+Follow
GotoAlan
No personal profile
12
Follow
1
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
GotoAlan
2021-05-16
ok
Sorry, the original content has been removed
GotoAlan
2021-05-13
ok
Muddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.
GotoAlan
2021-05-12
ok
Why was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3582538486924451","uuid":"3582538486924451","gmtCreate":1619444462699,"gmtModify":1619581206701,"name":"GotoAlan","pinyin":"gotoalan","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":1,"headSize":12,"tweetSize":22,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":2,"name":"无畏虎","nameTw":"無畏虎","represent":"初生牛犊","factor":"发布3条非转发主帖,1条获得他人回复或点赞","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-3","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":" Tiger Idol","description":"Join the tiger community for 1500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.23","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":2,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":192340674,"gmtCreate":1621151587498,"gmtModify":1704353425511,"author":{"id":"3582538486924451","authorId":"3582538486924451","name":"GotoAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3582538486924451","idStr":"3582538486924451"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/192340674","repostId":"2135498979","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":6156,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":198952903,"gmtCreate":1620920581902,"gmtModify":1704350564253,"author":{"id":"3582538486924451","authorId":"3582538486924451","name":"GotoAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3582538486924451","idStr":"3582538486924451"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/198952903","repostId":"2135621359","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2135621359","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1620912742,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2135621359?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-05-13 21:32","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Muddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2135621359","media":"智通财经","summary":"可能会暴露客户个人身份信息，要求公司立即让网站下线，修复漏洞。","content":"<p>On Thursday, May 13, Muddy Waters claimed that<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/LMND\">Lemonade</a>The website has a serious security vulnerability that may expose customers' personally identifiable information (PII). The company is required to immediately take the website offline and fix the vulnerability. Affected by this news, Lemonade's stock price fell by more than 7% in pre-market trading before gradually recovering. As of press time, Lemonade was up 0.68% at $60.57.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98446c1f3c305e0b0e624ee8263a4356\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>It is understood that Muddy Waters is not The first short seller to target Lemonade; The Friendly Bear also shorted The company at The end of last year.</p><p>Several investment banks downgraded their ratings on internet insurance company Lemonade after its first-quarter loss per share exceeded market expectations. among<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>Analyst Andrew Kligerman pointed out that unexpected losses caused by the Texas storm were the main reason for the stock's losses. Financial reports show that the 121% gross loss rate in the first quarter included 50% of the impact of catastrophic events. Although the adjusted EBITDA loss of $41 million was in line with the bank's expectations,<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>We still give Lemonade an \"underperforming\" rating.</p>","source":"stock_zhitongcaijing","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Muddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMuddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">智通财经</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-13 21:32</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>On Thursday, May 13, Muddy Waters claimed that<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/LMND\">Lemonade</a>The website has a serious security vulnerability that may expose customers' personally identifiable information (PII). The company is required to immediately take the website offline and fix the vulnerability. Affected by this news, Lemonade's stock price fell by more than 7% in pre-market trading before gradually recovering. As of press time, Lemonade was up 0.68% at $60.57.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98446c1f3c305e0b0e624ee8263a4356\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>It is understood that Muddy Waters is not The first short seller to target Lemonade; The Friendly Bear also shorted The company at The end of last year.</p><p>Several investment banks downgraded their ratings on internet insurance company Lemonade after its first-quarter loss per share exceeded market expectations. among<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>Analyst Andrew Kligerman pointed out that unexpected losses caused by the Texas storm were the main reason for the stock's losses. Financial reports show that the 121% gross loss rate in the first quarter included 50% of the impact of catastrophic events. Although the adjusted EBITDA loss of $41 million was in line with the bank's expectations,<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>We still give Lemonade an \"underperforming\" rating.</p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/474595.html\">智通财经</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/21a485199ba4d98518695cb468836114","relate_stocks":{"LMND":"Lemonade, Inc."},"source_url":"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/474595.html","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2135621359","content_text":"5月13日(周四)，浑水公司(Muddy Waters)声称，Lemonade网站存在严重安全漏洞，可能会暴露客户个人身份信息(PII)，要求公司立即让网站下线，修复漏洞。受此消息影响，Lemonade盘前股价一度跌逾7%，后逐步回暖，盘初截至发稿，Lemonade涨0.68%，报60.57美元。据了解，浑水并不是第一家瞄准Lemonade的做空者，去年年底，The Friendly Bear也做空该公司。受第一季度每股亏损大于市场预期的影响，多家投行降低了对互联网保险公司Lemonade的评级。其中瑞银分析师Andrew Kligerman指出，德州风暴造成的超预期的损失是该股亏损的主要原因。财报显示，第一季度121%的毛损率中包含50%的巨灾影响。虽然调整后的EBITDA亏损4100万美元符合该行预期，但瑞银还是给予Lemonade“跑输大市”评级。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"LMND":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":5150,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":191071623,"gmtCreate":1620830599662,"gmtModify":1704349076779,"author":{"id":"3582538486924451","authorId":"3582538486924451","name":"GotoAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3582538486924451","idStr":"3582538486924451"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/191071623","repostId":"1176763588","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1176763588","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1620828353,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1176763588?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-05-12 22:05","market":"hk","language":"zh","title":"Why was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1176763588","media":"字母榜","summary":"在4个月的交锋之后，小米艰难赢得了这场战争的阶段性胜利。","content":"<p>By Yan Fei</p><p>On May 12, a U.S. District Court document showed that Xiaomi had reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Defense and would be removed from the so-called \"Chinese military-related\" blacklist.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6f3c51b64c22eb6014721499d5ccc17d\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"593\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>This means that U.S. institutions and individuals can still invest in Xiaomi equity in the primary market or purchase Xiaomi stock or ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) in the secondary market.</p><p>Benefiting from this positive news, Xiaomi's share price rose 6.1% to HK$26.1 in Hong Kong trading on Wednesday, a new high in nearly five trading days.</p><p>On January 14 this year, the U.S. government suddenly issued an executive order blacklisting nine Chinese companies, including Xiaomi, on the grounds that they had ties to the Chinese military.</p><p>In an interview, Pang Ming, chief economist at Huaxing Securities, said that once blacklisted, both U.S. institutional and individual investors need to comply with the ban and strictly enforce stock selling. If anyone is found to be continuing to buy Xiaomi stock, the penalties will be extremely costly.</p><p>On the other hand, several US securities firms hold large amounts of Xiaomi stock and will be the first to be affected if the ban is implemented.</p><p>JPMorgan Chase holds 2.53 billion shares, representing 12.35% of the issued share capital; Citibank holds 2.093 billion shares, accounting for 10.22%; Morgan Stanley holds 480 million shares, accounting for 2.34%; The three companies collectively hold 24.91% of the shares.</p><p>The panic quickly spread to the stock price. The day after being blacklisted, Xiaomi's stock price plummeted by more than 10%, ending its nearly year-long upward momentum.</p><p>Xiaomi subsequently issued an announcement stating that its services and products are for civilian or commercial use, and that the company is not owned, controlled, or affiliated with the Chinese military, nor is it a Chinese military company as defined by U.S. law. In late January, Xiaomi filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government's Department of Defense and Treasury over investment restrictions, asking the court to declare it illegal to be blacklisted.</p><p>After four months of battle, Xiaomi narrowly won a phased victory in this war.</p><p>The damage has already been done: since the surprise attack in mid-January, Xiaomi's stock price has fluctuated from around HK$35 to around HK$25, and its market value has shrunk by nearly one-third in less than four months.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d4a086aa37bacf244550af2e6fb0054\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\"></p><p>However, compared to other Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE that have been suppressed by the United States, Xiaomi is lucky. Despite setbacks in the capital market, the business did not suffer a real blow. Companies like Huawei face a much more perilous situation, and they still need patience and wisdom to truly emerge victorious.</p><p><b>A</b></p><p>Xiaomi's ability to repel powerful enemies is directly related to the attacker's \"nonsensical\" behavior.</p><p>\"Military involvement\" is a common excuse used by the US government to suppress foreign companies, from ZTE and Huawei to Xiaomi. Against the backdrop of cooling Sino-US relations, this underhanded tactic has repeatedly worked, leaving companies like Huawei struggling to defend themselves and mired in a quagmire.</p><p>However, compared to telecommunications equipment companies, Xiaomi's main business is consumer products such as mobile phones and computers, as well as entertainment services such as film and television. Whether it's the products and technologies themselves, or the target customer group, Americans find it difficult to grasp any practical leverage and can only make heated arguments about the founders. This ultimately became the key breakthrough for Xiaomi to win the lawsuit.</p><p>In March of this year, foreign media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal exposed the reasons for the US government's sanctions against Xiaomi. Inexplicably, the Americans classified Xiaomi as a \"military-related\" company, one of the reasons being that Xiaomi's president and CEO, Lei Jun, was commended by the Chinese government in 2019.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/57b925d84cab8e0f96aa5b6aab9f930f\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"366\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Lei Jun</p><p>Public information shows that Lei Jun was named one of the \"Fifth National Outstanding Builders of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the Non-Public Sector Economy\". The award was jointly selected by the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has no connection with the military.</p><p>However, the U.S. Department of Defense concocted an extremely far-fetched logic in the document:</p><p>Xiaomi's founder receives government award; The company plans to invest RMB 50 billion in 5G, artificial intelligence and other fields over the next five years; These technologies have broad application prospects in the military field. Therefore, \"there are ample reasons to include Xiaomi Group in the sanctions.\"</p><p>In addition, the Pentagon also made a fuss about the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), one of the awarding bodies, claiming that MIIT is promoting \"military-civilian integration\" to promote the development of China's military technology. Xiaomi will play an important role in this plan.</p><p>Even in the American judiciary, this convoluted argument is unconvincing.</p><p>On March 12, a U.S. District Judge in Washington temporarily halted the U.S. Department of Defense's ban. Judge Contreras believes that as the litigation unfolds, Xiaomi is likely to completely reverse the injunction, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Xiaomi from suffering \"irreparable losses.\"</p><p>Regarding the U.S. government's concerns about a threat to national security, Contreras stated, \"The court has some doubts about whether this case actually involves significant national security interests.\"</p><p>More importantly, the ban on companies like Xiaomi was hastily issued by the Trump administration a week before leaving office, with the aim of digging more holes for the new Biden administration in the diplomatic arena. Biden's primary goal after taking office was to control the epidemic. Although he did not give up on suppressing Chinese companies, he did not want to create any further complications at the critical time of \"extinguishing the fire\" in China.</p><p>This is the fundamental difference between the predicament faced by Xiaomi and Huawei: Xiaomi is just a hot potato thrown by Trump to Biden, while Huawei is seen by Trump as a key \"tool\" to suppress China and maintain America's technological and even political global hegemony. Although the methods of launching the attacks are similar, the value of the two in the eyes of American politicians is vastly different.</p><p>Following the personnel changes in the US political establishment, Xiaomi's room for mediation on so-called \"military-related\" issues has expanded significantly. This week, the U.S. government finally acknowledged that the \"blacklist\" had procedural justice issues, was willing to reach a settlement with Xiaomi, and waived its appeal.</p><p><b>B</b></p><p>In early March, after a U.S. district court temporarily halted the ban, someone posted a question on the social media platform Maimai: \"The U.S. has sanctioned so many domestic companies, why did it only lift the ban on Xiaomi?\"</p><p>Regardless of external factors, a key reason why Xiaomi has escaped sanctions is that it does not master core technologies related to national security and instead relies heavily on foreign imports.</p><p>Taking its core mobile phone product line as an example, Xiaomi still cannot do without Qualcomm Snapdragon processors and Samsung OLED screens, and even regards them as one of the core selling points of its main models.</p><p>To ensure its chip supply, Xiaomi accepted investment from Qualcomm in its early stages. During Xiaomi's IPO in Hong Kong in 2018, Qualcomm, as one of the seven cornerstone investors, subscribed for 46 million shares, accounting for 2.1% of the listed issued share capital.</p><p>In recent years, learning from Huawei's precedent of being held back and forced to sell its mobile phone business, Xiaomi's R&D investment and the number of patents have continued to rise. However, like all domestic mobile phone manufacturers, Xiaomi is still far from being self-sufficient in key components such as processors.</p><p>More importantly, Xiaomi operates in the consumer electronics sector, which is a long-term advantage of the Americans and does not particularly require \"outside tactics\" such as government intervention.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42226ac256c5415aff0de082be351536\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"412\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Apple is the number one player on this track. In addition to possessing strong industrial design and software development capabilities, it also has first-class chip R&D capabilities. Whether it's the A-series chips for mobile devices or the M-series chips for desktops, Apple has already surpassed Qualcomm and Intel, respectively.</p><p>At least at this stage, Xiaomi will not pose a significant challenge to US interests, neither in its field nor in its own strength, and is therefore destined not to become a thorn in the side of US politics.</p><p>The American legal community seems to hold a similar view. In addition to questioning whether Xiaomi could threaten U.S. national security, District Court Judge Contreras also expressed his views on Xiaomi's investments in 5G and artificial intelligence, as well as Lei Jun's personal honors.</p><p>He pointed out that 5G and artificial intelligence are rapidly becoming the new standards in the consumer electronics field; In addition, since 2004, more than 500 entrepreneurs have received the same award as Lei Jun, including the owners of infant formula companies.</p><p>According to information reviewed by Alphabet List (ID: wujicaijing), dozens of other entrepreneurs, including NetEase CEO Ding Lei and Lao Gan Ma founder Tao Huabi, also received awards at the same time as Lei Jun.</p><p>Regarding Xiaomi's narrow victory, some people joked online: \"It's not very harmful, but it's extremely insulting.\"</p><p><b>C</b></p><p>Nevertheless, Xiaomi's victory over the US government still gave a glimmer of hope to Chinese companies suffering from sanctions.</p><p>\"The facts used to accuse Xiaomi are ridiculous; I think this will definitely lead to more companies seeking exemptions,\" Brain Egan, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., told Reuters.</p><p>And that's the truth. In mid-March, encouraged by a temporary injunction from a U.S. district court, several Chinese companies that were blacklisted along with Xiaomi began contacting law firms to consider suing the U.S. government to challenge the basis and decision to blacklist them.</p><p>In addition to Xiaomi, the list also includes COMAC, China Aviation Group, and Grand China Airlines in the aviation sector; AMEC Semiconductor and Gaoyun Semiconductor in the chip sector; Luokuang Technology and Zhongyiyutong in the big data and AI fields; and Beijing Zhongguancun Development and Investment Center.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f92d530607636142959ffb37cf5bbad4\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"673\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>However, compared to Xiaomi, these companies' businesses are more sensitive, some of which are related to underlying technological competition. It will not be easy to emulate Xiaomi and get out of trouble quickly.</p><p>For reference, in May 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce added Huawei to the \"Entity List,\" prohibiting U.S. companies from selling technology and products to Huawei. To this day, there is still no sign of easing this ban.</p><p>The reasons for the US crackdown on Huawei are complex, but one of the key considerations is that Huawei has a leading advantage in 5G technology and poses a challenge to US interests in the global market. Americans will inevitably do everything they can to suppress such companies.</p><p>Over the past two years, in order to get out of its predicament, Huawei spun off Honor, focused on emerging businesses such as cloud computing, and even entered the car manufacturing industry, selling Xiaokang electric vehicles in its own flagship store. While the US crackdown did not kill Huawei, it did deal a significant blow to the giant.</p><p>This also suggests that Xiaomi's victory over the US government is merely a victory driven by a combination of positive factors, and does not signify a shift in the Biden administration's policy toward Chinese companies. For many more Chinese companies, the danger of US sanctions will remain for a long time.</p>","source":"ZMB","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">字母榜</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-12 22:05</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>By Yan Fei</p><p>On May 12, a U.S. District Court document showed that Xiaomi had reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Defense and would be removed from the so-called \"Chinese military-related\" blacklist.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6f3c51b64c22eb6014721499d5ccc17d\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"593\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>This means that U.S. institutions and individuals can still invest in Xiaomi equity in the primary market or purchase Xiaomi stock or ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) in the secondary market.</p><p>Benefiting from this positive news, Xiaomi's share price rose 6.1% to HK$26.1 in Hong Kong trading on Wednesday, a new high in nearly five trading days.</p><p>On January 14 this year, the U.S. government suddenly issued an executive order blacklisting nine Chinese companies, including Xiaomi, on the grounds that they had ties to the Chinese military.</p><p>In an interview, Pang Ming, chief economist at Huaxing Securities, said that once blacklisted, both U.S. institutional and individual investors need to comply with the ban and strictly enforce stock selling. If anyone is found to be continuing to buy Xiaomi stock, the penalties will be extremely costly.</p><p>On the other hand, several US securities firms hold large amounts of Xiaomi stock and will be the first to be affected if the ban is implemented.</p><p>JPMorgan Chase holds 2.53 billion shares, representing 12.35% of the issued share capital; Citibank holds 2.093 billion shares, accounting for 10.22%; Morgan Stanley holds 480 million shares, accounting for 2.34%; The three companies collectively hold 24.91% of the shares.</p><p>The panic quickly spread to the stock price. The day after being blacklisted, Xiaomi's stock price plummeted by more than 10%, ending its nearly year-long upward momentum.</p><p>Xiaomi subsequently issued an announcement stating that its services and products are for civilian or commercial use, and that the company is not owned, controlled, or affiliated with the Chinese military, nor is it a Chinese military company as defined by U.S. law. In late January, Xiaomi filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government's Department of Defense and Treasury over investment restrictions, asking the court to declare it illegal to be blacklisted.</p><p>After four months of battle, Xiaomi narrowly won a phased victory in this war.</p><p>The damage has already been done: since the surprise attack in mid-January, Xiaomi's stock price has fluctuated from around HK$35 to around HK$25, and its market value has shrunk by nearly one-third in less than four months.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d4a086aa37bacf244550af2e6fb0054\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\"></p><p>However, compared to other Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE that have been suppressed by the United States, Xiaomi is lucky. Despite setbacks in the capital market, the business did not suffer a real blow. Companies like Huawei face a much more perilous situation, and they still need patience and wisdom to truly emerge victorious.</p><p><b>A</b></p><p>Xiaomi's ability to repel powerful enemies is directly related to the attacker's \"nonsensical\" behavior.</p><p>\"Military involvement\" is a common excuse used by the US government to suppress foreign companies, from ZTE and Huawei to Xiaomi. Against the backdrop of cooling Sino-US relations, this underhanded tactic has repeatedly worked, leaving companies like Huawei struggling to defend themselves and mired in a quagmire.</p><p>However, compared to telecommunications equipment companies, Xiaomi's main business is consumer products such as mobile phones and computers, as well as entertainment services such as film and television. Whether it's the products and technologies themselves, or the target customer group, Americans find it difficult to grasp any practical leverage and can only make heated arguments about the founders. This ultimately became the key breakthrough for Xiaomi to win the lawsuit.</p><p>In March of this year, foreign media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal exposed the reasons for the US government's sanctions against Xiaomi. Inexplicably, the Americans classified Xiaomi as a \"military-related\" company, one of the reasons being that Xiaomi's president and CEO, Lei Jun, was commended by the Chinese government in 2019.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/57b925d84cab8e0f96aa5b6aab9f930f\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"366\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Lei Jun</p><p>Public information shows that Lei Jun was named one of the \"Fifth National Outstanding Builders of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the Non-Public Sector Economy\". The award was jointly selected by the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has no connection with the military.</p><p>However, the U.S. Department of Defense concocted an extremely far-fetched logic in the document:</p><p>Xiaomi's founder receives government award; The company plans to invest RMB 50 billion in 5G, artificial intelligence and other fields over the next five years; These technologies have broad application prospects in the military field. Therefore, \"there are ample reasons to include Xiaomi Group in the sanctions.\"</p><p>In addition, the Pentagon also made a fuss about the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), one of the awarding bodies, claiming that MIIT is promoting \"military-civilian integration\" to promote the development of China's military technology. Xiaomi will play an important role in this plan.</p><p>Even in the American judiciary, this convoluted argument is unconvincing.</p><p>On March 12, a U.S. District Judge in Washington temporarily halted the U.S. Department of Defense's ban. Judge Contreras believes that as the litigation unfolds, Xiaomi is likely to completely reverse the injunction, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Xiaomi from suffering \"irreparable losses.\"</p><p>Regarding the U.S. government's concerns about a threat to national security, Contreras stated, \"The court has some doubts about whether this case actually involves significant national security interests.\"</p><p>More importantly, the ban on companies like Xiaomi was hastily issued by the Trump administration a week before leaving office, with the aim of digging more holes for the new Biden administration in the diplomatic arena. Biden's primary goal after taking office was to control the epidemic. Although he did not give up on suppressing Chinese companies, he did not want to create any further complications at the critical time of \"extinguishing the fire\" in China.</p><p>This is the fundamental difference between the predicament faced by Xiaomi and Huawei: Xiaomi is just a hot potato thrown by Trump to Biden, while Huawei is seen by Trump as a key \"tool\" to suppress China and maintain America's technological and even political global hegemony. Although the methods of launching the attacks are similar, the value of the two in the eyes of American politicians is vastly different.</p><p>Following the personnel changes in the US political establishment, Xiaomi's room for mediation on so-called \"military-related\" issues has expanded significantly. This week, the U.S. government finally acknowledged that the \"blacklist\" had procedural justice issues, was willing to reach a settlement with Xiaomi, and waived its appeal.</p><p><b>B</b></p><p>In early March, after a U.S. district court temporarily halted the ban, someone posted a question on the social media platform Maimai: \"The U.S. has sanctioned so many domestic companies, why did it only lift the ban on Xiaomi?\"</p><p>Regardless of external factors, a key reason why Xiaomi has escaped sanctions is that it does not master core technologies related to national security and instead relies heavily on foreign imports.</p><p>Taking its core mobile phone product line as an example, Xiaomi still cannot do without Qualcomm Snapdragon processors and Samsung OLED screens, and even regards them as one of the core selling points of its main models.</p><p>To ensure its chip supply, Xiaomi accepted investment from Qualcomm in its early stages. During Xiaomi's IPO in Hong Kong in 2018, Qualcomm, as one of the seven cornerstone investors, subscribed for 46 million shares, accounting for 2.1% of the listed issued share capital.</p><p>In recent years, learning from Huawei's precedent of being held back and forced to sell its mobile phone business, Xiaomi's R&D investment and the number of patents have continued to rise. However, like all domestic mobile phone manufacturers, Xiaomi is still far from being self-sufficient in key components such as processors.</p><p>More importantly, Xiaomi operates in the consumer electronics sector, which is a long-term advantage of the Americans and does not particularly require \"outside tactics\" such as government intervention.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42226ac256c5415aff0de082be351536\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"412\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Apple is the number one player on this track. In addition to possessing strong industrial design and software development capabilities, it also has first-class chip R&D capabilities. Whether it's the A-series chips for mobile devices or the M-series chips for desktops, Apple has already surpassed Qualcomm and Intel, respectively.</p><p>At least at this stage, Xiaomi will not pose a significant challenge to US interests, neither in its field nor in its own strength, and is therefore destined not to become a thorn in the side of US politics.</p><p>The American legal community seems to hold a similar view. In addition to questioning whether Xiaomi could threaten U.S. national security, District Court Judge Contreras also expressed his views on Xiaomi's investments in 5G and artificial intelligence, as well as Lei Jun's personal honors.</p><p>He pointed out that 5G and artificial intelligence are rapidly becoming the new standards in the consumer electronics field; In addition, since 2004, more than 500 entrepreneurs have received the same award as Lei Jun, including the owners of infant formula companies.</p><p>According to information reviewed by Alphabet List (ID: wujicaijing), dozens of other entrepreneurs, including NetEase CEO Ding Lei and Lao Gan Ma founder Tao Huabi, also received awards at the same time as Lei Jun.</p><p>Regarding Xiaomi's narrow victory, some people joked online: \"It's not very harmful, but it's extremely insulting.\"</p><p><b>C</b></p><p>Nevertheless, Xiaomi's victory over the US government still gave a glimmer of hope to Chinese companies suffering from sanctions.</p><p>\"The facts used to accuse Xiaomi are ridiculous; I think this will definitely lead to more companies seeking exemptions,\" Brain Egan, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., told Reuters.</p><p>And that's the truth. In mid-March, encouraged by a temporary injunction from a U.S. district court, several Chinese companies that were blacklisted along with Xiaomi began contacting law firms to consider suing the U.S. government to challenge the basis and decision to blacklist them.</p><p>In addition to Xiaomi, the list also includes COMAC, China Aviation Group, and Grand China Airlines in the aviation sector; AMEC Semiconductor and Gaoyun Semiconductor in the chip sector; Luokuang Technology and Zhongyiyutong in the big data and AI fields; and Beijing Zhongguancun Development and Investment Center.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f92d530607636142959ffb37cf5bbad4\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"673\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>However, compared to Xiaomi, these companies' businesses are more sensitive, some of which are related to underlying technological competition. It will not be easy to emulate Xiaomi and get out of trouble quickly.</p><p>For reference, in May 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce added Huawei to the \"Entity List,\" prohibiting U.S. companies from selling technology and products to Huawei. To this day, there is still no sign of easing this ban.</p><p>The reasons for the US crackdown on Huawei are complex, but one of the key considerations is that Huawei has a leading advantage in 5G technology and poses a challenge to US interests in the global market. Americans will inevitably do everything they can to suppress such companies.</p><p>Over the past two years, in order to get out of its predicament, Huawei spun off Honor, focused on emerging businesses such as cloud computing, and even entered the car manufacturing industry, selling Xiaokang electric vehicles in its own flagship store. While the US crackdown did not kill Huawei, it did deal a significant blow to the giant.</p><p>This also suggests that Xiaomi's victory over the US government is merely a victory driven by a combination of positive factors, and does not signify a shift in the Biden administration's policy toward Chinese companies. For many more Chinese companies, the danger of US sanctions will remain for a long time.</p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"http://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/csj/2021-05-12/doc-ikmyaawc4937569.shtml\">字母榜</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bb44f0df3fb7312ee913474e800cc495","relate_stocks":{"01810":"小米集团-W"},"source_url":"http://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/csj/2021-05-12/doc-ikmyaawc4937569.shtml","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1176763588","content_text":"文/彦飞\n5月12日，一份美国地方法院文件显示，小米公司已经与美国国防部达成和解，将被移出所谓“与中国军方相关”的黑名单。\n\n这意味着，美国机构和个人仍然可以在一级市场投资小米公司股权，或是在二级市场购买小米股票或ADR（美国存托凭证）。\n受此利好影响，周三港股交易中，小米股价上涨6.1%，报于26.1港元，为近5个交易日之新高。\n今年1月14日，美国政府突然颁布行政令，将小米等9家中国公司列入“黑名单”，理由是它们与中国军方存在关联。\n华兴证券首席经济学家庞溟在接受采访时表示，一旦列入黑名单，美国机构和个人投资者都需要遵守禁令，严格执行股票卖出。若被发现继续买入小米股票，处罚成本极高。\n另一方面，多家美国券商握有大笔小米股票，如果禁令落地将首当其冲。\n其中，摩根大通持有25.3亿股，占已发行股本的12.35%；花旗银行持有20.93亿股，占比10.22%；摩根士丹利持有4.8亿股，占比2.34%；三者合计持股24.91%。\n恐慌情绪很快传导到了股价上。被列入“黑名单”次日，小米股价大跌逾10%，绵延近一年的上涨势头被掐断。\n小米随后发布公告称，其服务和产品皆为民用或商用，公司并非中国军方拥有、控制或关联方，亦非美国法律定义的中国军方公司。1月底，小米针对美国政府限制投资一事起诉该国国防部和财政部，要求法院宣布将其列入“黑名单”为非法行为。\n在4个月的交锋之后，小米艰难赢得了这场战争的阶段性胜利。\n损害已经造成：自从1月中旬遭遇突然袭击以来，小米股价从35港元附近一路震荡下跌至25港元左右，不到4个月市值缩水约近1/3。\n\n但与华为、中兴等其他被美国打压的中国企业相比，小米又是幸运的。虽然在资本市场上受挫，但业务并未遭遇真正打击。而华为等企业面对的形势要凶险的多，想要真正走出来仍需要耐心和智慧。\nA\n小米能够击退强敌，与进攻方的“无厘头”直接相关。\n“涉军”是美国政府打压外国企业的常用借口，从中兴、华为到小米皆是如此。在中美关系趋冷的时代背景下，这一阴招屡试不爽，让华为等公司难以自辩，深陷泥潭。\n但与通信设备企业相比，小米的主营业务是手机、电脑等消费级产品，以及影视等娱乐服务。无论是产品和技术本身，还是面向的客户群体，美国人都很难抓住实际把柄，只能围绕创始人大作诛心之论。这最终成为小米打赢官司的关键突破口。\n今年3月，《华尔街日报》等国外媒体曝光了美国政府制裁小米的理由。匪夷所思的是，美国人将小米列为“涉军”企业，原因之一是小米总裁兼CEO雷军2019年曾受到中国政府表彰。\n雷军\n公开信息显示，雷军当年被评为“第五届全国非公有制经济人士优秀中国特色社会主义事业建设者”，该奖项由中央统战部、工信部、人社部、市场监管总局和全国工商联联合评选，与军方毫无关联。\n但美国国防部在文件中炮制了一个极为牵强的逻辑：\n小米创始人获得政府奖项；该公司计划未来5年在5G、人工智能等领域投入人民币500亿元；这些技术又在军事领域有广泛应用前景。因此，“有充分理由将小米集团列入制裁”。\n此外，五角大楼还围绕评奖机构之一工信部做文章，声称工信部正在推动“军民融合”，以促进中国军用技术的发展。小米将在这一计划中扮演重要角色。\n即使在美国司法界，这套七拐八绕的说辞也无法令人信服。\n3月12日，美国华盛顿地方法官临时叫停美国国防部禁令。法官孔特雷拉斯认为，随着诉讼的展开，小米很可能会完全扭转这项禁令，于是发布初步禁制令，以防止小米遭受“不可挽回的损失”。\n对于美国政府提出的国家安全遭到威胁的担忧，孔特雷拉斯表示：“法院有些怀疑，本案是否实际上牵扯到了重大国家安全利益。”\n更关键的是，针对小米等公司的禁令，是特朗普政府在离任前一周匆忙发布的，目的是在外交领域给新一届拜登政府多挖几个坑。而拜登上台后的首要目标是控制疫情，尽管并未放弃对中国企业的打压，却也并不想在国内“灭火”的关键时间点另生枝节。\n这就是小米和华为所面临困境的根本区别：小米只是特朗普扔给拜登的一枚烫手山芋，而华为则被特朗普当做了打压中国、维系美国科技乃至政治全球霸权的关键“抓手”。尽管发难方式类似，两者在美国政客眼中的利用价值却有天壤之别。\n美国政界人事更迭之后，小米所谓“涉军”问题的斡旋空间大了许多。本周，美国政府终于承认“黑名单”存在程序正义问题，愿意与小米达成和解，并放弃上诉。\nB\n3月上旬，在美国地方法院临时叫停禁令后，有人在社交网站脉脉上发出疑问：“美国制裁了国内这么多公司，怎么单单解禁了小米？”\n抛开外部因素不论，小米之所以免遭制裁，一个重要原因是它确实不掌握关系国家安全的核心技术，反而非常依赖国外进口。\n以核心的手机产品线为例，小米仍然离不开高通骁龙处理器和三星OLED屏，甚至将其作为主力机型的核心卖点之一。\n为了确保芯片供给，小米在创办初期就接受了高通的投资；2018年小米赴港IPO，高通作为7位基石投资者之一认购4600万股，占上市发行股本的2.1%。\n近些年来，有了华为惨遭卡脖子、被迫出售手机业务的前车之鉴，小米的研发投入和专利数量不断上升。但与国内所有手机厂商一样，在处理器等关键零部件上，小米距离自给自足仍然十分遥远。\n更关键的是，小米身处的消费电子领域，是美国人的长期优势项目，并不特别需要政府干预之类的“盘外招”。\n\n在这条赛道上，苹果是一号选手。它除了具备强大的工业设计和软件开发能力外，芯片研发实力同样一流。无论是移动端的A系列芯片，还是桌面端的M系列芯片，苹果都已经分别压过高通和英特尔一头。\n至少在目前阶段，小米无论是所处领域还是自身实力，都不会对美国利益构成显著挑战，也就注定不会成为美国政界的眼中钉。\n美国法律界似乎也持有类似看法。地方法院法官孔特雷拉斯除了质疑小米是否能够威胁美国国家安全外，还对小米投资5G和人工智能，以及雷军个人荣誉表达了看法。\n他指出，5G和人工智能正迅速成为消费电子领域的新标准；此外，自2004年以来，已经有超过500位企业家获得了与雷军相同的奖项，其中包含婴儿配方食品公司的老板。\n字母榜（ID: wujicaijing）查阅资料发现，与雷军同期获奖的还包括网易CEO丁磊、老干妈创始人陶华碧等数十位企业家。\n对于小米这场险胜，有人在网络上调侃道：伤害性不大，但侮辱性极强。\nC\n尽管如此，小米告赢美国政府，仍然让饱受制裁折磨的中国企业看到了一丝希望。\n美国华盛顿特区律师布莱恩·伊根（Brain Egan）对路透社表示，“用于指控小米的事实简直可笑；我认为，这肯定会导致更多公司寻求豁免。”\n事实也是如此。3月中旬，在美国地方法院临时禁令的鼓舞下，与小米一道登上“黑名单”的多家中国企业开始与律师事务所接触，考虑起诉美国政府，挑战将其列入黑名单的依据和决定。\n该批名单除了小米外，还包括航空领域的中国商飞、中国航空集团、大新华航空，芯片领域的中微半导体、高云半导体，大数据与AI领域的箩筐技术和中译语通，以及北京中关村发展投资中心。\n\n但与小米相比，这些公司的业务更加敏感，其中一部分关系到底层技术竞争，想要效法小米迅速脱困并非易事。\n可供参考的是，美国商务部2019年5月将华为列入“实体清单”，禁止美国企业向华为出售技术和产品。时至今日，这一禁令仍然未有任何松动迹象。\n美国打压华为的原因十分复杂，但关键考量因素之一是，华为在5G技术上具有领先优势，在全球市场上对美国利益构成挑战。对于这类企业，美国人势必要千方百计进行压制。\n过去两年间，为了摆脱困境，华为拆分荣耀，发力云计算等新兴业务，甚至入局造车，在自家旗舰店开售小康电动车。美国打压虽然并未杀死华为，却也让这家巨头遭到不小的冲击。\n这也从侧面表明，小米此次告赢美国政府，只是一场多方利好交错之下的胜利，并不意味着拜登当局对中国公司的政策转弯。对于更多中国企业而言，美国的制裁危险仍将长期存在。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"01810":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":6735,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":191071623,"gmtCreate":1620830599662,"gmtModify":1704349076779,"author":{"id":"3582538486924451","authorId":"3582538486924451","name":"GotoAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582538486924451","authorIdStr":"3582538486924451"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":7,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/191071623","repostId":"1176763588","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1176763588","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1620828353,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1176763588?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-05-12 22:05","market":"hk","language":"zh","title":"Why was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1176763588","media":"字母榜","summary":"在4个月的交锋之后，小米艰难赢得了这场战争的阶段性胜利。","content":"<p>By Yan Fei</p><p>On May 12, a U.S. District Court document showed that Xiaomi had reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Defense and would be removed from the so-called \"Chinese military-related\" blacklist.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6f3c51b64c22eb6014721499d5ccc17d\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"593\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>This means that U.S. institutions and individuals can still invest in Xiaomi equity in the primary market or purchase Xiaomi stock or ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) in the secondary market.</p><p>Benefiting from this positive news, Xiaomi's share price rose 6.1% to HK$26.1 in Hong Kong trading on Wednesday, a new high in nearly five trading days.</p><p>On January 14 this year, the U.S. government suddenly issued an executive order blacklisting nine Chinese companies, including Xiaomi, on the grounds that they had ties to the Chinese military.</p><p>In an interview, Pang Ming, chief economist at Huaxing Securities, said that once blacklisted, both U.S. institutional and individual investors need to comply with the ban and strictly enforce stock selling. If anyone is found to be continuing to buy Xiaomi stock, the penalties will be extremely costly.</p><p>On the other hand, several US securities firms hold large amounts of Xiaomi stock and will be the first to be affected if the ban is implemented.</p><p>JPMorgan Chase holds 2.53 billion shares, representing 12.35% of the issued share capital; Citibank holds 2.093 billion shares, accounting for 10.22%; Morgan Stanley holds 480 million shares, accounting for 2.34%; The three companies collectively hold 24.91% of the shares.</p><p>The panic quickly spread to the stock price. The day after being blacklisted, Xiaomi's stock price plummeted by more than 10%, ending its nearly year-long upward momentum.</p><p>Xiaomi subsequently issued an announcement stating that its services and products are for civilian or commercial use, and that the company is not owned, controlled, or affiliated with the Chinese military, nor is it a Chinese military company as defined by U.S. law. In late January, Xiaomi filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government's Department of Defense and Treasury over investment restrictions, asking the court to declare it illegal to be blacklisted.</p><p>After four months of battle, Xiaomi narrowly won a phased victory in this war.</p><p>The damage has already been done: since the surprise attack in mid-January, Xiaomi's stock price has fluctuated from around HK$35 to around HK$25, and its market value has shrunk by nearly one-third in less than four months.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d4a086aa37bacf244550af2e6fb0054\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\"></p><p>However, compared to other Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE that have been suppressed by the United States, Xiaomi is lucky. Despite setbacks in the capital market, the business did not suffer a real blow. Companies like Huawei face a much more perilous situation, and they still need patience and wisdom to truly emerge victorious.</p><p><b>A</b></p><p>Xiaomi's ability to repel powerful enemies is directly related to the attacker's \"nonsensical\" behavior.</p><p>\"Military involvement\" is a common excuse used by the US government to suppress foreign companies, from ZTE and Huawei to Xiaomi. Against the backdrop of cooling Sino-US relations, this underhanded tactic has repeatedly worked, leaving companies like Huawei struggling to defend themselves and mired in a quagmire.</p><p>However, compared to telecommunications equipment companies, Xiaomi's main business is consumer products such as mobile phones and computers, as well as entertainment services such as film and television. Whether it's the products and technologies themselves, or the target customer group, Americans find it difficult to grasp any practical leverage and can only make heated arguments about the founders. This ultimately became the key breakthrough for Xiaomi to win the lawsuit.</p><p>In March of this year, foreign media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal exposed the reasons for the US government's sanctions against Xiaomi. Inexplicably, the Americans classified Xiaomi as a \"military-related\" company, one of the reasons being that Xiaomi's president and CEO, Lei Jun, was commended by the Chinese government in 2019.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/57b925d84cab8e0f96aa5b6aab9f930f\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"366\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Lei Jun</p><p>Public information shows that Lei Jun was named one of the \"Fifth National Outstanding Builders of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the Non-Public Sector Economy\". The award was jointly selected by the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has no connection with the military.</p><p>However, the U.S. Department of Defense concocted an extremely far-fetched logic in the document:</p><p>Xiaomi's founder receives government award; The company plans to invest RMB 50 billion in 5G, artificial intelligence and other fields over the next five years; These technologies have broad application prospects in the military field. Therefore, \"there are ample reasons to include Xiaomi Group in the sanctions.\"</p><p>In addition, the Pentagon also made a fuss about the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), one of the awarding bodies, claiming that MIIT is promoting \"military-civilian integration\" to promote the development of China's military technology. Xiaomi will play an important role in this plan.</p><p>Even in the American judiciary, this convoluted argument is unconvincing.</p><p>On March 12, a U.S. District Judge in Washington temporarily halted the U.S. Department of Defense's ban. Judge Contreras believes that as the litigation unfolds, Xiaomi is likely to completely reverse the injunction, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Xiaomi from suffering \"irreparable losses.\"</p><p>Regarding the U.S. government's concerns about a threat to national security, Contreras stated, \"The court has some doubts about whether this case actually involves significant national security interests.\"</p><p>More importantly, the ban on companies like Xiaomi was hastily issued by the Trump administration a week before leaving office, with the aim of digging more holes for the new Biden administration in the diplomatic arena. Biden's primary goal after taking office was to control the epidemic. Although he did not give up on suppressing Chinese companies, he did not want to create any further complications at the critical time of \"extinguishing the fire\" in China.</p><p>This is the fundamental difference between the predicament faced by Xiaomi and Huawei: Xiaomi is just a hot potato thrown by Trump to Biden, while Huawei is seen by Trump as a key \"tool\" to suppress China and maintain America's technological and even political global hegemony. Although the methods of launching the attacks are similar, the value of the two in the eyes of American politicians is vastly different.</p><p>Following the personnel changes in the US political establishment, Xiaomi's room for mediation on so-called \"military-related\" issues has expanded significantly. This week, the U.S. government finally acknowledged that the \"blacklist\" had procedural justice issues, was willing to reach a settlement with Xiaomi, and waived its appeal.</p><p><b>B</b></p><p>In early March, after a U.S. district court temporarily halted the ban, someone posted a question on the social media platform Maimai: \"The U.S. has sanctioned so many domestic companies, why did it only lift the ban on Xiaomi?\"</p><p>Regardless of external factors, a key reason why Xiaomi has escaped sanctions is that it does not master core technologies related to national security and instead relies heavily on foreign imports.</p><p>Taking its core mobile phone product line as an example, Xiaomi still cannot do without Qualcomm Snapdragon processors and Samsung OLED screens, and even regards them as one of the core selling points of its main models.</p><p>To ensure its chip supply, Xiaomi accepted investment from Qualcomm in its early stages. During Xiaomi's IPO in Hong Kong in 2018, Qualcomm, as one of the seven cornerstone investors, subscribed for 46 million shares, accounting for 2.1% of the listed issued share capital.</p><p>In recent years, learning from Huawei's precedent of being held back and forced to sell its mobile phone business, Xiaomi's R&D investment and the number of patents have continued to rise. However, like all domestic mobile phone manufacturers, Xiaomi is still far from being self-sufficient in key components such as processors.</p><p>More importantly, Xiaomi operates in the consumer electronics sector, which is a long-term advantage of the Americans and does not particularly require \"outside tactics\" such as government intervention.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42226ac256c5415aff0de082be351536\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"412\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Apple is the number one player on this track. In addition to possessing strong industrial design and software development capabilities, it also has first-class chip R&D capabilities. Whether it's the A-series chips for mobile devices or the M-series chips for desktops, Apple has already surpassed Qualcomm and Intel, respectively.</p><p>At least at this stage, Xiaomi will not pose a significant challenge to US interests, neither in its field nor in its own strength, and is therefore destined not to become a thorn in the side of US politics.</p><p>The American legal community seems to hold a similar view. In addition to questioning whether Xiaomi could threaten U.S. national security, District Court Judge Contreras also expressed his views on Xiaomi's investments in 5G and artificial intelligence, as well as Lei Jun's personal honors.</p><p>He pointed out that 5G and artificial intelligence are rapidly becoming the new standards in the consumer electronics field; In addition, since 2004, more than 500 entrepreneurs have received the same award as Lei Jun, including the owners of infant formula companies.</p><p>According to information reviewed by Alphabet List (ID: wujicaijing), dozens of other entrepreneurs, including NetEase CEO Ding Lei and Lao Gan Ma founder Tao Huabi, also received awards at the same time as Lei Jun.</p><p>Regarding Xiaomi's narrow victory, some people joked online: \"It's not very harmful, but it's extremely insulting.\"</p><p><b>C</b></p><p>Nevertheless, Xiaomi's victory over the US government still gave a glimmer of hope to Chinese companies suffering from sanctions.</p><p>\"The facts used to accuse Xiaomi are ridiculous; I think this will definitely lead to more companies seeking exemptions,\" Brain Egan, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., told Reuters.</p><p>And that's the truth. In mid-March, encouraged by a temporary injunction from a U.S. district court, several Chinese companies that were blacklisted along with Xiaomi began contacting law firms to consider suing the U.S. government to challenge the basis and decision to blacklist them.</p><p>In addition to Xiaomi, the list also includes COMAC, China Aviation Group, and Grand China Airlines in the aviation sector; AMEC Semiconductor and Gaoyun Semiconductor in the chip sector; Luokuang Technology and Zhongyiyutong in the big data and AI fields; and Beijing Zhongguancun Development and Investment Center.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f92d530607636142959ffb37cf5bbad4\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"673\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>However, compared to Xiaomi, these companies' businesses are more sensitive, some of which are related to underlying technological competition. It will not be easy to emulate Xiaomi and get out of trouble quickly.</p><p>For reference, in May 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce added Huawei to the \"Entity List,\" prohibiting U.S. companies from selling technology and products to Huawei. To this day, there is still no sign of easing this ban.</p><p>The reasons for the US crackdown on Huawei are complex, but one of the key considerations is that Huawei has a leading advantage in 5G technology and poses a challenge to US interests in the global market. Americans will inevitably do everything they can to suppress such companies.</p><p>Over the past two years, in order to get out of its predicament, Huawei spun off Honor, focused on emerging businesses such as cloud computing, and even entered the car manufacturing industry, selling Xiaokang electric vehicles in its own flagship store. While the US crackdown did not kill Huawei, it did deal a significant blow to the giant.</p><p>This also suggests that Xiaomi's victory over the US government is merely a victory driven by a combination of positive factors, and does not signify a shift in the Biden administration's policy toward Chinese companies. For many more Chinese companies, the danger of US sanctions will remain for a long time.</p>","source":"ZMB","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy was Xiaomi able to evade US sanctions?\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">字母榜</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-12 22:05</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>By Yan Fei</p><p>On May 12, a U.S. District Court document showed that Xiaomi had reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Defense and would be removed from the so-called \"Chinese military-related\" blacklist.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6f3c51b64c22eb6014721499d5ccc17d\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"593\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>This means that U.S. institutions and individuals can still invest in Xiaomi equity in the primary market or purchase Xiaomi stock or ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) in the secondary market.</p><p>Benefiting from this positive news, Xiaomi's share price rose 6.1% to HK$26.1 in Hong Kong trading on Wednesday, a new high in nearly five trading days.</p><p>On January 14 this year, the U.S. government suddenly issued an executive order blacklisting nine Chinese companies, including Xiaomi, on the grounds that they had ties to the Chinese military.</p><p>In an interview, Pang Ming, chief economist at Huaxing Securities, said that once blacklisted, both U.S. institutional and individual investors need to comply with the ban and strictly enforce stock selling. If anyone is found to be continuing to buy Xiaomi stock, the penalties will be extremely costly.</p><p>On the other hand, several US securities firms hold large amounts of Xiaomi stock and will be the first to be affected if the ban is implemented.</p><p>JPMorgan Chase holds 2.53 billion shares, representing 12.35% of the issued share capital; Citibank holds 2.093 billion shares, accounting for 10.22%; Morgan Stanley holds 480 million shares, accounting for 2.34%; The three companies collectively hold 24.91% of the shares.</p><p>The panic quickly spread to the stock price. The day after being blacklisted, Xiaomi's stock price plummeted by more than 10%, ending its nearly year-long upward momentum.</p><p>Xiaomi subsequently issued an announcement stating that its services and products are for civilian or commercial use, and that the company is not owned, controlled, or affiliated with the Chinese military, nor is it a Chinese military company as defined by U.S. law. In late January, Xiaomi filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government's Department of Defense and Treasury over investment restrictions, asking the court to declare it illegal to be blacklisted.</p><p>After four months of battle, Xiaomi narrowly won a phased victory in this war.</p><p>The damage has already been done: since the surprise attack in mid-January, Xiaomi's stock price has fluctuated from around HK$35 to around HK$25, and its market value has shrunk by nearly one-third in less than four months.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5d4a086aa37bacf244550af2e6fb0054\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\"></p><p>However, compared to other Chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE that have been suppressed by the United States, Xiaomi is lucky. Despite setbacks in the capital market, the business did not suffer a real blow. Companies like Huawei face a much more perilous situation, and they still need patience and wisdom to truly emerge victorious.</p><p><b>A</b></p><p>Xiaomi's ability to repel powerful enemies is directly related to the attacker's \"nonsensical\" behavior.</p><p>\"Military involvement\" is a common excuse used by the US government to suppress foreign companies, from ZTE and Huawei to Xiaomi. Against the backdrop of cooling Sino-US relations, this underhanded tactic has repeatedly worked, leaving companies like Huawei struggling to defend themselves and mired in a quagmire.</p><p>However, compared to telecommunications equipment companies, Xiaomi's main business is consumer products such as mobile phones and computers, as well as entertainment services such as film and television. Whether it's the products and technologies themselves, or the target customer group, Americans find it difficult to grasp any practical leverage and can only make heated arguments about the founders. This ultimately became the key breakthrough for Xiaomi to win the lawsuit.</p><p>In March of this year, foreign media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal exposed the reasons for the US government's sanctions against Xiaomi. Inexplicably, the Americans classified Xiaomi as a \"military-related\" company, one of the reasons being that Xiaomi's president and CEO, Lei Jun, was commended by the Chinese government in 2019.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/57b925d84cab8e0f96aa5b6aab9f930f\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"366\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Lei Jun</p><p>Public information shows that Lei Jun was named one of the \"Fifth National Outstanding Builders of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the Non-Public Sector Economy\". The award was jointly selected by the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, and has no connection with the military.</p><p>However, the U.S. Department of Defense concocted an extremely far-fetched logic in the document:</p><p>Xiaomi's founder receives government award; The company plans to invest RMB 50 billion in 5G, artificial intelligence and other fields over the next five years; These technologies have broad application prospects in the military field. Therefore, \"there are ample reasons to include Xiaomi Group in the sanctions.\"</p><p>In addition, the Pentagon also made a fuss about the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), one of the awarding bodies, claiming that MIIT is promoting \"military-civilian integration\" to promote the development of China's military technology. Xiaomi will play an important role in this plan.</p><p>Even in the American judiciary, this convoluted argument is unconvincing.</p><p>On March 12, a U.S. District Judge in Washington temporarily halted the U.S. Department of Defense's ban. Judge Contreras believes that as the litigation unfolds, Xiaomi is likely to completely reverse the injunction, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction to prevent Xiaomi from suffering \"irreparable losses.\"</p><p>Regarding the U.S. government's concerns about a threat to national security, Contreras stated, \"The court has some doubts about whether this case actually involves significant national security interests.\"</p><p>More importantly, the ban on companies like Xiaomi was hastily issued by the Trump administration a week before leaving office, with the aim of digging more holes for the new Biden administration in the diplomatic arena. Biden's primary goal after taking office was to control the epidemic. Although he did not give up on suppressing Chinese companies, he did not want to create any further complications at the critical time of \"extinguishing the fire\" in China.</p><p>This is the fundamental difference between the predicament faced by Xiaomi and Huawei: Xiaomi is just a hot potato thrown by Trump to Biden, while Huawei is seen by Trump as a key \"tool\" to suppress China and maintain America's technological and even political global hegemony. Although the methods of launching the attacks are similar, the value of the two in the eyes of American politicians is vastly different.</p><p>Following the personnel changes in the US political establishment, Xiaomi's room for mediation on so-called \"military-related\" issues has expanded significantly. This week, the U.S. government finally acknowledged that the \"blacklist\" had procedural justice issues, was willing to reach a settlement with Xiaomi, and waived its appeal.</p><p><b>B</b></p><p>In early March, after a U.S. district court temporarily halted the ban, someone posted a question on the social media platform Maimai: \"The U.S. has sanctioned so many domestic companies, why did it only lift the ban on Xiaomi?\"</p><p>Regardless of external factors, a key reason why Xiaomi has escaped sanctions is that it does not master core technologies related to national security and instead relies heavily on foreign imports.</p><p>Taking its core mobile phone product line as an example, Xiaomi still cannot do without Qualcomm Snapdragon processors and Samsung OLED screens, and even regards them as one of the core selling points of its main models.</p><p>To ensure its chip supply, Xiaomi accepted investment from Qualcomm in its early stages. During Xiaomi's IPO in Hong Kong in 2018, Qualcomm, as one of the seven cornerstone investors, subscribed for 46 million shares, accounting for 2.1% of the listed issued share capital.</p><p>In recent years, learning from Huawei's precedent of being held back and forced to sell its mobile phone business, Xiaomi's R&D investment and the number of patents have continued to rise. However, like all domestic mobile phone manufacturers, Xiaomi is still far from being self-sufficient in key components such as processors.</p><p>More importantly, Xiaomi operates in the consumer electronics sector, which is a long-term advantage of the Americans and does not particularly require \"outside tactics\" such as government intervention.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42226ac256c5415aff0de082be351536\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"412\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Apple is the number one player on this track. In addition to possessing strong industrial design and software development capabilities, it also has first-class chip R&D capabilities. Whether it's the A-series chips for mobile devices or the M-series chips for desktops, Apple has already surpassed Qualcomm and Intel, respectively.</p><p>At least at this stage, Xiaomi will not pose a significant challenge to US interests, neither in its field nor in its own strength, and is therefore destined not to become a thorn in the side of US politics.</p><p>The American legal community seems to hold a similar view. In addition to questioning whether Xiaomi could threaten U.S. national security, District Court Judge Contreras also expressed his views on Xiaomi's investments in 5G and artificial intelligence, as well as Lei Jun's personal honors.</p><p>He pointed out that 5G and artificial intelligence are rapidly becoming the new standards in the consumer electronics field; In addition, since 2004, more than 500 entrepreneurs have received the same award as Lei Jun, including the owners of infant formula companies.</p><p>According to information reviewed by Alphabet List (ID: wujicaijing), dozens of other entrepreneurs, including NetEase CEO Ding Lei and Lao Gan Ma founder Tao Huabi, also received awards at the same time as Lei Jun.</p><p>Regarding Xiaomi's narrow victory, some people joked online: \"It's not very harmful, but it's extremely insulting.\"</p><p><b>C</b></p><p>Nevertheless, Xiaomi's victory over the US government still gave a glimmer of hope to Chinese companies suffering from sanctions.</p><p>\"The facts used to accuse Xiaomi are ridiculous; I think this will definitely lead to more companies seeking exemptions,\" Brain Egan, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., told Reuters.</p><p>And that's the truth. In mid-March, encouraged by a temporary injunction from a U.S. district court, several Chinese companies that were blacklisted along with Xiaomi began contacting law firms to consider suing the U.S. government to challenge the basis and decision to blacklist them.</p><p>In addition to Xiaomi, the list also includes COMAC, China Aviation Group, and Grand China Airlines in the aviation sector; AMEC Semiconductor and Gaoyun Semiconductor in the chip sector; Luokuang Technology and Zhongyiyutong in the big data and AI fields; and Beijing Zhongguancun Development and Investment Center.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f92d530607636142959ffb37cf5bbad4\" tg-width=\"550\" tg-height=\"673\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>However, compared to Xiaomi, these companies' businesses are more sensitive, some of which are related to underlying technological competition. It will not be easy to emulate Xiaomi and get out of trouble quickly.</p><p>For reference, in May 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce added Huawei to the \"Entity List,\" prohibiting U.S. companies from selling technology and products to Huawei. To this day, there is still no sign of easing this ban.</p><p>The reasons for the US crackdown on Huawei are complex, but one of the key considerations is that Huawei has a leading advantage in 5G technology and poses a challenge to US interests in the global market. Americans will inevitably do everything they can to suppress such companies.</p><p>Over the past two years, in order to get out of its predicament, Huawei spun off Honor, focused on emerging businesses such as cloud computing, and even entered the car manufacturing industry, selling Xiaokang electric vehicles in its own flagship store. While the US crackdown did not kill Huawei, it did deal a significant blow to the giant.</p><p>This also suggests that Xiaomi's victory over the US government is merely a victory driven by a combination of positive factors, and does not signify a shift in the Biden administration's policy toward Chinese companies. For many more Chinese companies, the danger of US sanctions will remain for a long time.</p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"http://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/csj/2021-05-12/doc-ikmyaawc4937569.shtml\">字母榜</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bb44f0df3fb7312ee913474e800cc495","relate_stocks":{"01810":"小米集团-W"},"source_url":"http://finance.sina.com.cn/tech/csj/2021-05-12/doc-ikmyaawc4937569.shtml","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1176763588","content_text":"文/彦飞\n5月12日，一份美国地方法院文件显示，小米公司已经与美国国防部达成和解，将被移出所谓“与中国军方相关”的黑名单。\n\n这意味着，美国机构和个人仍然可以在一级市场投资小米公司股权，或是在二级市场购买小米股票或ADR（美国存托凭证）。\n受此利好影响，周三港股交易中，小米股价上涨6.1%，报于26.1港元，为近5个交易日之新高。\n今年1月14日，美国政府突然颁布行政令，将小米等9家中国公司列入“黑名单”，理由是它们与中国军方存在关联。\n华兴证券首席经济学家庞溟在接受采访时表示，一旦列入黑名单，美国机构和个人投资者都需要遵守禁令，严格执行股票卖出。若被发现继续买入小米股票，处罚成本极高。\n另一方面，多家美国券商握有大笔小米股票，如果禁令落地将首当其冲。\n其中，摩根大通持有25.3亿股，占已发行股本的12.35%；花旗银行持有20.93亿股，占比10.22%；摩根士丹利持有4.8亿股，占比2.34%；三者合计持股24.91%。\n恐慌情绪很快传导到了股价上。被列入“黑名单”次日，小米股价大跌逾10%，绵延近一年的上涨势头被掐断。\n小米随后发布公告称，其服务和产品皆为民用或商用，公司并非中国军方拥有、控制或关联方，亦非美国法律定义的中国军方公司。1月底，小米针对美国政府限制投资一事起诉该国国防部和财政部，要求法院宣布将其列入“黑名单”为非法行为。\n在4个月的交锋之后，小米艰难赢得了这场战争的阶段性胜利。\n损害已经造成：自从1月中旬遭遇突然袭击以来，小米股价从35港元附近一路震荡下跌至25港元左右，不到4个月市值缩水约近1/3。\n\n但与华为、中兴等其他被美国打压的中国企业相比，小米又是幸运的。虽然在资本市场上受挫，但业务并未遭遇真正打击。而华为等企业面对的形势要凶险的多，想要真正走出来仍需要耐心和智慧。\nA\n小米能够击退强敌，与进攻方的“无厘头”直接相关。\n“涉军”是美国政府打压外国企业的常用借口，从中兴、华为到小米皆是如此。在中美关系趋冷的时代背景下，这一阴招屡试不爽，让华为等公司难以自辩，深陷泥潭。\n但与通信设备企业相比，小米的主营业务是手机、电脑等消费级产品，以及影视等娱乐服务。无论是产品和技术本身，还是面向的客户群体，美国人都很难抓住实际把柄，只能围绕创始人大作诛心之论。这最终成为小米打赢官司的关键突破口。\n今年3月，《华尔街日报》等国外媒体曝光了美国政府制裁小米的理由。匪夷所思的是，美国人将小米列为“涉军”企业，原因之一是小米总裁兼CEO雷军2019年曾受到中国政府表彰。\n雷军\n公开信息显示，雷军当年被评为“第五届全国非公有制经济人士优秀中国特色社会主义事业建设者”，该奖项由中央统战部、工信部、人社部、市场监管总局和全国工商联联合评选，与军方毫无关联。\n但美国国防部在文件中炮制了一个极为牵强的逻辑：\n小米创始人获得政府奖项；该公司计划未来5年在5G、人工智能等领域投入人民币500亿元；这些技术又在军事领域有广泛应用前景。因此，“有充分理由将小米集团列入制裁”。\n此外，五角大楼还围绕评奖机构之一工信部做文章，声称工信部正在推动“军民融合”，以促进中国军用技术的发展。小米将在这一计划中扮演重要角色。\n即使在美国司法界，这套七拐八绕的说辞也无法令人信服。\n3月12日，美国华盛顿地方法官临时叫停美国国防部禁令。法官孔特雷拉斯认为，随着诉讼的展开，小米很可能会完全扭转这项禁令，于是发布初步禁制令，以防止小米遭受“不可挽回的损失”。\n对于美国政府提出的国家安全遭到威胁的担忧，孔特雷拉斯表示：“法院有些怀疑，本案是否实际上牵扯到了重大国家安全利益。”\n更关键的是，针对小米等公司的禁令，是特朗普政府在离任前一周匆忙发布的，目的是在外交领域给新一届拜登政府多挖几个坑。而拜登上台后的首要目标是控制疫情，尽管并未放弃对中国企业的打压，却也并不想在国内“灭火”的关键时间点另生枝节。\n这就是小米和华为所面临困境的根本区别：小米只是特朗普扔给拜登的一枚烫手山芋，而华为则被特朗普当做了打压中国、维系美国科技乃至政治全球霸权的关键“抓手”。尽管发难方式类似，两者在美国政客眼中的利用价值却有天壤之别。\n美国政界人事更迭之后，小米所谓“涉军”问题的斡旋空间大了许多。本周，美国政府终于承认“黑名单”存在程序正义问题，愿意与小米达成和解，并放弃上诉。\nB\n3月上旬，在美国地方法院临时叫停禁令后，有人在社交网站脉脉上发出疑问：“美国制裁了国内这么多公司，怎么单单解禁了小米？”\n抛开外部因素不论，小米之所以免遭制裁，一个重要原因是它确实不掌握关系国家安全的核心技术，反而非常依赖国外进口。\n以核心的手机产品线为例，小米仍然离不开高通骁龙处理器和三星OLED屏，甚至将其作为主力机型的核心卖点之一。\n为了确保芯片供给，小米在创办初期就接受了高通的投资；2018年小米赴港IPO，高通作为7位基石投资者之一认购4600万股，占上市发行股本的2.1%。\n近些年来，有了华为惨遭卡脖子、被迫出售手机业务的前车之鉴，小米的研发投入和专利数量不断上升。但与国内所有手机厂商一样，在处理器等关键零部件上，小米距离自给自足仍然十分遥远。\n更关键的是，小米身处的消费电子领域，是美国人的长期优势项目，并不特别需要政府干预之类的“盘外招”。\n\n在这条赛道上，苹果是一号选手。它除了具备强大的工业设计和软件开发能力外，芯片研发实力同样一流。无论是移动端的A系列芯片，还是桌面端的M系列芯片，苹果都已经分别压过高通和英特尔一头。\n至少在目前阶段，小米无论是所处领域还是自身实力，都不会对美国利益构成显著挑战，也就注定不会成为美国政界的眼中钉。\n美国法律界似乎也持有类似看法。地方法院法官孔特雷拉斯除了质疑小米是否能够威胁美国国家安全外，还对小米投资5G和人工智能，以及雷军个人荣誉表达了看法。\n他指出，5G和人工智能正迅速成为消费电子领域的新标准；此外，自2004年以来，已经有超过500位企业家获得了与雷军相同的奖项，其中包含婴儿配方食品公司的老板。\n字母榜（ID: wujicaijing）查阅资料发现，与雷军同期获奖的还包括网易CEO丁磊、老干妈创始人陶华碧等数十位企业家。\n对于小米这场险胜，有人在网络上调侃道：伤害性不大，但侮辱性极强。\nC\n尽管如此，小米告赢美国政府，仍然让饱受制裁折磨的中国企业看到了一丝希望。\n美国华盛顿特区律师布莱恩·伊根（Brain Egan）对路透社表示，“用于指控小米的事实简直可笑；我认为，这肯定会导致更多公司寻求豁免。”\n事实也是如此。3月中旬，在美国地方法院临时禁令的鼓舞下，与小米一道登上“黑名单”的多家中国企业开始与律师事务所接触，考虑起诉美国政府，挑战将其列入黑名单的依据和决定。\n该批名单除了小米外，还包括航空领域的中国商飞、中国航空集团、大新华航空，芯片领域的中微半导体、高云半导体，大数据与AI领域的箩筐技术和中译语通，以及北京中关村发展投资中心。\n\n但与小米相比，这些公司的业务更加敏感，其中一部分关系到底层技术竞争，想要效法小米迅速脱困并非易事。\n可供参考的是，美国商务部2019年5月将华为列入“实体清单”，禁止美国企业向华为出售技术和产品。时至今日，这一禁令仍然未有任何松动迹象。\n美国打压华为的原因十分复杂，但关键考量因素之一是，华为在5G技术上具有领先优势，在全球市场上对美国利益构成挑战。对于这类企业，美国人势必要千方百计进行压制。\n过去两年间，为了摆脱困境，华为拆分荣耀，发力云计算等新兴业务，甚至入局造车，在自家旗舰店开售小康电动车。美国打压虽然并未杀死华为，却也让这家巨头遭到不小的冲击。\n这也从侧面表明，小米此次告赢美国政府，只是一场多方利好交错之下的胜利，并不意味着拜登当局对中国公司的政策转弯。对于更多中国企业而言，美国的制裁危险仍将长期存在。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"01810":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":6735,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":192340674,"gmtCreate":1621151587498,"gmtModify":1704353425511,"author":{"id":"3582538486924451","authorId":"3582538486924451","name":"GotoAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582538486924451","authorIdStr":"3582538486924451"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/192340674","repostId":"2135498979","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":6156,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":198952903,"gmtCreate":1620920581902,"gmtModify":1704350564253,"author":{"id":"3582538486924451","authorId":"3582538486924451","name":"GotoAlan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/309928d11befbebb3717aa8a8868ea2c","crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582538486924451","authorIdStr":"3582538486924451"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"ok","listText":"ok","text":"ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/198952903","repostId":"2135621359","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2135621359","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1620912742,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2135621359?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-05-13 21:32","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"Muddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2135621359","media":"智通财经","summary":"可能会暴露客户个人身份信息，要求公司立即让网站下线，修复漏洞。","content":"<p>On Thursday, May 13, Muddy Waters claimed that<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/LMND\">Lemonade</a>The website has a serious security vulnerability that may expose customers' personally identifiable information (PII). The company is required to immediately take the website offline and fix the vulnerability. Affected by this news, Lemonade's stock price fell by more than 7% in pre-market trading before gradually recovering. As of press time, Lemonade was up 0.68% at $60.57.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98446c1f3c305e0b0e624ee8263a4356\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>It is understood that Muddy Waters is not The first short seller to target Lemonade; The Friendly Bear also shorted The company at The end of last year.</p><p>Several investment banks downgraded their ratings on internet insurance company Lemonade after its first-quarter loss per share exceeded market expectations. among<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>Analyst Andrew Kligerman pointed out that unexpected losses caused by the Texas storm were the main reason for the stock's losses. Financial reports show that the 121% gross loss rate in the first quarter included 50% of the impact of catastrophic events. Although the adjusted EBITDA loss of $41 million was in line with the bank's expectations,<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>We still give Lemonade an \"underperforming\" rating.</p>","source":"stock_zhitongcaijing","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Muddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMuddy Waters shorted Lemonade: It has a serious security vulnerability and should be taken offline immediately.\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">智通财经</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-13 21:32</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>On Thursday, May 13, Muddy Waters claimed that<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/LMND\">Lemonade</a>The website has a serious security vulnerability that may expose customers' personally identifiable information (PII). The company is required to immediately take the website offline and fix the vulnerability. Affected by this news, Lemonade's stock price fell by more than 7% in pre-market trading before gradually recovering. As of press time, Lemonade was up 0.68% at $60.57.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/98446c1f3c305e0b0e624ee8263a4356\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"470\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>It is understood that Muddy Waters is not The first short seller to target Lemonade; The Friendly Bear also shorted The company at The end of last year.</p><p>Several investment banks downgraded their ratings on internet insurance company Lemonade after its first-quarter loss per share exceeded market expectations. among<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>Analyst Andrew Kligerman pointed out that unexpected losses caused by the Texas storm were the main reason for the stock's losses. Financial reports show that the 121% gross loss rate in the first quarter included 50% of the impact of catastrophic events. Although the adjusted EBITDA loss of $41 million was in line with the bank's expectations,<a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/UBS\">UBS</a>We still give Lemonade an \"underperforming\" rating.</p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/474595.html\">智通财经</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/21a485199ba4d98518695cb468836114","relate_stocks":{"LMND":"Lemonade, Inc."},"source_url":"http://www.zhitongcaijing.com/content/detail/474595.html","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2135621359","content_text":"5月13日(周四)，浑水公司(Muddy Waters)声称，Lemonade网站存在严重安全漏洞，可能会暴露客户个人身份信息(PII)，要求公司立即让网站下线，修复漏洞。受此消息影响，Lemonade盘前股价一度跌逾7%，后逐步回暖，盘初截至发稿，Lemonade涨0.68%，报60.57美元。据了解，浑水并不是第一家瞄准Lemonade的做空者，去年年底，The Friendly Bear也做空该公司。受第一季度每股亏损大于市场预期的影响，多家投行降低了对互联网保险公司Lemonade的评级。其中瑞银分析师Andrew Kligerman指出，德州风暴造成的超预期的损失是该股亏损的主要原因。财报显示，第一季度121%的毛损率中包含50%的巨灾影响。虽然调整后的EBITDA亏损4100万美元符合该行预期，但瑞银还是给予Lemonade“跑输大市”评级。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"LMND":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":5150,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
