I’ve been watching NTES for a long time with a bit of jealousy, but have watched too
many Chinese wannabe’s burn to the ground.
For the braver among us, however …
Dan
2 Likes
I’ve been watching NTES for a long time with a bit of jealousy, but have watched too
many Chinese wannabe’s burn to the ground. – Dan
Regarding “wannabe”
NTES was recommended by Rule Breakers in 2004 and has since run up a 2520% return. They’re mostly a game company, but they’ve been developing some other stuff.
Their e-commerce initiative maybe has been showing some promise. In their annual statements, they’ve had a line item they’ve called “email, ecommerce, other”:
2014 2015 2016
(Billion RMB)
Revenues 1.1 3.7 8.0
Gross profit .5 .3 2.2
That’s not a lot of info, but it made me go “Hmmmmm…”, they might have another interesting business beside games…
Rob
long NTES, about 6% of portfolio
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.
6 Likes
Hi Rob,
Didn’t mean to say that NTES is a wannabe and I’m sorry that was ambiguous at best.
I don’t, as a rule, invest in Chinese companies at all, due to the low level of transparency
involved (my view only?) no matter the company size or history. If I were to invest in
any Chinese company over the recent period, it would probably have been in NTES.
If you wish, feel free to consider my post a left-handed compliment to NTES, so to speak -
as that is exactly how it was intended.
In prelim investigations, I rate among many other data points, country risk. At the risk
of a major backlash and disagreement, this is how I rank that risk, based on nothing other
than being a citizen of planet earth for 65 years, while sensing for each country, a vague
notion of the country’s level of “rule of law” or lack thereof. I view it as an advantage
for countries with a high level rather than a punishment for those with a lower one, but
yes, the outcome means a lot of possibly great opportunities will not gain entry into my
stable of pre-vetted investing candidates. Keep in mind that this is but one of hundreds
of considerations taken into account when vetting them, but it is weighted more heavily
than the average data point.
Dan
Antigua 5
Argentina 2
Australia 9
Austria 8
Bahamas 6
Belgium 7
Belize 3
Bermuda 3
Brazil 3
Canada 9
Cayman Islands 5
Chile 3
China 3
Colombia 2
Curacao 2
Cyprus 3
Czech Republic 2
Denmark 7
Finland 7
France 8
Germany 8
Gibraltar 7
Greece 5
Guam 6
Hong Kong 6
Hungary 4
India 4
Indonesia 4
Ireland 7
Israel 8
Italy 6
Japan 7
Jersey 6
Kenya 4
Latvia 4
Luxembourg 6
Macao 5
Malaysia 5
Marshall Islands 6
Mexico 4
Monaco 6
Netherlands 7
New Zealand 8
Norway 8
Panama 4
Peru 2
Philippines 3
Portugal 3
Puerto Rico 4
Romania 2
Russia 2
Singapore 5
Sint Maarten 4
South Africa 4
South Korea 5
Spain 6
Sweden 7
Switzerland 7
Taiwan 6
Tanzania 4
Thailand 5
Turkey 4
United Arab Emirates 3
United Kingdom 9
United States 10
Uruguay 4
Virgin Islands, Brit 6
Virgin Islands, Unit 6
2 Likes
I don’t, as a rule, invest in Chinese companies at all, due to the low level of transparency
involved (my view only?) no matter the company size or history. – Dan
Awwww…you’re joshing with us! You suggest you could be the only one to view Chinese companies having low transparency? LOL…
Yeah. I’m disturbed by a long list of issues associated with Chinese companies. Yet here I am. Invested in them.
Greed and fear.
Well, I can’t blame you for staying away. 
Rob
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.
2 Likes