from the At-least-the-TLA-wouldn't-have-changed dept.
US rejects China-led bid for Chicago Stock Exchange
The US has rejected a proposed merger between the Chicago Stock Exchange and a Chinese-linked investor group. The decision comes after more than two years of reviews by officials.
The tie-up was initially approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, pending further approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But US politicians, including President Trump, have said letting a Chinese firm invest in a US exchange was a bad idea.
Under the proposal, the Chinese-led North America Casin Holdings group would have bought CHX Holdings, which owns the Chicago Stock Exchange. The exchange, which handles just 0.5% of US stock trades, had said the deal would have provided the exchange with "vital capital". That funding would have been used "to boost numerous initiatives designed to benefit the city of Chicago, the US economy and market structure as a whole".
Also at Bloomberg, NYT, Reuters, and CNN.
Related Stories
Broadcom's quest to acquire Qualcomm has come to a screeching halt:
President Trump on Monday blocked Broadcom's $117 billion bid for the chip maker Qualcomm, citing national security concerns and sending a clear signal that he was willing to take extraordinary measures to punctuate his administration's increasingly protectionist stance. In a presidential order, Mr. Trump said there was "credible evidence" that led him to believe that if Singapore-based Broadcom were to acquire control of Qualcomm, which is based in San Diego, it "might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States."
[...] The move follows one by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which typically works behind closed doors and reviews deals only after they are announced, earlier this month to stall Broadcom's bid because of national security concerns. [...] The president said his decision had been based on the review by the committee, which focused on how Broadcom's purchase of Qualcomm might affect next-generation high-speed mobile networks known as 5G. The panel said that the leadership of Qualcomm, which makes wireless chips and also licenses key wireless patents, was too important to put into hands of a company with links to China. The committee argued that economic leadership in 5G was also a national security interest.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has just put a lot of companies on notice.
Previously: Broadcom's Hostile Takeover Attempt of Qualcomm Delayed by U.S. Government Panel
Broadcom Pleads its Qualcomm Case to Congress
Related: President Trump Blocks Acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor
U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei
U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying
U.S. Rejects Chinese Takeover of the Chicago Stock Exchange
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:54PM (1 child)
Some decades ago I worked for a financial services company in telecommunications dept, this was a "big famous name", with something like quadruple redundant links to the NYSE, I don't remember CHX at all. None the less, here's a list:
http://www.chx.com/listing-program/listed-securities/ [chx.com]
(Score: 1) by Provocateur on Saturday February 17 2018, @08:01PM
Not Who, sir. Hu. There is no way he is related to the time-traveling doctor.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Saturday February 17 2018, @04:44PM (2 children)
Just add a strategically placed o to the Chinese holding companies name and you've accurately summed up the stock exchange.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:36PM
That's another beauty. Another industry with far too many BURDENSOME REGULATIONS. In the good times you barely scrape by. When the bad times come, you're bleeding very badly. I got into it at a very bad time, I had to do bankruptcy. My businesses in that area went bankrupt. But I did tremendously well personally. It fueled a lot of growth for me. The money I took out of there was incredible. Let me tell you, I should have perhaps become an Indian myself. Like Pocahontas, I call her Pocahontas. I think I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up the reservations. They don't look like Indians to me and they don't look like Indians to Indians. DISGRACEFUL!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @07:18PM
From their timeline, http://www.chx.com/chx/history/ [chx.com] the exchange is over 130 years old. Chinese investment seems like a "logical" next step in cashing out:
> February 8, 2005 -- SEC approves ownership structure change of the CHX from a not-for-profit, member owned company to a for-profit stockholder owned corporation.
Next, the foxes started guarding the hen house,
> July 31, 2006 -- The Exchange announces regulatory and shareholder approval of an investment in CHX by Bank of America Corporation; Bear Stearns; E*TRADE FINANCIAL Corporation; and Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(no more updates on ownership in their own timeline)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:21PM (5 children)
Significant foreign investment capital flowing to Obama's project neighborhood? That's a nope.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 17 2018, @07:09PM (2 children)
Owning the exchange (which is a pretty small exchange after all) would not bring money into the neighborhood.
Don't confuse CHX with the CME ("The Merc"), which is the big (world wide) player in Chicago.
Especially since the proposed buy was designed to move control and investment off shore to China.
But mostly it was a camel nose under the tent operation from the get go, which nobody thought would ever be allowed anyway.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 17 2018, @08:15PM (1 child)
I'm guessing the sellers of the small exchange are from the local neighborhood, and granted they may just use it all to buy new yachts in the Caribbean, but they might also sprinkle a little around the neighborhood, even philanthropically.
Not that I'm in favor of letting the camel's nose in, but it would be a pile of cash transferring from China to whoever is selling.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday February 17 2018, @11:33PM
There's no evidence a change in ownership would bring even a single dollar to Chicago.
Chances are the big boys in the CHX don't live there anyway, and they would sell their mansions (at a huge profit) and move someplace else if they did. (Everybody want's out of Murder City these days).
The exchange would bumble on as it had before, probably with less staff or lower wages when the Chinese get done installing their homeboys and getting rid of any upper management types.
There was a time when any aspiring city had a Stock Exchange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_stock_exchanges_in_the_Americas [wikipedia.org]
That was before modern networks. There is little reason for the CHX to exist at all any more, but to the extent it has connections to other exchanges it would have been a perfect mask to cover tracks while slipping trades into the more mainstream exchanges.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Saturday February 17 2018, @11:07PM (1 child)
Isn't "Foreign Investment Capital" vastly different from "Owning the entire marketplace"?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 17 2018, @11:50PM
In this case, that question doesn't even make sense, because the CHX does not provide investment capital to Chicago.
You do not go to the stock exchange to give money to Obama or his cronies.
You might go there to buy some stock in these companies: https://www.chx.com/listing-program/listed-securities/ [chx.com]
However, chances are everything on that list is also handled on the NYSE, NASDAQ or FTSE.
And nothing but your trade fee would stay in Chicago.
The value of the CHX is as another point of entry into world trading markets. The more of these you have access to the easier it is to mask your movements, doing one thing on one exchange and another thing on a different exchange hoping to avoid detection or at lease obscure your intent.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SpockLogic on Saturday February 17 2018, @11:13PM (1 child)
Would the Adulterer in Chief be against the sale if the Russians were the buyers?
Just asking ....
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday February 19 2018, @12:43AM
The Russia narrative is probably BS, and I'm a lefty with no fondness for Trump. The ex-deputy head of the FBI under Obama said there's probably nothing to Russia-gate in an interview (his reasoning being if they had any solid evidence they would have leaked it to the press already). There are videos all over YouTube of elected officials on the security committee being forced to admit they've seen no compelling evidence of Russian collusion, interference, whatever. There was an interesting interview of the guy who literally wrote the book on Russia-gate, was the key source of information the FISA courts used to monitor Trump and those around him, and has been a key source for much of the media noise for the last year. He was interviewed by a little online outlet called The Real News [youtube.com]. It's WELL worth a watch - he fell apart under the most basic questions and could not point to ANY actual evidence.
Why Russia-gate? Noone is talking about what was in the DNC leaks themselves - it was not the "nothing-burger" mainstream media would have you believe. For example, the Clinton campaigns strategy was to use their allies in the media to "elevate" Trump because they believed their best chance was against him. Also, the seeds of the Russia-gate strategy were in the DNC leaks as well - the Clinton campaigns own research showed people would be less likely to vote for Clinton after they heard about the Russian/Clinton Uranium One scandal. The Steele Dossier was compiled and put on the shelf as a hedge in case Uranium One became an issue during the election - it was a strategy straight out of Machiavelli's "The Prince" ie. accuse your opponent of what you're guilty of. The Dossier was dusted off instead to deflect from Clintons miscalculated enabling of Trump. Now Clinton and the media aren't responsible for Trump, they're just victims of Putins meddling.