Omicron Brings Another Round of Pointless Travel Restrictions


kyodowc304135

We’re long past the point in the COVID-19 pandemic when politicians are doing much more in response to viral scares than engage in rituals to soothe a fearful public and enhance their own power. With the new omicron variant spreading across the world, travel restrictions seem to be the response of choice because they’re politically popular. Never mind that closing borders is ineffective at anything other than further burdening already hobbled families and economies. The actual danger posed by omicron remains uncertain, but the policy response is as pointless as it was preordained.

South Africa’s Health Ministry announced the discovery of the at-the-time-unnamed B.1.1.529 variant of COVID-19 on November 25. What that means is still unclear and probably will remain so until more cases are found and studied. “There is preliminary evidence suggesting that Omicron may have potential immune escape and/or possibly higher transmissibility,” according to the World Health Organization, while some South African doctors report “very mild symptoms” including fatigue and body aches among their mostly young patients. Nevertheless, given the dearth of information, people did what they do best: They lost their shit.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) promptly declared a state of emergency granting her extraordinary power. More worryingly, a world already suffering severe disruptions started closing its borders in irrational ways. Following in the footsteps of the United Kingdom, the U.S. banned travelers from South Africa and seven neighboring countries, even though omicron was already in the Netherlands and elsewhere well before the variant was revealed to the world. In fact, the new variant was well-established in the countries announcing travel restrictions, including the U.S.

“The new case demonstrates that there is at least some local transmission of the Omicron variant and that it had arrived in the U.S. before the Biden administration imposed travel restrictions on Botswana and South Africa — where early cases of the variant were detected — and six neighboring countries,” Stat reported of a case found in Minnesota.

Official reaction seemed crafted more to further separate families and impoverish an already troubled world than to address a bug that was already loose. Health experts make exactly that point.

“Travel restrictions may play a role in slightly reducing the spread of COVID-19 but place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods,” the World Health Organization’s Africa office warned as travel bans proliferated. “If restrictions are implemented, they should not be unnecessarily invasive or intrusive, and should be scientifically based.”

The warning that restrictions on movement carry their own costs and aren’t particularly effective isn’t new; health experts said the same thing years before COVID-19 appeared when they considered ways of slowing the spread of new varieties of flu.

“The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread,” according to a 2014 article in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. “Only extensive travel restrictions – i.e. over 90% – had any meaningful effect on reducing the magnitude of epidemics. In isolation, travel restrictions might delay the spread and peak of pandemics by a few weeks or months but we found no evidence that they would contain influenza within a defined geographical area.”

Of course, omicron has already spread to dozens of countries. Travel restrictions at this point aren’t going to delay anything except the already-interrupted flow of goods and people needed to keep the world functioning. So, what’s the point of closing borders when it’s too late to keep the bug out? The real effect of otherwise pointless measures is to accumulate power to politicians who covet just that, and to appease a public that demands somebody do something about a virus that shows every sign of becoming a permanent part of life.

Earlier this week, 78 percent of respondents to a Morning Consult poll favored imposing travel restrictions on countries where omicron has been found. “60 percent of adults said they think travel restrictions on countries with confirmed cases of new variants will help stop the spread of the virus in the United States,” the pollsters added. 

Stopping the spread of the virus in the U.S. with restrictions on travel from elsewhere would be quite a feat given that omicron is already here. But public officials gain office by winning elections, not assessments of logical reasoning. So, we get not just bans on travel from a subset of countries where omicron was detected early, but new testing requirements on anybody else who might want to visit from overseas. We’ll also get the consequences of new curbs on trade and travel.

“The current round of restrictions has already reduced travel and dampened consumer confidence,” Patricia Cohen noted in The New York Times. “Omicron’s threat to the recovery is just the latest in a series of zigzags that the world economy has endured since the coronavirus began its march across continents last year,” she added.

“We are not yet in stagflation,” commented Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist with Natixis SA, a French financial firm. “But one more year without cross-border mobility and related supply chain disruptions might push us there.” 

So, what do we do about the latest, but almost certainly not the last, COVID-19 variant in a world that’s grown weary of waiting for a return to normality that may never come? After all, recent months have seen protests flare up in Europe and elsewhere against lockdowns, mask orders, vaccine mandates, and the like. There’s nothing about omicron that suggests people will be any happier with an extension of curbs on their lives.

“Modifying and improving vaccines to deal with emerging variants will be a perpetual challenge, but one that essentially mirrors our yearly battle with the flu,” argues Annabel Denham of Britain’s Institute of Economic Affairs. “At some point we’ll have to stop battering our economy and accept that this is, quite possibly, as good as it gets.” 

“As good as it gets” may be a hard sell to fearful members of the public and politicians grown accustomed to stretching their power. But learning to live with an ever-morphing virus must be better than continuous, impoverishing disruptions without obvious benefit.

The post Omicron Brings Another Round of Pointless Travel Restrictions appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3DlHHMu
via IFTTT

Omicron Brings Another Round of Pointless Travel Restrictions


kyodowc304135

We’re long past the point in the COVID-19 pandemic when politicians are doing much more in response to viral scares than engage in rituals to soothe a fearful public and enhance their own power. With the new omicron variant spreading across the world, travel restrictions seem to be the response of choice because they’re politically popular. Never mind that closing borders is ineffective at anything other than further burdening already hobbled families and economies. The actual danger posed by omicron remains uncertain, but the policy response is as pointless as it was preordained.

South Africa’s Health Ministry announced the discovery of the at-the-time-unnamed B.1.1.529 variant of COVID-19 on November 25. What that means is still unclear and probably will remain so until more cases are found and studied. “There is preliminary evidence suggesting that Omicron may have potential immune escape and/or possibly higher transmissibility,” according to the World Health Organization, while some South African doctors report “very mild symptoms” including fatigue and body aches among their mostly young patients. Nevertheless, given the dearth of information, people did what they do best: They lost their shit.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) promptly declared a state of emergency granting her extraordinary power. More worryingly, a world already suffering severe disruptions started closing its borders in irrational ways. Following in the footsteps of the United Kingdom, the U.S. banned travelers from South Africa and seven neighboring countries, even though omicron was already in the Netherlands and elsewhere well before the variant was revealed to the world. In fact, the new variant was well-established in the countries announcing travel restrictions, including the U.S.

“The new case demonstrates that there is at least some local transmission of the Omicron variant and that it had arrived in the U.S. before the Biden administration imposed travel restrictions on Botswana and South Africa — where early cases of the variant were detected — and six neighboring countries,” Stat reported of a case found in Minnesota.

Official reaction seemed crafted more to further separate families and impoverish an already troubled world than to address a bug that was already loose. Health experts make exactly that point.

“Travel restrictions may play a role in slightly reducing the spread of COVID-19 but place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods,” the World Health Organization’s Africa office warned as travel bans proliferated. “If restrictions are implemented, they should not be unnecessarily invasive or intrusive, and should be scientifically based.”

The warning that restrictions on movement carry their own costs and aren’t particularly effective isn’t new; health experts said the same thing years before COVID-19 appeared when they considered ways of slowing the spread of new varieties of flu.

“The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread,” according to a 2014 article in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. “Only extensive travel restrictions – i.e. over 90% – had any meaningful effect on reducing the magnitude of epidemics. In isolation, travel restrictions might delay the spread and peak of pandemics by a few weeks or months but we found no evidence that they would contain influenza within a defined geographical area.”

Of course, omicron has already spread to dozens of countries. Travel restrictions at this point aren’t going to delay anything except the already-interrupted flow of goods and people needed to keep the world functioning. So, what’s the point of closing borders when it’s too late to keep the bug out? The real effect of otherwise pointless measures is to accumulate power to politicians who covet just that, and to appease a public that demands somebody do something about a virus that shows every sign of becoming a permanent part of life.

Earlier this week, 78 percent of respondents to a Morning Consult poll favored imposing travel restrictions on countries where omicron has been found. “60 percent of adults said they think travel restrictions on countries with confirmed cases of new variants will help stop the spread of the virus in the United States,” the pollsters added. 

Stopping the spread of the virus in the U.S. with restrictions on travel from elsewhere would be quite a feat given that omicron is already here. But public officials gain office by winning elections, not assessments of logical reasoning. So, we get not just bans on travel from a subset of countries where omicron was detected early, but new testing requirements on anybody else who might want to visit from overseas. We’ll also get the consequences of new curbs on trade and travel.

“The current round of restrictions has already reduced travel and dampened consumer confidence,” Patricia Cohen noted in The New York Times. “Omicron’s threat to the recovery is just the latest in a series of zigzags that the world economy has endured since the coronavirus began its march across continents last year,” she added.

“We are not yet in stagflation,” commented Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist with Natixis SA, a French financial firm. “But one more year without cross-border mobility and related supply chain disruptions might push us there.” 

So, what do we do about the latest, but almost certainly not the last, COVID-19 variant in a world that’s grown weary of waiting for a return to normality that may never come? After all, recent months have seen protests flare up in Europe and elsewhere against lockdowns, mask orders, vaccine mandates, and the like. There’s nothing about omicron that suggests people will be any happier with an extension of curbs on their lives.

“Modifying and improving vaccines to deal with emerging variants will be a perpetual challenge, but one that essentially mirrors our yearly battle with the flu,” argues Annabel Denham of Britain’s Institute of Economic Affairs. “At some point we’ll have to stop battering our economy and accept that this is, quite possibly, as good as it gets.” 

“As good as it gets” may be a hard sell to fearful members of the public and politicians grown accustomed to stretching their power. But learning to live with an ever-morphing virus must be better than continuous, impoverishing disruptions without obvious benefit.

The post Omicron Brings Another Round of Pointless Travel Restrictions appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3DlHHMu
via IFTTT

How COVID-19 Changed Alcohol Forever


dpaphotosfour788588

Since March 2020, Americans have had to embrace a seemingly endless number of unexpected changes to everyday life thanks to the pandemic. While in-person concerts and sporting events are back for the most part, more Zoom meetings and telehealth appointments seem like sure bets to stick around. Other surprising pandemic trends are also proving durable—namely, to-go and delivery alcohol went from a legal sideshow to one of the largest policy tidal waves in modern times.

New research demonstrates just how many states implemented delivery and to-go alcohol changes during COVID-19. All told, 32 out of 50 states (nearly 65 percent) have applied one or more changes to their to-go and delivery alcohol rules since the pandemic started.

To break it down further, 29 out of 50 states have extended or made permanent the ability of restaurants and bars to either sell to-go cocktails or to deliver those cocktails. Twenty of these states permanently enshrined to-go cocktails, while the rest extended to-go drinks at least through 2023. (This research did not count temporary emergency orders that will expire once the pandemic subsides.)

The COVID-19 alcohol reform wave is not just limited to to-go margaritas, either. During the pandemic, 10 states greenlighted the ability of groceries or liquor stores to deliver alcohol to our doors. That brings the total number of states allowing some form of store-to-consumer alcohol delivery to over 40.

Alcohol producers were also not left out of the reform party. While most states allowed wine to be shipped to consumers even before the pandemic, only a small handful of states permitted beer and distilled spirits to be locally delivered or shipped long distance. But during COVID-19, 13 states expanded the ability of breweries and distilleries to deliver everything from growlers to fifths of bourbon right to our doorsteps.

In an age when pretty much every single consumer product imaginable is part of the online, mail-order economy, alcohol remained largely on the sideline until COVID-19 came along. Even so, there are still limits when it comes to alcohol: It remains very difficult to ship alcohol across state lines, which shows that we are still a long way off from a truly national alcohol market.

There are strong policy justifications for expanding to-go and delivery of alcohol beyond the pandemic. Craft alcohol producers are some of the strongest proponents of expanding delivery options since doing so gives them direct market access to their consumer base—something that businesses in most other industries take for granted. Similarly, most restaurants and bars are independently owned entities that operate on notoriously thin profit margins, meaning that the ability to expand alcohol sales can be a vitally needed economic lifeline.

Consumers are also strongly in favor of more alcohol delivery. According to data from the Distilled Spirits Council, 80 percent of Americans want to be able to order distilled spirits directly from their favorite distillery and have it delivered to their doors. Consumer surveys on making to-go cocktails permanent also show overwhelming support.

To the extent some have expressed concerns over this unprecedented expansion of to-go and delivery alcohol, most of the arguments emphasize the intoxicating character of alcohol. This overlooks the fact that far more dangerous substances—such as pharmaceuticals, ammunition, and pesticides—have been part of the delivery economy for decades with little issue.

Other opponents have pointed to the potential for more underage drinking in a world where alcohol can be delivered or included in a takeout order. Once again, this misses the mark as state governments have made clear that the same robust ID-ing protocols that apply for alcohol sales at a store or restaurant also apply to takeout or delivery alcohol.

In the end, it is clear that to-go and delivery alcohol is here to stay. Over the last 18 months, America has witnessed one of the most immense and fast-moving policy tidal waves in modern history. And so far, there are few signs of it slowing down.

The post How COVID-19 Changed Alcohol Forever appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dg3Ilb
via IFTTT

How COVID-19 Changed Alcohol Forever


dpaphotosfour788588

Since March 2020, Americans have had to embrace a seemingly endless number of unexpected changes to everyday life thanks to the pandemic. While in-person concerts and sporting events are back for the most part, more Zoom meetings and telehealth appointments seem like sure bets to stick around. Other surprising pandemic trends are also proving durable—namely, to-go and delivery alcohol went from a legal sideshow to one of the largest policy tidal waves in modern times.

New research demonstrates just how many states implemented delivery and to-go alcohol changes during COVID-19. All told, 32 out of 50 states (nearly 65 percent) have applied one or more changes to their to-go and delivery alcohol rules since the pandemic started.

To break it down further, 29 out of 50 states have extended or made permanent the ability of restaurants and bars to either sell to-go cocktails or to deliver those cocktails. Twenty of these states permanently enshrined to-go cocktails, while the rest extended to-go drinks at least through 2023. (This research did not count temporary emergency orders that will expire once the pandemic subsides.)

The COVID-19 alcohol reform wave is not just limited to to-go margaritas, either. During the pandemic, 10 states greenlighted the ability of groceries or liquor stores to deliver alcohol to our doors. That brings the total number of states allowing some form of store-to-consumer alcohol delivery to over 40.

Alcohol producers were also not left out of the reform party. While most states allowed wine to be shipped to consumers even before the pandemic, only a small handful of states permitted beer and distilled spirits to be locally delivered or shipped long distance. But during COVID-19, 13 states expanded the ability of breweries and distilleries to deliver everything from growlers to fifths of bourbon right to our doorsteps.

In an age when pretty much every single consumer product imaginable is part of the online, mail-order economy, alcohol remained largely on the sideline until COVID-19 came along. Even so, there are still limits when it comes to alcohol: It remains very difficult to ship alcohol across state lines, which shows that we are still a long way off from a truly national alcohol market.

There are strong policy justifications for expanding to-go and delivery of alcohol beyond the pandemic. Craft alcohol producers are some of the strongest proponents of expanding delivery options since doing so gives them direct market access to their consumer base—something that businesses in most other industries take for granted. Similarly, most restaurants and bars are independently owned entities that operate on notoriously thin profit margins, meaning that the ability to expand alcohol sales can be a vitally needed economic lifeline.

Consumers are also strongly in favor of more alcohol delivery. According to data from the Distilled Spirits Council, 80 percent of Americans want to be able to order distilled spirits directly from their favorite distillery and have it delivered to their doors. Consumer surveys on making to-go cocktails permanent also show overwhelming support.

To the extent some have expressed concerns over this unprecedented expansion of to-go and delivery alcohol, most of the arguments emphasize the intoxicating character of alcohol. This overlooks the fact that far more dangerous substances—such as pharmaceuticals, ammunition, and pesticides—have been part of the delivery economy for decades with little issue.

Other opponents have pointed to the potential for more underage drinking in a world where alcohol can be delivered or included in a takeout order. Once again, this misses the mark as state governments have made clear that the same robust ID-ing protocols that apply for alcohol sales at a store or restaurant also apply to takeout or delivery alcohol.

In the end, it is clear that to-go and delivery alcohol is here to stay. Over the last 18 months, America has witnessed one of the most immense and fast-moving policy tidal waves in modern history. And so far, there are few signs of it slowing down.

The post How COVID-19 Changed Alcohol Forever appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dg3Ilb
via IFTTT

The Training Wheels Are Off

The Training Wheels Are Off

Authored by Peter Tchir via Academy Securities,

The child’s thrill of being free to ride, almost feeling as if you could fly! The parent’s trepidation of letting the bike go for the first time. Sometimes that first ride goes without a hitch. It often ends up with some scrapes and bruises, but ultimately ends in success.

I think we are at that moment where the parent is running alongside the bike, just about ready to let go for the first time.

I am currently modestly bearish the overall market, though bullish on re-opening type trades, and bearish on some of the biggest winners. On credit, I’m cautious and resisting the urge to hit the “buy buy buy” button, but think that time will be soon. I’d really like to load up on European and emerging market risk, but I’ve locked that “buy” button away for now. This follows up Sunday’s ΔΓΟ (Delta, Gamma, Omicron) report. It also fits nicely with yesterday’s Bloomberg TV where we hit on many of these subjects.

What Training Wheels are Being Removed?

I think there are a few key elements that the markets must digest. Some have already started to get priced in, some have been discussed, but not reacted to, and some I think are being ignored at our own peril.

  • Less Supportive Central Bank Policy. This is starting to sink in. Powell finally got rid of the word transitory. Markets are trying to figure out if a policy mistake is coming (curve flattening). There is also some discussion about just how serious Powell is. The Bank of England after all, had the market all set for a hike and then flaked at the last second. So, it is reasonable to believe that Powell may be talking tough, but won’t act tough. I expect a much faster pace of tapering to be announced at December, while he tries to downplay the need to hike, or how far and fast they will have to hike. In any case, I think the market must absorb a bit more volatility, especially in the stocks that seem to have been most dependent on TINA (there is no alternative).

  • Inflation has become a political hot potato. If you think Powell’s job was already difficult (which it is) add in the fact that politicians are now weighing in on inflation. Some of their takes strike me as completely absurd, but inflation and interest rates have moved out of the wonky world of Wall Street into the soundbite world of D.C.  I think this is such an important distinction that I have treated it as a separate bullet point, rather than lumping it into the less supportive central bank bullet.

  • Consumption was brought forward. The T-Report has been speculating about the idea that consumers, not being stupid, responded to supply shortages, by loading up on goods early, for well over a month, but now we are seeing signs that the speculation may be accurate. Black Friday sales were down (even with higher prices). Ditto for Cyber Monday (btw, the number of “you still have time to get XX% off” e-mails that are flooding my inbox, isn’t comforting). Finally, yesterday, Apple told suppliers iPhone demand is slowing ahead of the holidays. I don’t think any risk of consumer slowdown is being priced in, largely because it is a highly speculative argument I’ve made, but as anecdotal evidence starts getting supported by hard evidence, this could become a market moving issue relatively quickly. Maybe we see a shift from spending on goods to services, but that assumes that consumers aren’t tapped out, and that covid won’t interfere with the service oriented sector (a risk that seems to be increasing with the omicron variant).

  • The Re-Centralization of China. The August 1st T-Report discusses the basic premise that China is delinking from the global economy, and reasserting the authority of the Communist Party. Nothing has changed since then, and China continues to plow ahead in the process. The biggest takeaways are that China will no longer act as a deflationary influence and that businesses and the global economy need to adjust to this new reality. KWEB, a China Internet ETF is down 42% YTD, but its 3 year annual return is just over 1% (that seems shockingly low). FXI, a broad based China ETF is “only” down 18% on the year but has annualized losses of 1% of the past 3 years. Normally, as a contrarian, I’d be chomping at the bit to buy these, but I won’t touch them as I think it is reflective of an ongoing trend that will not reverse quickly. It might also be worth mention that Lehman was NOT a Moment, and the Evergrande/real estate story in China is far from being resolved.

Bottom Line

I think we can remain cautious on risk, continuing to shift into companies and industries that will benefit from a focus on domestic supply chains (production repatriation) while being cautious on those stocks that most benefitted from the environment that seems to be ending to me.

The bright side, is I do see an economy and market that will be really exciting to be a part of, and that we might even skip the scrapes and bruises, though I suspect we won’t learn to ride without training wheels without a little more difficulty.

While I did mention covid once in this report, I want to re-emphasize that my concerns right now are NOT tied to covid at all (I suspect we will adjust to the new variant and governments across the globe will not muck things up with unnecessary and/or impractical rules).

In any case, December might be more interesting than usual!

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/03/2021 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3DwMieZ Tyler Durden

Beautiful World, Where Are You


minisBeautifulWorld,WhereAreYou_Farrar,-Straus-and-Giroux

Sally Rooney’s new novel, Beautiful World, Where Are You, is a follow-up to her internationally bestselling Normal People and Conversations With Friends. All three books mix moderately annoying Marxism with moderately depressing sex and produce results much better than you’d expect from those ingredients. This is thanks in part to Rooney’s accomplished prose, which is as translucent as the skin of a Dublin gal who has been good about applying sunscreen.

The semi-auto-fictional protagonists’ muddled yet deeply held views on politics, religion, and relationships sat better on the 20-somethings of Rooney’s previous works than they do on the 30-somethings of Beautiful World. And Rooney’s own politics have caused some real-life drama around a Hebrew translation of the novel. But as politics becomes an increasingly totalizing and consuming force, the book itself generously opens up space for the idea that there’s more to being human than mere ideology.

The post Beautiful World, Where Are You appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lxaB6a
via IFTTT

Beautiful World, Where Are You


minisBeautifulWorld,WhereAreYou_Farrar,-Straus-and-Giroux

Sally Rooney’s new novel, Beautiful World, Where Are You, is a follow-up to her internationally bestselling Normal People and Conversations With Friends. All three books mix moderately annoying Marxism with moderately depressing sex and produce results much better than you’d expect from those ingredients. This is thanks in part to Rooney’s accomplished prose, which is as translucent as the skin of a Dublin gal who has been good about applying sunscreen.

The semi-auto-fictional protagonists’ muddled yet deeply held views on politics, religion, and relationships sat better on the 20-somethings of Rooney’s previous works than they do on the 30-somethings of Beautiful World. And Rooney’s own politics have caused some real-life drama around a Hebrew translation of the novel. But as politics becomes an increasingly totalizing and consuming force, the book itself generously opens up space for the idea that there’s more to being human than mere ideology.

The post Beautiful World, Where Are You appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lxaB6a
via IFTTT

SEC Moves Closer To Delisting Chinese Companies

SEC Moves Closer To Delisting Chinese Companies

Just yesterday, Beijing denied reports that it plans to block domestic Chinese firms from listing abroad (particularly in the US). Now, little more than a day later, the SEC is sharing its final plan for forcing Chinese firms to de-list from American exchanges should they refuse to open their books and abide by stringent American auditing standards.

The SEC has been plotting this for years now, inspired by the collapse of Luckin Coffee and a handful of other Chinese firms, which greatly irritated US regulators while triggering a mild populist backlash among investors. But Beijing hasn’t allowed a single domestic firm to list in the US since Didi’s ill-fated summer IPO, which preceded Beijing’s decision to punish the company by barring its apps from domestic app stores (although millions of Chinese users continue to use Didi). In response to criticisms that the CCP has actively worked to cover up corporate malfeasance by foreign-listed Chinese firms, the Party has insisted that Chinese firms would risk giving up trade secrets should they submit to American demands for better auditing.

It’s pretty clear that Beijing won’t allow any privately owned Chinese firms (all of which, remember, are still effectively controlled by the state) to provide the Americans with the insight they’re demanding.

For those who don’t remember, Luckin Coffee shares crashed to $0 in early 2020 after it was revealed that the ‘Starbucks of China’ fabricated $300MM in sales.

As we mentioned above, the SEC is planning to adopt a new rule mandating that foreign companies – mostly Chinese firms – open their books to US scrutiny, or risk being kicked off the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq within three years.

China and Hong Kong are the only two jurisdictions that refuse to allow these inspections, which have been required by Washington since 2002.

For nearly 2 decades, the US has tolerated the hold outs because Wall Street sees China as the biggest untapped market for American firms. But now, the leaders of the world’s two largest economies are butting heads. While much of the recent tension has focused on the shell companies that Chinese firms use to list in the US – entities known as VIEs, or variable interest entities, Thursday’s regulation dates back decades.

According to US rules, the firms must submit to audits by approved American auditors (ie the Big Four and a handful of other competitors), and then allow the audits to be reviewed by the PCAOB.

“If you want to issue public securities in the U.S., the firms that audit your books have to be subject to inspection by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler said in a statement. “While more than 50 jurisdictions have worked with the PCAOB to allow the required inspections, two historically have not: China and Hong Kong.”

During December 2020, Congress mandated that Chinese companies finally open their books and required the SEC to write rules for the companies that don’t comply.

Once it takes full effect, the rule will clear the way for some 200 Chinese firms to be booted from the top US exchanges.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/03/2021 – 05:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ofiNK1 Tyler Durden