Chinese Economics Thread

[nugroho]

Here are two SCMP articles on China's economic reform problems, there are lots more on SCMP web site, and even more in sources like the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Economist.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you look for a company that recording a loss, I am 100% sure that it will happen all over the world.
Remember your title concern about Sinopec unit,
here you must broaden your search and maybe your knowledge in stock:

SINOPEC CORP (00386.HK) -0.090 (-1.431%)

Short selling $52.49M; Ratio 8.945%

announced the results for the year ended 2016. Operating revenue dropped 4.4% yearly to RMB1.93 trillion. Net profit grew 43.6% to RMB46.672 billion, with EPS of 38.5 fen. Final dividend was 17 fen.

In accordance with China Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises, operating revenue fell 4.4% to RMB1.93 trillion. Net profit added 43.8% to RMB46.416 billion, with EPS of 38.3 fen. For the fourth quarter, operating revenue totaled RMB566.966 billion. Net profit was RMB17.25 billion.
(Quote is delayed for at least 15 mins.Short Selling Data as at 2017-04-19 16:25.)



AAStocks Financial News
Web Site:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you still deny that Sinopec as a whole company get profit in 2016 than do a more profound research.

Just want to ask, why you only found the loss of Sinopec unit and not found the profit of Sinopec as a whole company??

 

[Blackstone]

Where is the evidence of his 'vested interests' are resisting and 'causing problems for reforms'? The problem with your view point is that you think there is a problem, therefore Xi is not doing what he promised to do.

Here you go-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You fanboi CPC haters always pretend that you are balance on your opinion about China but we all know you aren't so you can stop pretending.

You of all people should talk about fanbois? When it comes to the Communist Party of China, you typically "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," with so little balance, it's almost nil. That's why I call you a PRC fanboi. However, if you show a reasonable amount of balance going forward, then I'll reconsider with new facts.

 

[broadsword]

When it comes to the Communist Party of China, you typically "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," with so little balance, it's almost nil. That's why I call you a PRC fanboi.

Notwithstanding the current discussion in which you are, I must admit, rather on point, you should ask yourself this question first.

 

[Blackstone]

If you look for a company that recording a loss, I am 100% sure that it will happen all over the world.
Remember your title concern about Sinopec unit,
here you must broaden your search and maybe your knowledge in stock:

SINOPEC CORP (00386.HK) -0.090 (-1.431%)

Short selling $52.49M; Ratio 8.945%

announced the results for the year ended 2016. Operating revenue dropped 4.4% yearly to RMB1.93 trillion. Net profit grew 43.6% to RMB46.672 billion, with EPS of 38.5 fen. Final dividend was 17 fen.

In accordance with China Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises, operating revenue fell 4.4% to RMB1.93 trillion. Net profit added 43.8% to RMB46.416 billion, with EPS of 38.3 fen. For the fourth quarter, operating revenue totaled RMB566.966 billion. Net profit was RMB17.25 billion.
(Quote is delayed for at least 15 mins.Short Selling Data as at 2017-04-19 16:25.)



AAStocks Financial News
Web Site:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you still deny that Sinopec as a whole company get profit in 2016 than do a more profound research.

Just want to ask, why you only found the loss of Sinopec unit and not found the profit of Sinopec as a whole company??

It's not simply about Sinopec, but the economic reforms overall. If Sinopec is an outlier, then I'd say Xi's reforms are doing well. However, CCP leaders readily admit "vested interests" (their words, not my) are resisting reforms, and things aren't going smoothly. It doesn't mean PRC's reform efforts have failed, not by a long shot, but it does mean there are roadblocks from powerful sources the reformers must overcome. That shouldn't be a controversial statement, since plenty of evidence support it, but some SDF posters can't stand anything negative said about the PRC, be they true or not. Those people are "fanbois."

Xi has staked his presidency on fighting corruption, enacting economic and security reforms, and instituting the Belt and Road Initiative, all packaged as "China Dream." It's incredibly ambitions, and if Xi and the CCP leaders reach their main objectives, then they'll transform China and change the world while doing it. The bad news is vested interests are fighting hard to resist reforms, but the good news is the world's most competent government is pushing for the reforms. My take is, on balance, they'll succeed, but it's an extremely tough road to hoe.

 

[Blackstone]

Notwithstanding the current discussion in which you are, I must admit, rather on point, you should ask yourself this question first.

Okay, I'll take your suggestion and ask myself the question;

1. Questuon: am I a China fanboi?
2. *Thinks about the totality of my posts on the PRC*
3. Answer: no

 

[broadsword]

Okay, I'll take your suggestion and ask myself the question;

1. Questuon: am I a China fanboi?
2. *Thinks about the totality of my posts on the PRC*
3. Answer: no

Not that.

Ask yourself when you posed this statement,

When it comes to the Communist Party of China, you typically "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," with so little balance, it's almost nil.

Have you been balanced, at least prior to current discussion?

 

[Blackstone]

Not that.

Ask yourself when you posed this statement,


Have you been balanced, at least prior to current discussion?

It's possible to cherry pick specific posts or even threads and get whatever answer one wishes. It's therefore important to filter out direct responses that go back and forth many times. Given those caveats, I believe reasonable people looking at the totality of my posts would agree, on balance, I'm more balanced than not. Meaning if the facts show PRC good, then I generally go with it and vice versa. Things aren't always black and white to be sure, and I appreciate shades of grey. Finally, I agree I make mistakes, and I'm willing to reconsider my opinions based on new facts.

 

[broadsword]

It's possible to cherry pick specific posts or even threads and get whatever answer one wishes. It's therefore important to filter out direct responses that go back and forth many times. Given those caveats, I believe reasonable people looking at the totality of my posts would agree, on balance, I'm more balanced than not.

On the matter of China's economy and trade, I agree. Other than that, your trend and pattern define you as someone with an axe to grind. The back and forth between you and the others, including me, should have already given you a hint.

 

[Blackstone]

On the matter of China's economy and trade, I agree. Other than that, your trend and pattern define you as someone with an axe to grind. The back and forth between you and the others, including me, should have already given you a hint.

You'll have to be more specific, because I say both positive and negative things about the CCP and other PRC-related subjects. Keep in mind if people are arguing back and forth, the entire discussion could look like long series of arguments with little balance. But, the thread originated in one specific instance, and that's how it should be evaluated.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

What of it? WTO rules allow national security-based protectionism.

Then China should form their own cfius(the office that screen foreign investment) and denied foreign acquisition of chinese company on the ground of security fair enough