They truly are doing something with technology that isn’t found anywhere in the west. Part of which is also due to WeChat penetration and coverage. But few western countries let you do so much with just a smartphone as China.
It's this special gated environment enabled payment tools, they just process this money and be done with it. Alipay & Wechat and Chinese banks don't care about what is your business doing are they shady or not, unlike Paypal.
It's tied to your national ID for sure, but it stops there.
It's actually good for the CCP, coz corruption is lubricant and everybody is in it, you don't want to track who's behind this money, they don't even disclose how many dozen condos every official owns.
The police don't really pursue these cases as the debit card money is all instant and already gone and often small in amount (won't even register it as a case if the money is less than 450 USD), occasionally they will do a blanket operation and arrest some unlucky scammers to make an example, simmilar to irl thefts.
If your are talking about account hacking, SIM swap is quite difficult in China as basically anything is tied to national ID nowadays (even posting comments online, this does provide security to their business model, not to mention they are aggressively pushing facial recognition on the app level, I have to install a local police station app to unlock front door that regularly scans my face and tied to my WeChat, they are conducting census through WeChat BTW), but there are methods such as basestation jamming to force phones back into 2G and intercept text messages, these are fairly uncommon.
As I've said, many of the hard work has already been done by the state or isn't required at all, it's realy a paradise environment for these payment tools, probably only in China.
No one tracks micro transactions, not in the States or anywhere. AML laws don’t kick in until 10K USD. And of course corruption is a problem in China. It’s also a problem in the States. None of these statements point to a crucial difference in banking. If anything a commercial bank in the US is far more likely to keep your transactions private, whereas a Chinese bank probably hands them over to the government as a pre-arranged periodic data dump.
It's a big deal.
Ergo, as long as limits and thresholds exist, the banking systems are equivalent, and all we are left to quibble over is the what (or how much) and the why.
Once foreign money enters China, it's very hard to get it out, the CCP has a ministry dedicated to the control of it. Most of the people don't have the need for it.
What you are saying is irrelevant to Ant and banks in general. Ant doesn't care about foreign markets or your dollars, it's a Yuan-only payment tool operates inside mainland China for Chinese people, simple as that.
US banking system works that anyone can use the card even if they just found it on the street, and business owner can charge a card repeatedly for any amount even if the card owner is not present. The room for fraud is huge.
China's debit and credit card alike requires PIN code to send payment, where the owner would be required to confirm the number and enter the PIN code. And it has 2FA as a requirement for online banking, whether that's a text message received on a mobile phone, or a hardware 2FA. There is still room for fraud but a lot smaller.
To say US banks cares and Alipay, Wechat and Chinese banks don't care is kind of absurd. They exist in a almost entirely different financial ecosystem and norms. In the US, fraud protection is necessary otherwise no one would use their cards. While in China, fraud protection still needed, but rarely is the case. Those institutions only did what's necessary.
They developed an database called oceanbase and thought it would replace IBM's machine and DB2 for banks, they failed miserably because of the deep transactional nature of conventional banking is not working well in their system designed for online payment processing.
That's a out it.
But we've already got a oligopoly of sorts with in the financial system (in the US heavily reinforced by policy after the last 2008 recession down to 5 mega banks and thousands of smaller banks went under). So it will be more like corporate surveillance.
Which yes privacy laws can protect. Especially here in Canada.
It doesn't have to be that way if we had competent privacy rights protections.
Especially not the way WeChat and Alipay has been integrated with the Chinese government.
I agree with all your points.
I don't doubt technical innovation would always be a burden for regulators and lawmakers, but that does not make it fit to say that such innovation are worthless, because they provide a value to the general public, and that should not be stopped because those in the power of authority needs to do more work to make it 'in control'.
Credit card wasn't invented because the lawmakers had drafted the perfect law, nor should mobile payment. The law always comes in afterward, as it should be.
Granted, regulatory hurdles this late in the process seems super opaque and vindictive. But on the flip side, leveraging debt at this level seems like a massive systemic risk to the social order considering the risk ratings on the repackaged security will be equally opaque within the Ant debt product offerings. It's fascinating seeing this as China more or less writing Glass-Steagall on the fly the day before the IPO. Despite it looking like 2 kids fighting over an ice cream, I think it'll be massively consequential in A) demonstrating leveraging on new forms of financial instruments like ML-driven peer-to-peer lending based on massive amounts of Ant/Alibaba consumer data, and B) it being a fork in the road on China setting a precedent on neoliberalism or politics controlling capital.
Do not blame the messenger.
The 2% they were operating under was a joke (less than 1/3rd Lehman’s capitalization), 30% on the other hand, seems outright punitive if true.
Timing is weird too.
During the financial crisis, the core issue is that banks were making loans off their own balance sheet with reserves too small to cover the losses that eventually occurred. In other words, when borrowers defaulted the bank itself lost money. This made them insolvent and caused the whole collapse.
In the case of Ant on the other hand, they essentially function as a lead generation platform for banks - currently 98% of "their loans" aren't really theirs at all, but rather are funded by their partner banks; if the loan defaults, it's the partner bank's problem, not Ant's.
The reason this change is such a big deal is that forcing Ant to fund 30% of its own loans will require raising an absolutely enormous amount of fairly expensive capital, driving up costs and significantly decreasing the value of the company.
Though my position is that 30% capitalization is actually reasonable and that our current collective level of leverage is unnecessarily unstable.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/many-trails-an...
Back of the envelope math: Majority of their portfolio is very short term, let's assume 6 months duration which is a 0.5yr weighted average life 300B in annual originations Assume they can get similar leverage as US securitization markets, which would be 95% advance rate (5% "skin in the game" for Ant)
Then the equity required would be: 300B0.530%5% = ~2.25B, and they were planning to raise $30B as part of this IPO
the 2% is not what they have on their balance. 2% of the total loan was from Ant group money, the rest 98% money are from banks and ABS.
Government has been restricting consumer borrowing for a few years now. Consumer borrowing is discouraged. It was easy money for tech companies, almost all tech companies are in this business including Tencent, Baidu, JD, 360 and so on.