks related to the PCAOB’s lack of access to inspect PCAOB-registered accounting firms in China. Issuers should clearly disclose the resulting material risks. Auditors should have appropriate quality controls in place related to executing quality audits.
The Ability of U.S. Authorities to Bring Actions in Emerging Markets May Be Limited. Accountability, for issuers and gatekeepers, including individual accountability, is a key aspect of U.S. securities law. The SEC, U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and other authorities often have substantial difficulties in bringing and enforcing actions against non-U.S. companies and non-U.S. persons, including company directors and officers, in certain emerging markets, including China. Issuers should clearly disclose the related material risks.
Shareholders Have Limited Rights and Few Practical Remedies in Emerging Markets. Shareholder claims that are common in the United States, including class action securities law and fraud claims, generally are difficult or impossible to pursue as a matter of law or practicality in many emerging markets. Issuers should clearly disclose any material limitations on shareholder rights.
It is important that investors, funds, financial professionals and index providers consider carefully the issues, risks and uncertainties associated with investing in emerging markets, including China, the world’s largest emerging market and second largest economy.
According to the SEC’S Commissioner Hester M. Peirce some people call her “CryptoMom”, and they may be right.
The below is just few highlights from her full speech.
Despite interest from sponsors and investors, the Commission has yet to entertain an exemptive application for an ETF or approve an exchange rule allowing for the operation of crypto ETFs or other ETPs. The Commission has expressed a number of concerns from market manipulation to custody to retail investor protection. We need to do a better job of fostering open dialogue about the first two topics. On the third issue—retail investor protection—the reality is that retail investors will get access to these products, even if we do not allow them to do so through SEC regulated products and venues. Again, it is not the Commission’s role to be the arbiter of what constitutes an appropriate investment or to act as an investment adviser.
In disapproving a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust, the Commission focused on the underlying characteristics of bitcoin and the spot markets in which it trades. Instead of focusing on the merits of bitcoin as an investment, the Commission should have considered how the exchange-traded wrapper would work and how increased participation by institutional investors in the bitcoin market could have led to bolstered defenses against theft, greater investment in custody solutions, and lower likelihood of market manipulation.
All that said, it is important to remember that, if the SEC were to permit a Cryptocurrency ETP to trade in our markets, it would not be a seal of approval. In other words, investors would still have to do their own homework, study the product disclosures, assess their own appetites for risk, determine how much of a loss they could stomach, and—if those losses materialize—learn from them and refrain from coming to the SEC asking to be made whole.
Well, the above may or clearly justified the nickname “CryptoMom”.
Only time will tell if Cryptocurrencies is a bubble or not, until then we may need to give it the benefits other assets are enjoying.
Time and Google/Facebook good faith will tell if our digital platforms are Rockefeller/Carnegie alike.
According to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission report, there are issues to address and problems to be solved. Google/Facebook may need to read the report carefully, in order to protect their good business.
Google and Facebook are doing good service to all of us, but questions should be asked, and concerns should be resolved, since there is no perfection in life.
We are the guardians of our privacy, and it is up to us to determine how it will be used.
The data from the report can assist all of us in the future, for example:
- The activities most commonly reported by digital platforms users as being undertaken on a daily basis were looking for or reading online news (48%), streaming content (39%), watching or listening to news (31%) or creating and sharing content (31%).
- People who access news via digital platforms are also likely to access news in other ways.
- A little under three-quarters (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that for some digital platforms, a requirement of usage was allowing the platform to use any content uploaded or shared. There were differences in views of how Digital Platforms may use their information. In particular, less than half of digital platforms users agreed that:
Mobile and tablet apps would only ask permission to access things on a user’s devices that were required for the app to work (43% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement).
It seems that we will judge if the technology provided is good or bad. Even the best ice-cream shop has complaints, and when it comes to digital platforms there are many interests involve. Therefore, this case is tricky, and maybe that’s why decentralize and non-censorship system/s will gather more attraction in the future.