• Ernie Diaz

Sorry State

Getting a financial firm to give you your money back can be difficult, even when they’re contractually obligated to do so. Thus, Vanguard’s recent return of almost $27 billion, voluntarily, to China state institutions, speaks volumes about the pitfalls of working with government-backed clients.

Whether local Vanguard employees’ patience or livers gave out first, we’ll never know. What is clear is their stated rationale of going after China’s retail investors, citing the move as more profitable. Curious, considering Vanguard’s chief retail offering of micro-fee index investing.

“Vanguard’s opinion underlines our position on China’s investment industry,” says Jimmie Jeremejev, “in that it is vastly underserved. Only 3% penetration, by our partner Raffles’ reckoning.”

More prescience points to Vanguard in betting that China’s main street investors are ready for products which have been extant in the West for years, but denied them thus far. “The same people who believe it’s too early for Chinese index investing are the same people who thought China wasn’t ready for coffee, wine, and the NBA twenty years ago,” Jeremejev jests.

3 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Too Big to Bail

We'd like to bear witness against the notion that Chinese giants are simply propped up by their government when they stumble. Sure, China's central bank and regulatory bodies shut Anbang down a few ye

Schools & Regulations

First they came for the tech companies, and we did not speak, for cybersecurity and monopolies are a thing. Next they came for the listed education companies, and we did not speak, for anyone in China

Free Money

It's just the same as with your therapist: the more you open up, the harder it is to stop. Opening up the economy led to 9%= GDP growth for decades, a golden era of prosperity. Anyone grateful? Nope.