Skip to main content

Trans-Pacific financial news


During the final day of August this year, SPD Silicon Valley said that it would become a wholly owned unit of the Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, under the name Shanghai Innovation Bank. 
Why do I care?  Isn't this just a name change on the other side of the world from me? Well, it IS that. But it has some symbolic significance. 
SPD Silicon Valley began life as a joint venture of Shanghai Pudong Development [SPD] on the one hand and the important northern California financial institution, Silicon Valley Bank, on the other. 
Silicon Valley Bank was what one would imagine it was from the name: it was for years a bank important to the venture capital and high-tech entrepreneurial world in the Bay Area. It arranged an alliance with SPDB in order to try to make itself a player of global reach, not merely an important regional institution. The creation of their joint venture, SPD Silicon Valley, was an expression of that alliance. 
In March of 2023, Silicon Valley Bank went belly-up, for a number of reasons I won't get into here. It was one of the largest bank failures in US history and caused a lot of analysts to wonder, though only briefly, whether we were seeing a replay of 2008. We weren't. 
The bankruptcy court sought to sell SVB's interest in the joint venture.  No buyers stepped forward. THAT is the background of the latest development.  The value of the American side of the deal is being zeroed out. That of the Chinese side is being re-calculated at 100%. The name change is a formal acknowledgement, "we're putting our California tie behind us."
Again: why do I care? It is a symbol for the ways in which two important facts can tug us in different directions though they are both true: the China/US relationship is important and will over time become more so -- there is money to be made here by those willing to forge ties; at the same time, it is inevitable that some of those ties will snap, some of the money invested in making them work will be lost.
There is reward to be had BECAUSE there is risk to be taken. 


Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltSeptember 7, 2024 at 9:35 AM

    I suppose free enterprise is a misnomer in some ways, namely, enterprise is not free---there are risks associated with big business. You can own the farm, or, you can lose your shirt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherSeptember 8, 2024 at 12:12 AM

      Indeed. Although free enterprise is "free as in speech" it is never "free as in beer".

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more