Tesla invests $680 million into Gigafactory 3 in China

Sina Finance reports that Tesla Shanghai has registered a capital increase to 4.67 billion yuan (US$680 million.)

In May 2018, Tesla (Shanghai) got a business license and TESLA MOTORS HK LIMITED was the wholly-owned shareholder. The legal representative is Zhu Xiaoyu, President of Tesla China. The main personnel include Zhang Jing, Todd Andrew Maron and Marc Jesus Cerda. On July 10th, Tesla signed an agreement with Shanghai Lingang Management Committee and Lingang Group to build a special investment in R&D, manufacturing and sales in the Lingang area. Pull the super factory.

The super factory (gigafactory 3) is called the “Dreadnought”. It will be Tesla’s first gigafactory outside the US. It will have an annual production capacity of 500,000 units. Tesla said it will inject $2 billion into the factory by borrowing from local banks in China.

178 thoughts on “Tesla invests $680 million into Gigafactory 3 in China”

  1. Right after they nationalize SpaceX, as you’ve claimed is sure to happen.” I said DE FACTO nationalization. Learn to read.

  2. Right after they nationalize SpaceX” as you’ve claimed is sure to happen.””I said DE FACTO nationalization. Learn to read.”””

  3. Thanks for the CFIUS law info! Good to know! “I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even, for example, a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g., Tesla). ” Told by whom, if I may ask? “ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak.” Which means corruption will take hold as the Chinese bribe their way through this. “From my vantage point, I am seeing an all-out trade war…” We have been in one for 30 years now. Just that our side has been selling out its own country. “…where the US has most of the leverage.” Yes. I keep getting into deep examples as to why on here. But the China Wu Mau Fluffers of NBF won’t have any of it.

  4. Thanks for the CFIUS law info! Good to know!I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even for example a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g.” Tesla). “”Told by whom”””” if I may ask?””””ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak.””””Which means corruption will take hold as the Chinese bribe their way through this.””””From my vantage point”””” I am seeing an all-out trade war…””””We have been in one for 30 years now. Just that our side has been selling out its own country.””””…where the US has most of the leverage.””””Yes. I keep getting into deep examples as to why on here. But the China Wu Mau Fluffers of NBF won’t have any of it.”””

  5. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. ” THAT is exactly something Luca…really Matteo Martini…would write.

  6. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. “”THAT is exactly something Luca…really Matteo Martini…would write.”””

  7. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. The user interface for this close to useless comment system is surely the same for all. Loren ipsum follows to permit the posting of the previous appropriate response to your idiocy. Lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci. Ullamcorper dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget. Habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio. Fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum.

  8. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. The user interface for this close to useless comment system is surely the same for all.Loren ipsum follows to permit the posting of the previous appropriate response to your idiocy. Lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci. Ullamcorper dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget. Habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio. Fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum.

  9. You were justifying theft today with lopsided/criminal international relations 5 generations ago – I was simply pointing out that you are justifying bad behavior with some kind of karma argument. Pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt id. Erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat. Ut tristique et egestas quis. Pulvinar proin gr

  10. You were justifying theft today with lopsided/criminal international relations 5 generations ago – I was simply pointing out that you are justifying bad behavior with some kind of karma argument.Pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt id. Erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat. Ut tristique et egestas quis. Pulvinar proin gr

  11. The original Lexus patterned after German luxury brands were the last cars made by Lexus that looked classy and desirable IMO. An original LS400? Great looking car. Whatever batman chrap they sell today may as well be I don’t know what, but I don’t want it.

  12. The original Lexus patterned after German luxury brands were the last cars made by Lexus that looked classy and desirable IMO. An original LS400? Great looking car. Whatever batman chrap they sell today may as well be I don’t know what but I don’t want it.

  13. I think the Latin Cicero stuff Tom Perkins uses to make his post unique to get around some bug is pretty good evidence that he is Luca; I saw the same crap in Matheus Henrique.

  14. I think the Latin Cicero stuff Tom Perkins uses to make his post unique to get around some bug is pretty good evidence that he is Luca; I saw the same crap in Matheus Henrique.

  15. well, he is a US citizen too…. But I completely agree with the US block, I should probably have mentioned it, glad you did. The new CFIUS law is designed to shut out China from all U.S. technology, wherever it might exist. The prior CFIUS rules only applied to very sensitive national security tech and wasn’t rigorously enforced to say the least. The new law is extremely important but seems like everyone has missed it (which was by design, a stealth move). CFIUS isn’t targeted to China specifically, but that is how it was written. I am currently involved in exiting an investment that is relevant to manufacturing where our IP (and company) is American. The tech has to to with a manufacturing process that can be used across most industries, and is being deployed in autos, refining, pharma production etc. ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak. I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even, for example, a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g., Tesla). The implications are far-reaching. Mercedes, for example, is looking to expand production in China with their Chinese partner. But some of the equipment they want to import has US content. They won’t get permission from SecTreas. It means their expansion plans grind to a halt. Building the things they need from scratch is not economical, and will get them in trouble. From my vantage point, I am seeing an all-out trade war, where the US has most of the leverage. The Chinese have been doing this for decades (try buying Chinese tech…..). I have no problem with all this, though one of our investments is much more complicated than before. Basically anything you read from now on “Chinese have developed…..” or “Chinese looking to invest in……” is suspect.

  16. well he is a US citizen too….But I completely agree with the US block I should probably have mentioned it glad you did.The new CFIUS law is designed to shut out China from all U.S. technology wherever it might exist. The prior CFIUS rules only applied to very sensitive national security tech and wasn’t rigorously enforced to say the least. The new law is extremely important but seems like everyone has missed it (which was by design a stealth move). CFIUS isn’t targeted to China specifically but that is how it was written. I am currently involved in exiting an investment that is relevant to manufacturing where our IP (and company) is American. The tech has to to with a manufacturing process that can be used across most industries and is being deployed in autos refining pharma production etc. ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak. I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even for example a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g. Tesla). The implications are far-reaching. Mercedes for example is looking to expand production in China with their Chinese partner. But some of the equipment they want to import has US content. They won’t get permission from SecTreas. It means their expansion plans grind to a halt. Building the things they need from scratch is not economical and will get them in trouble. From my vantage point I am seeing an all-out trade war where the US has most of the leverage. The Chinese have been doing this for decades (try buying Chinese tech…..).I have no problem with all this though one of our investments is much more complicated than before. Basically anything you read from now on Chinese have developed…..”” or “”””Chinese looking to invest in……”””” is suspect.”””

  17. And you are as always a lying s@ck of sh!t. It’s inaccurate that there is an investigation. “” “””””””

  18. Musk isn’t pro-American. He’s a foreigner. From South Africa. So he could care less about the IP issues, I bet. The real risk is — as a result of the trade war heating up — the US government blocking this both before or even after the ink dries on the agreement. Especially how Trump will probably go after all of Silicon Valley after the mid-term election with anti-trust prosecutions and whatnot.

  19. Musk isn’t pro-American. He’s a foreigner. From South Africa.So he could care less about the IP issues I bet.The real risk is — as a result of the trade war heating up — the US government blocking this both before or even after the ink dries on the agreement. Especially how Trump will probably go after all of Silicon Valley after the mid-term election with anti-trust prosecutions and whatnot.

  20. The USAF announced that it is ‘looking into how to deal with Musk’ as a direct result of that interview, also. And the transfer of American Tech to China MUST STOP. It should be considered treason, if you ask me.

  21. The USAF announced that it is ‘looking into how to deal with Musk’ as a direct result of that interview also. And the transfer of American Tech to China MUST STOP. It should be considered treason if you ask me.

  22. I’ll tell you one thing we won’t be hearing is this: American Jobs… Every day I see and hear things from Mr. Musk that look and sound worse and worse… Anyone who would want to be in a company where the CEO blows pot and sucks down booze in an interview is crazy! The guy isn’t cool or hip. He’s unhinged. I can say this with authority as I know people in his inner circle. I’ve pulled my money out of Tesla, and the next time I invest in an electric car company – they will have a 500 mile battery that charges faster than I can fill my Deville’s tank – or bust! Do you hear me Fisker???

  23. I’ll tell you one thing we won’t be hearing is this: American Jobs… Every day I see and hear things from Mr. Musk that look and sound worse and worse… Anyone who would want to be in a company where the CEO blows pot and sucks down booze in an interview is crazy! The guy isn’t cool or hip. He’s unhinged. I can say this with authority as I know people in his inner circle. I’ve pulled my money out of Tesla and the next time I invest in an electric car company – they will have a 500 mile battery that charges faster than I can fill my Deville’s tank – or bust! Do you hear me Fisker???

  24. No, you have several times not used the phrase “de facto”. However, the equivocation on your part improves your prognostication not at all.

  25. Yes, and it is not defined the way you need it to be. But then you are just an unintelligent, ill informed lying troll.

  26. No you have several times not used the phrase de facto””.However”””” the equivocation on your part improves your prognostication not at all.”””

  27. Yes and it is not defined the way you need it to be.But then you are just an unintelligent ill informed lying troll.

  28. Told by whom, if I may ask?” Pls search cfr dot org and ‘Made in China 2025 a Threat to Global Trade?’ Well, risk of bribes is of course always there, but in this case I think the US has a pretty good handle on it. E.g., the folks (who do the actual recommendations) at each department representing CFIUS have their personal finances and other info on “permanent audit”. Yeah, it’s been a war we’ve been losing. Badly. The theory that ‘chinese capitalism’ would somehow change China into an open society was deeply flawed because it was promoted by 2 falanges: intellectuals with no clue who had never set their foot there, and mercantilists who wanted to make a quick buck.

  29. Told by whom” if I may ask?””Pls search cfr dot org and ‘Made in China 2025 a Threat to Global Trade?’ Well”” risk of bribes is of course always there but in this case I think the US has a pretty good handle on it. E.g.”” the folks (who do the actual recommendations) at each department representing CFIUS have their personal finances and other info on “”””permanent audit””””. Yeah”” it’s been a war we’ve been losing. Badly. The theory that ‘chinese capitalism’ would somehow change China into an open society was deeply flawed because it was promoted by 2 falanges: intellectuals with no clue who had never set their foot there”” and mercantilists who wanted to make a quick buck.”””

  30. Sorry, not justifying it at all, I am only indicating that countries/companies will always be ruthless in getting what they want, the Europeans did it, and now the Chinese are as well, I am not sure why anyone would expect any less and/or bitch about it. I will also be the first the point out that the Chinese copies shamelessly, as do the Koreans, also the Europeans with the American manufacturing processes back in the Henry Ford days, but copying removes the costs of R&D initially until the company is more financial robust or catches up technologically, it is one of the oldest play in the book, so also not sure why anyone is surprised by it .

  31. Sure, to each it’s own, but their sales tell us that there are enough people who likes the design or the reliability enough to buy them. The point is that they needed to copy first before coming to their own.

  32. Sorry not justifying it at all I am only indicating that countries/companies will always be ruthless in getting what they want the Europeans did it and now the Chinese are as well I am not sure why anyone would expect any less and/or bitch about it. I will also be the first the point out that the Chinese copies shamelessly as do the Koreans also the Europeans with the American manufacturing processes back in the Henry Ford days but copying removes the costs of R&D initially until the company is more financial robust or catches up technologically it is one of the oldest play in the book so also not sure why anyone is surprised by it .

  33. Sure to each it’s own but their sales tell us that there are enough people who likes the design or the reliability enough to buy them. The point is that they needed to copy first before coming to their own.

  34. Sorry to say, everyone steals designs from others in the mobile phone industry, although Apple’s designs are copied more frequently, as demonstrated by all the notches in most high end phones nowadays. I concur that the Chinese phone makers copy designs shamelessly, but I believe that is the strategy used by some brands when starting out. One example I can think of is Lexus, their first car looked like the love child of a BMW 7 and Mercedes S class, but now they’re coming into their own design-wise, and I believe I am also seeing that trend with the Chinese brands. Agree with Foxconn/Hon Hai’s low margin, I believe their operating margin is about 1-2%. They also know that it’s not sustainable as something as common as exchange rate fluctuations can eat away all the profits. They’re going full automation, but I think that’s just putting band-aids on a deep cut, their clients will continue to demand better prices and they will comply because of lower COGS coming from automation, thereby perpetuating the vicious cycle. They tried branding but that didn’t work out as consumer electronics is also a vicious market. I think they’re trying to find a long term and sustainable strategy, it may be cloud services or automation, but then one needs to look at the players involved in those areas among other considerations.

  35. Sorry to say everyone steals designs from others in the mobile phone industry although Apple’s designs are copied more frequently as demonstrated by all the notches in most high end phones nowadays. I concur that the Chinese phone makers copy designs shamelessly but I believe that is the strategy used by some brands when starting out. One example I can think of is Lexus their first car looked like the love child of a BMW 7 and Mercedes S class but now they’re coming into their own design-wise and I believe I am also seeing that trend with the Chinese brands. Agree with Foxconn/Hon Hai’s low margin I believe their operating margin is about 1-2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. They also know that it’s not sustainable as something as common as exchange rate fluctuations can eat away all the profits. They’re going full automation but I think that’s just putting band-aids on a deep cut their clients will continue to demand better prices and they will comply because of lower COGS coming from automation thereby perpetuating the vicious cycle. They tried branding but that didn’t work out as consumer electronics is also a vicious market. I think they’re trying to find a long term and sustainable strategy it may be cloud services or automation but then one needs to look at the players involved in those areas among other considerations.

  36. Interesting, I guess the same “Boo Hoo” can be said to all the technologies that were forced to share or stolen. The companies made a conscious decision to share those technologies to access the market, too bad and boo hoo. Others were stupid or careless enough to have their systems hacked, boo hoo for their stupidity. You see how your logic is going now?

  37. Interesting I guess the same Boo Hoo”” can be said to all the technologies that were forced to share or stolen. The companies made a conscious decision to share those technologies to access the market”” too bad and boo hoo. Others were stupid or careless enough to have their systems hacked”” boo hoo for their stupidity.You see how your logic is going now?”””

  38. Standard loan agreements for Chinese state owned banks and foreign companies is to have the IP as loan collateral. This point alone doesn’t bode well for the deal. Tesla has no cash flow in China so repayment must be guaranteed by Tesla Inc, who holds the IP. That is the LAST thing shareholders (and US lenders) want to see Tesla risk giving away. In my view, there is no hope of a deal.

  39. Standard loan agreements for Chinese state owned banks and foreign companies is to have the IP as loan collateral. This point alone doesn’t bode well for the deal. Tesla has no cash flow in China so repayment must be guaranteed by Tesla Inc who holds the IP. That is the LAST thing shareholders (and US lenders) want to see Tesla risk giving away. In my view there is no hope of a deal.

  40. I wonder when we’ll be hearing “funding secured” on this? IE Chinese banks have not yet signed up. The monkey wrench must be the loan covenants. I bet that the Chinese banks will demand guarantees from Tesla Inc for repayments and other credit coverage. Basically, the Chinese banks are taking Tesla head office credit risk. This includes stock price targets, and offshore risk, and IP. The only way I see Tesla getting this loan approved is if they more or less hand over the keys to the office. The Chinese banks have all the leverage here.

  41. I wonder when we’ll be hearing funding secured”” on this? IE Chinese banks have not yet signed up. The monkey wrench must be the loan covenants. I bet that the Chinese banks will demand guarantees from Tesla Inc for repayments and other credit coverage. Basically”” the Chinese banks are taking Tesla head office credit risk. This includes stock price targets and offshore risk”” and IP. The only way I see Tesla getting this loan approved is if they more or less hand over the keys to the office. The Chinese banks have all the leverage here.”””

  42. I agree they are big. Hardly profitable. That’s always been their issue. To become a brand that makes money and not steal Apple and Huawei design, is next to impossible for them. They can make low end phones, but those are loss leaders. Instead, HonHai is looking at building cloud services and automation systems, where they really excel. that might work. They aren’t a consumer design or distribution shop.

  43. I agree they are big. Hardly profitable. That’s always been their issue. To become a brand that makes money and not steal Apple and Huawei design is next to impossible for them. They can make low end phones but those are loss leaders. Instead HonHai is looking at building cloud services and automation systems where they really excel. that might work. They aren’t a consumer design or distribution shop.

  44. My point is that Apple did not get screwed by Foxconn (as for the moment at least) So it was ironic

  45. Though I agree about risky investments into China, not sure I understand the HonHai/Foxconn reference. Do you mean the HonHai production for Huawei? HonHai has for years (at least since 2014 when I met them first time) been planning to move production to various regional hubs. This was on Apple’s insistence, to get production local and to use robotics. The latter not very easy to do until recently.

  46. Though I agree about risky investments into China not sure I understand the HonHai/Foxconn reference. Do you mean the HonHai production for Huawei? HonHai has for years (at least since 2014 when I met them first time) been planning to move production to various regional hubs. This was on Apple’s insistence to get production local and to use robotics. The latter not very easy to do until recently.

  47. Yes, truly devilish, you can say it almost compares to the days when the British, French, Americans, etc., sold opium to the Chinese and subject them to all kinds of depravity. What goes around comes around eh?

  48. Yes truly devilish you can say it almost compares to the days when the British French Americans etc. sold opium to the Chinese and subject them to all kinds of depravity. What goes around comes around eh?

  49. See any investment in China is SUPER risky. In the end the Chinese always just steal the tech and practices then build another factory and slowly choke out the foreign company.

  50. See any investment in China is SUPER risky. In the end the Chinese always just steal the tech and practices then build another factory and slowly choke out the foreign company.

  51. lol put your money on aurora cannabis or others cannabis stocks musk has just accept the joe rogan blunt marijuana and whisky are legals in californinia whe are in 2018… tesla in 2019 wille produce more than 640000 cars in 2020 more than 1 million in 2021 more than 1.5 million etc etc 12 gigafactorys for 6 millions tesla/year

  52. lol put your money on aurora cannabis or others cannabis stocksmusk has just accept the joe rogan bluntmarijuana and whisky are legals in californiniawhe are in 2018…tesla in 2019 wille produce more than 640000 carsin 2020 more than 1 millionin 2021 more than 1.5 millionetc etc 12 gigafactorys for 6 millions tesla/year

  53. lol put your money on aurora cannabis or others cannabis stocks
    musk has just accept the joe rogan blunt
    marijuana and whisky are legals in californinia
    whe are in 2018…

    tesla in 2019 wille produce more than 640000 cars
    in 2020 more than 1 million
    in 2021 more than 1.5 million
    etc etc 12 gigafactorys for 6 millions tesla/year

  54. Sorry, not justifying it at all, I am only indicating that countries/companies will always be ruthless in getting what they want, the Europeans did it, and now the Chinese are as well, I am not sure why anyone would expect any less and/or bitch about it. I will also be the first the point out that the Chinese copies shamelessly, as do the Koreans, also the Europeans with the American manufacturing processes back in the Henry Ford days, but copying removes the costs of R&D initially until the company is more financial robust or catches up technologically, it is one of the oldest play in the book, so also not sure why anyone is surprised by it .

  55. Sorry not justifying it at all I am only indicating that countries/companies will always be ruthless in getting what they want the Europeans did it and now the Chinese are as well I am not sure why anyone would expect any less and/or bitch about it. I will also be the first the point out that the Chinese copies shamelessly as do the Koreans also the Europeans with the American manufacturing processes back in the Henry Ford days but copying removes the costs of R&D initially until the company is more financial robust or catches up technologically it is one of the oldest play in the book so also not sure why anyone is surprised by it .

  56. Sure, to each it’s own, but their sales tell us that there are enough people who likes the design or the reliability enough to buy them. The point is that they needed to copy first before coming to their own.

  57. Sure to each it’s own but their sales tell us that there are enough people who likes the design or the reliability enough to buy them. The point is that they needed to copy first before coming to their own.

  58. Sorry, not justifying it at all, I am only indicating that countries/companies will always be ruthless in getting what they want, the Europeans did it, and now the Chinese are as well, I am not sure why anyone would expect any less and/or bitch about it.

    I will also be the first the point out that the Chinese copies shamelessly, as do the Koreans, also the Europeans with the American manufacturing processes back in the Henry Ford days, but copying removes the costs of R&D initially until the company is more financial robust or catches up technologically, it is one of the oldest play in the book, so also not sure why anyone is surprised by it .

  59. Sure, to each it’s own, but their sales tell us that there are enough people who likes the design or the reliability enough to buy them. The point is that they needed to copy first before coming to their own.

  60. Told by whom, if I may ask?” Pls search cfr dot org and ‘Made in China 2025 a Threat to Global Trade?’ Well, risk of bribes is of course always there, but in this case I think the US has a pretty good handle on it. E.g., the folks (who do the actual recommendations) at each department representing CFIUS have their personal finances and other info on “permanent audit”. Yeah, it’s been a war we’ve been losing. Badly. The theory that ‘chinese capitalism’ would somehow change China into an open society was deeply flawed because it was promoted by 2 falanges: intellectuals with no clue who had never set their foot there, and mercantilists who wanted to make a quick buck.

  61. Told by whom” if I may ask?””Pls search cfr dot org and ‘Made in China 2025 a Threat to Global Trade?’ Well”” risk of bribes is of course always there but in this case I think the US has a pretty good handle on it. E.g.”” the folks (who do the actual recommendations) at each department representing CFIUS have their personal finances and other info on “”””permanent audit””””. Yeah”” it’s been a war we’ve been losing. Badly. The theory that ‘chinese capitalism’ would somehow change China into an open society was deeply flawed because it was promoted by 2 falanges: intellectuals with no clue who had never set their foot there”” and mercantilists who wanted to make a quick buck.”””

  62. “Told by whom, if I may ask?”
    Pls search cfr dot org and ‘Made in China 2025 a Threat to Global Trade?’

    Well, risk of bribes is of course always there, but in this case I think the US has a pretty good handle on it. E.g., the folks (who do the actual recommendations) at each department representing CFIUS have their personal finances and other info on “permanent audit”.

    Yeah, it’s been a war we’ve been losing. Badly. The theory that ‘chinese capitalism’ would somehow change China into an open society was deeply flawed because it was promoted by 2 falanges: intellectuals with no clue who had never set their foot there, and mercantilists who wanted to make a quick buck.

  63. No, you have several times not used the phrase “de facto”. However, the equivocation on your part improves your prognostication not at all.

  64. No you have several times not used the phrase de facto””.However”””” the equivocation on your part improves your prognostication not at all.”””

  65. Yes, and it is not defined the way you need it to be. But then you are just an unintelligent, ill informed lying troll.

  66. Yes and it is not defined the way you need it to be.But then you are just an unintelligent ill informed lying troll.

  67. Right after they nationalize SpaceX, as you’ve claimed is sure to happen.” I said DE FACTO nationalization. Learn to read.

  68. Right after they nationalize SpaceX” as you’ve claimed is sure to happen.””I said DE FACTO nationalization. Learn to read.”””

  69. Thanks for the CFIUS law info! Good to know! “I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even, for example, a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g., Tesla). ” Told by whom, if I may ask? “ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak.” Which means corruption will take hold as the Chinese bribe their way through this. “From my vantage point, I am seeing an all-out trade war…” We have been in one for 30 years now. Just that our side has been selling out its own country. “…where the US has most of the leverage.” Yes. I keep getting into deep examples as to why on here. But the China Wu Mau Fluffers of NBF won’t have any of it.

  70. Thanks for the CFIUS law info! Good to know!I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even for example a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g.” Tesla). “”Told by whom”””” if I may ask?””””ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak.””””Which means corruption will take hold as the Chinese bribe their way through this.””””From my vantage point”””” I am seeing an all-out trade war…””””We have been in one for 30 years now. Just that our side has been selling out its own country.””””…where the US has most of the leverage.””””Yes. I keep getting into deep examples as to why on here. But the China Wu Mau Fluffers of NBF won’t have any of it.”””

  71. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. ” THAT is exactly something Luca…really Matteo Martini…would write.

  72. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. “”THAT is exactly something Luca…really Matteo Martini…would write.”””

  73. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. The user interface for this close to useless comment system is surely the same for all. Loren ipsum follows to permit the posting of the previous appropriate response to your idiocy. Lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci. Ullamcorper dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget. Habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio. Fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum.

  74. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. The user interface for this close to useless comment system is surely the same for all.Loren ipsum follows to permit the posting of the previous appropriate response to your idiocy. Lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci. Ullamcorper dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget. Habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio. Fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum.

  75. You were justifying theft today with lopsided/criminal international relations 5 generations ago – I was simply pointing out that you are justifying bad behavior with some kind of karma argument. Pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt id. Erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat. Ut tristique et egestas quis. Pulvinar proin gr

  76. You were justifying theft today with lopsided/criminal international relations 5 generations ago – I was simply pointing out that you are justifying bad behavior with some kind of karma argument.Pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt id. Erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat. Ut tristique et egestas quis. Pulvinar proin gr

  77. The original Lexus patterned after German luxury brands were the last cars made by Lexus that looked classy and desirable IMO. An original LS400? Great looking car. Whatever batman chrap they sell today may as well be I don’t know what, but I don’t want it.

  78. The original Lexus patterned after German luxury brands were the last cars made by Lexus that looked classy and desirable IMO. An original LS400? Great looking car. Whatever batman chrap they sell today may as well be I don’t know what but I don’t want it.

  79. I think the Latin Cicero stuff Tom Perkins uses to make his post unique to get around some bug is pretty good evidence that he is Luca; I saw the same crap in Matheus Henrique.

  80. I think the Latin Cicero stuff Tom Perkins uses to make his post unique to get around some bug is pretty good evidence that he is Luca; I saw the same crap in Matheus Henrique.

  81. well, he is a US citizen too…. But I completely agree with the US block, I should probably have mentioned it, glad you did. The new CFIUS law is designed to shut out China from all U.S. technology, wherever it might exist. The prior CFIUS rules only applied to very sensitive national security tech and wasn’t rigorously enforced to say the least. The new law is extremely important but seems like everyone has missed it (which was by design, a stealth move). CFIUS isn’t targeted to China specifically, but that is how it was written. I am currently involved in exiting an investment that is relevant to manufacturing where our IP (and company) is American. The tech has to to with a manufacturing process that can be used across most industries, and is being deployed in autos, refining, pharma production etc. ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak. I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even, for example, a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g., Tesla). The implications are far-reaching. Mercedes, for example, is looking to expand production in China with their Chinese partner. But some of the equipment they want to import has US content. They won’t get permission from SecTreas. It means their expansion plans grind to a halt. Building the things they need from scratch is not economical, and will get them in trouble. From my vantage point, I am seeing an all-out trade war, where the US has most of the leverage. The Chinese have been doing this for decades (try buying Chinese tech…..). I have no problem with all this, though one of our investments is much more complicated than before. Basically anything you read from now on “Chinese have developed…..” or “Chinese looking to invest in……” is suspect.

  82. well he is a US citizen too….But I completely agree with the US block I should probably have mentioned it glad you did.The new CFIUS law is designed to shut out China from all U.S. technology wherever it might exist. The prior CFIUS rules only applied to very sensitive national security tech and wasn’t rigorously enforced to say the least. The new law is extremely important but seems like everyone has missed it (which was by design a stealth move). CFIUS isn’t targeted to China specifically but that is how it was written. I am currently involved in exiting an investment that is relevant to manufacturing where our IP (and company) is American. The tech has to to with a manufacturing process that can be used across most industries and is being deployed in autos refining pharma production etc. ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak. I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even for example a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g. Tesla). The implications are far-reaching. Mercedes for example is looking to expand production in China with their Chinese partner. But some of the equipment they want to import has US content. They won’t get permission from SecTreas. It means their expansion plans grind to a halt. Building the things they need from scratch is not economical and will get them in trouble. From my vantage point I am seeing an all-out trade war where the US has most of the leverage. The Chinese have been doing this for decades (try buying Chinese tech…..).I have no problem with all this though one of our investments is much more complicated than before. Basically anything you read from now on Chinese have developed…..”” or “”””Chinese looking to invest in……”””” is suspect.”””

  83. Thanks for the CFIUS law info! Good to know!

    “I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even, for example, a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g., Tesla). ”

    Told by whom, if I may ask?

    “ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak.”

    Which means corruption will take hold as the Chinese bribe their way through this.

    “From my vantage point, I am seeing an all-out trade war…”

    We have been in one for 30 years now. Just that our side has been selling out its own country.

    “…where the US has most of the leverage.”

    Yes. I keep getting into deep examples as to why on here. But the China Wu Mau Fluffers of NBF won’t have any of it.

  84. And you’re just an !d!ot for thinking it. The user interface for this close to useless comment system is surely the same for all.

    Loren ipsum follows to permit the posting of the previous appropriate response to your idiocy. Lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci. Ullamcorper dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget. Habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio. Fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum.

  85. And you are as always a lying s@ck of sh!t. It’s inaccurate that there is an investigation. “” “””””””

  86. You were justifying theft today with lopsided/criminal international relations 5 generations ago – I was simply pointing out that you are justifying bad behavior with some kind of karma argument.

    Pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt id. Erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat. Ut tristique et egestas quis. Pulvinar proin gr

  87. The original Lexus patterned after German luxury brands were the last cars made by Lexus that looked classy and desirable IMO. An original LS400? Great looking car. Whatever batman chrap they sell today may as well be I don’t know what, but I don’t want it.

  88. I think the Latin Cicero stuff Tom Perkins uses to make his post unique to get around some bug is pretty good evidence that he is Luca; I saw the same crap in Matheus Henrique.

  89. Musk isn’t pro-American. He’s a foreigner. From South Africa. So he could care less about the IP issues, I bet. The real risk is — as a result of the trade war heating up — the US government blocking this both before or even after the ink dries on the agreement. Especially how Trump will probably go after all of Silicon Valley after the mid-term election with anti-trust prosecutions and whatnot.

  90. Musk isn’t pro-American. He’s a foreigner. From South Africa.So he could care less about the IP issues I bet.The real risk is — as a result of the trade war heating up — the US government blocking this both before or even after the ink dries on the agreement. Especially how Trump will probably go after all of Silicon Valley after the mid-term election with anti-trust prosecutions and whatnot.

  91. The USAF announced that it is ‘looking into how to deal with Musk’ as a direct result of that interview, also. And the transfer of American Tech to China MUST STOP. It should be considered treason, if you ask me.

  92. The USAF announced that it is ‘looking into how to deal with Musk’ as a direct result of that interview also. And the transfer of American Tech to China MUST STOP. It should be considered treason if you ask me.

  93. I’ll tell you one thing we won’t be hearing is this: American Jobs… Every day I see and hear things from Mr. Musk that look and sound worse and worse… Anyone who would want to be in a company where the CEO blows pot and sucks down booze in an interview is crazy! The guy isn’t cool or hip. He’s unhinged. I can say this with authority as I know people in his inner circle. I’ve pulled my money out of Tesla, and the next time I invest in an electric car company – they will have a 500 mile battery that charges faster than I can fill my Deville’s tank – or bust! Do you hear me Fisker???

  94. I’ll tell you one thing we won’t be hearing is this: American Jobs… Every day I see and hear things from Mr. Musk that look and sound worse and worse… Anyone who would want to be in a company where the CEO blows pot and sucks down booze in an interview is crazy! The guy isn’t cool or hip. He’s unhinged. I can say this with authority as I know people in his inner circle. I’ve pulled my money out of Tesla and the next time I invest in an electric car company – they will have a 500 mile battery that charges faster than I can fill my Deville’s tank – or bust! Do you hear me Fisker???

  95. well, he is a US citizen too….
    But I completely agree with the US block, I should probably have mentioned it, glad you did.
    The new CFIUS law is designed to shut out China from all U.S. technology, wherever it might exist. The prior CFIUS rules only applied to very sensitive national security tech and wasn’t rigorously enforced to say the least. The new law is extremely important but seems like everyone has missed it (which was by design, a stealth move). CFIUS isn’t targeted to China specifically, but that is how it was written. I am currently involved in exiting an investment that is relevant to manufacturing where our IP (and company) is American. The tech has to to with a manufacturing process that can be used across most industries, and is being deployed in autos, refining, pharma production etc. ALL potential foreign investors need to be vetted by Uncle Sam. Every single one. So we are going through this new process as we speak. I was told in no uncertain terms that anything remotely connected to China (even, for example, a UK company that has minority Chinese shareholding) will be rejected. This even goes for a US investor that has any kind of ties to China (e.g., Tesla).

    The implications are far-reaching. Mercedes, for example, is looking to expand production in China with their Chinese partner. But some of the equipment they want to import has US content. They won’t get permission from SecTreas. It means their expansion plans grind to a halt. Building the things they need from scratch is not economical, and will get them in trouble.

    From my vantage point, I am seeing an all-out trade war, where the US has most of the leverage. The Chinese have been doing this for decades (try buying Chinese tech…..).
    I have no problem with all this, though one of our investments is much more complicated than before. Basically anything you read from now on “Chinese have developed…..” or “Chinese looking to invest in……” is suspect.

  96. Sorry to say, everyone steals designs from others in the mobile phone industry, although Apple’s designs are copied more frequently, as demonstrated by all the notches in most high end phones nowadays. I concur that the Chinese phone makers copy designs shamelessly, but I believe that is the strategy used by some brands when starting out. One example I can think of is Lexus, their first car looked like the love child of a BMW 7 and Mercedes S class, but now they’re coming into their own design-wise, and I believe I am also seeing that trend with the Chinese brands. Agree with Foxconn/Hon Hai’s low margin, I believe their operating margin is about 1-2%. They also know that it’s not sustainable as something as common as exchange rate fluctuations can eat away all the profits. They’re going full automation, but I think that’s just putting band-aids on a deep cut, their clients will continue to demand better prices and they will comply because of lower COGS coming from automation, thereby perpetuating the vicious cycle. They tried branding but that didn’t work out as consumer electronics is also a vicious market. I think they’re trying to find a long term and sustainable strategy, it may be cloud services or automation, but then one needs to look at the players involved in those areas among other considerations.

  97. Sorry to say everyone steals designs from others in the mobile phone industry although Apple’s designs are copied more frequently as demonstrated by all the notches in most high end phones nowadays. I concur that the Chinese phone makers copy designs shamelessly but I believe that is the strategy used by some brands when starting out. One example I can think of is Lexus their first car looked like the love child of a BMW 7 and Mercedes S class but now they’re coming into their own design-wise and I believe I am also seeing that trend with the Chinese brands. Agree with Foxconn/Hon Hai’s low margin I believe their operating margin is about 1-2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. They also know that it’s not sustainable as something as common as exchange rate fluctuations can eat away all the profits. They’re going full automation but I think that’s just putting band-aids on a deep cut their clients will continue to demand better prices and they will comply because of lower COGS coming from automation thereby perpetuating the vicious cycle. They tried branding but that didn’t work out as consumer electronics is also a vicious market. I think they’re trying to find a long term and sustainable strategy it may be cloud services or automation but then one needs to look at the players involved in those areas among other considerations.

  98. Interesting, I guess the same “Boo Hoo” can be said to all the technologies that were forced to share or stolen. The companies made a conscious decision to share those technologies to access the market, too bad and boo hoo. Others were stupid or careless enough to have their systems hacked, boo hoo for their stupidity. You see how your logic is going now?

  99. Interesting I guess the same Boo Hoo”” can be said to all the technologies that were forced to share or stolen. The companies made a conscious decision to share those technologies to access the market”” too bad and boo hoo. Others were stupid or careless enough to have their systems hacked”” boo hoo for their stupidity.You see how your logic is going now?”””

  100. Standard loan agreements for Chinese state owned banks and foreign companies is to have the IP as loan collateral. This point alone doesn’t bode well for the deal. Tesla has no cash flow in China so repayment must be guaranteed by Tesla Inc, who holds the IP. That is the LAST thing shareholders (and US lenders) want to see Tesla risk giving away. In my view, there is no hope of a deal.

  101. Standard loan agreements for Chinese state owned banks and foreign companies is to have the IP as loan collateral. This point alone doesn’t bode well for the deal. Tesla has no cash flow in China so repayment must be guaranteed by Tesla Inc who holds the IP. That is the LAST thing shareholders (and US lenders) want to see Tesla risk giving away. In my view there is no hope of a deal.

  102. I wonder when we’ll be hearing “funding secured” on this? IE Chinese banks have not yet signed up. The monkey wrench must be the loan covenants. I bet that the Chinese banks will demand guarantees from Tesla Inc for repayments and other credit coverage. Basically, the Chinese banks are taking Tesla head office credit risk. This includes stock price targets, and offshore risk, and IP. The only way I see Tesla getting this loan approved is if they more or less hand over the keys to the office. The Chinese banks have all the leverage here.

  103. I wonder when we’ll be hearing funding secured”” on this? IE Chinese banks have not yet signed up. The monkey wrench must be the loan covenants. I bet that the Chinese banks will demand guarantees from Tesla Inc for repayments and other credit coverage. Basically”” the Chinese banks are taking Tesla head office credit risk. This includes stock price targets and offshore risk”” and IP. The only way I see Tesla getting this loan approved is if they more or less hand over the keys to the office. The Chinese banks have all the leverage here.”””

  104. And you are as always a lying s@ck of sh!t.

    ” It’s inaccurate that there is an investigation. ” <-- USAF " It should be considered treason, if you ask me. " <-- Then you go get that amendment, a$shole. Loren ipsum follows to permit the posting of the previous appropriate response to your idiocy. Lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci. Ullamcorper dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget. Habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa. Curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean et tortor. Egestas dui id ornare arcu odio. Fringilla urna porttitor rhoncus dolor purus non enim praesent elementum. Felis eget velit aliquet sagittis id consectetur purus. Mattis molestie a iaculis at erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit. Scelerisque felis imperdiet proin fermentum leo vel orci porta. Mi proin sed libero enim. Dui ut ornare lectus sit. Auctor urna nunc id cursus. Nulla pellentesque dignissim enim sit amet venenatis urna cursus eget. Ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet. Porttitor lacus luctus accumsan tortor. Brian Wang, what is up with you seemingly deliberately picking the worst comment systems possible?

  105. I agree they are big. Hardly profitable. That’s always been their issue. To become a brand that makes money and not steal Apple and Huawei design, is next to impossible for them. They can make low end phones, but those are loss leaders. Instead, HonHai is looking at building cloud services and automation systems, where they really excel. that might work. They aren’t a consumer design or distribution shop.

  106. I agree they are big. Hardly profitable. That’s always been their issue. To become a brand that makes money and not steal Apple and Huawei design is next to impossible for them. They can make low end phones but those are loss leaders. Instead HonHai is looking at building cloud services and automation systems where they really excel. that might work. They aren’t a consumer design or distribution shop.

  107. Musk isn’t pro-American. He’s a foreigner. From South Africa.

    So he could care less about the IP issues, I bet.

    The real risk is — as a result of the trade war heating up — the US government blocking this both before or even after the ink dries on the agreement. Especially how Trump will probably go after all of Silicon Valley after the mid-term election with anti-trust prosecutions and whatnot.

  108. The USAF announced that it is ‘looking into how to deal with Musk’ as a direct result of that interview, also.

    And the transfer of American Tech to China MUST STOP. It should be considered treason, if you ask me.

  109. Though I agree about risky investments into China, not sure I understand the HonHai/Foxconn reference. Do you mean the HonHai production for Huawei? HonHai has for years (at least since 2014 when I met them first time) been planning to move production to various regional hubs. This was on Apple’s insistence, to get production local and to use robotics. The latter not very easy to do until recently.

  110. Though I agree about risky investments into China not sure I understand the HonHai/Foxconn reference. Do you mean the HonHai production for Huawei? HonHai has for years (at least since 2014 when I met them first time) been planning to move production to various regional hubs. This was on Apple’s insistence to get production local and to use robotics. The latter not very easy to do until recently.

  111. I’ll tell you one thing we won’t be hearing is this: American Jobs… Every day I see and hear things from Mr. Musk that look and sound worse and worse… Anyone who would want to be in a company where the CEO blows pot and sucks down booze in an interview is crazy! The guy isn’t cool or hip. He’s unhinged. I can say this with authority as I know people in his inner circle. I’ve pulled my money out of Tesla, and the next time I invest in an electric car company – they will have a 500 mile battery that charges faster than I can fill my Deville’s tank – or bust! Do you hear me Fisker???

  112. Sorry to say, everyone steals designs from others in the mobile phone industry, although Apple’s designs are copied more frequently, as demonstrated by all the notches in most high end phones nowadays. I concur that the Chinese phone makers copy designs shamelessly, but I believe that is the strategy used by some brands when starting out. One example I can think of is Lexus, their first car looked like the love child of a BMW 7 and Mercedes S class, but now they’re coming into their own design-wise, and I believe I am also seeing that trend with the Chinese brands.

    Agree with Foxconn/Hon Hai’s low margin, I believe their operating margin is about 1-2%. They also know that it’s not sustainable as something as common as exchange rate fluctuations can eat away all the profits. They’re going full automation, but I think that’s just putting band-aids on a deep cut, their clients will continue to demand better prices and they will comply because of lower COGS coming from automation, thereby perpetuating the vicious cycle. They tried branding but that didn’t work out as consumer electronics is also a vicious market. I think they’re trying to find a long term and sustainable strategy, it may be cloud services or automation, but then one needs to look at the players involved in those areas among other considerations.

  113. Interesting, I guess the same “Boo Hoo” can be said to all the technologies that were forced to share or stolen. The companies made a conscious decision to share those technologies to access the market, too bad and boo hoo. Others were stupid or careless enough to have their systems hacked, boo hoo for their stupidity.

    You see how your logic is going now?

  114. Yes, truly devilish, you can say it almost compares to the days when the British, French, Americans, etc., sold opium to the Chinese and subject them to all kinds of depravity. What goes around comes around eh?

  115. Yes truly devilish you can say it almost compares to the days when the British French Americans etc. sold opium to the Chinese and subject them to all kinds of depravity. What goes around comes around eh?

  116. Standard loan agreements for Chinese state owned banks and foreign companies is to have the IP as loan collateral. This point alone doesn’t bode well for the deal. Tesla has no cash flow in China so repayment must be guaranteed by Tesla Inc, who holds the IP. That is the LAST thing shareholders (and US lenders) want to see Tesla risk giving away. In my view, there is no hope of a deal.

  117. I wonder when we’ll be hearing “funding secured” on this? IE Chinese banks have not yet signed up. The monkey wrench must be the loan covenants. I bet that the Chinese banks will demand guarantees from Tesla Inc for repayments and other credit coverage. Basically, the Chinese banks are taking Tesla head office credit risk. This includes stock price targets, and offshore risk, and IP. The only way I see Tesla getting this loan approved is if they more or less hand over the keys to the office. The Chinese banks have all the leverage here.

  118. See any investment in China is SUPER risky. In the end the Chinese always just steal the tech and practices then build another factory and slowly choke out the foreign company.

  119. See any investment in China is SUPER risky. In the end the Chinese always just steal the tech and practices then build another factory and slowly choke out the foreign company.

  120. I agree they are big. Hardly profitable. That’s always been their issue. To become a brand that makes money and not steal Apple and Huawei design, is next to impossible for them. They can make low end phones, but those are loss leaders. Instead, HonHai is looking at building cloud services and automation systems, where they really excel. that might work. They aren’t a consumer design or distribution shop.

  121. Though I agree about risky investments into China, not sure I understand the HonHai/Foxconn reference. Do you mean the HonHai production for Huawei? HonHai has for years (at least since 2014 when I met them first time) been planning to move production to various regional hubs. This was on Apple’s insistence, to get production local and to use robotics. The latter not very easy to do until recently.

  122. Yes, truly devilish, you can say it almost compares to the days when the British, French, Americans, etc., sold opium to the Chinese and subject them to all kinds of depravity.

    What goes around comes around eh?

  123. See any investment in China is SUPER risky. In the end the Chinese always just steal the tech and practices then build another factory and slowly choke out the foreign company.

Comments are closed.