Connect with us

Analysis

Donald Trump is one of a long line of presidents to fall ill in office

Published

on


A deadly pandemic raged across the world. Millions had been infected. And suddenly the US president himself was hit by the virus.

The year was 1919. Woodrow Wilson had been laid low by the Spanish flu in Paris, where he and other world leaders were negotiating the post-first world war settlement in Europe.

In public, the White House played down the illness as a mere cold. In reality, Wilson was “violently sick” with influenza, his doctor wrote in private.

“His [infection] was pretty severe,” said David Petriello, a historian. “That dramatically impacted him during the Versailles peace conference.”

A hundred years later, echoes of Wilson’s experience have returned as Donald Trump has become infected with coronavirus. His doctor said on Friday Mr Trump was “fatigued but in good spirits”. He would spend a few days at Walter Reed military medical centre “out of an abundance of caution”, the White House said.

Mr Trump is the latest in a long line of American presidents to suffer ill health in office. The history of illness in US presidents is largely one of intense secrecy, and occasionally flat out lies.

Wilson would later in 1919 suffer a stroke that partially paralysed him and left him unable to perform the duties of president without the help of his second wife Edith.

“His wife was essentially running the White House,” said Mr Petriello, who chronicled the impact of disease on the presidency in A Pestilence on Pennsylvania Avenue.

The imperative for secrecy has included denying the truth even when revealed, most notably in 1893 when Grover Cleveland had surgery to remove a cancerous lump in his mouth while in office.

The procedure was carried out on a friend’s yacht off the coast of New York, without the vice-president’s knowledge. The cover story later spun was he had dental surgery for a toothache.

A journalist, EJ Edwards, published a story about what actually happened. “The White House flat out denied it,” said Matthew Algeo, author of a book about Cleveland’s surgery called The President Is a Sick Man.

Mr Algeo said that Cleveland at the time had a reputation for honesty, so Edwards was discredited and the president’s denial was widely believed. “He kind of cashed in all his honesty chips on this one big lie.”

Only years later, in 1917 years after Cleveland had died, would one of his doctors admit Edwards had gotten it right.

“It was a very successful example of a president covering up,” said Mr Algeo. “The president’s physician, he’s not obliged to tell me and you and the American public what’s going on. He’s obliged to respect the wishes of the patient.”

The question of who is in control of the US government if the president is stricken was not firmly resolved until the late 1960s, when the 25th amendment specified that the vice-president becomes the acting chief executive.

On the two occasions George W Bush had a colonoscopy while in office, he formally transferred power to his vice-president, Dick Cheney, for the time of the procedure. Both times the public was informed in advance.

The modern era of relative transparency about a president’s health has its origins with Dwight Eisenhower, who suffered a heart attack in 1955 while in office.

After the administration initially misled reporters about what happened, it reversed course with a torrent of information about his condition — including news of a successful bowel movement.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, here with wife Eleanor, went to great lengths to disguise his use of a wheelchair in office © Hulton Archive

A decade or so earlier, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had died in office of a cerebral haemorrhage shortly after being elected to a fourth term — he was the most recent president to die in office of natural causes.

Roosevelt had needed the use of a wheelchair after contracting polio in his 30s, though he went to great lengths to avoid public awareness of his incapacity while campaigning for president and then in office.

“He did a lot to mask his illness from the public,” said Louis Picone, author of a history on presidential deaths called The President is Dead. “He would have people standing right next to him propping him up.”

Roosevelt’s health would deteriorate dramatically as president as he suffered from heart disease. When he ran for re-election in 1944, a doctor who examined him recorded in a memo that Roosevelt would not see out his fourth term. The memo would not be published until the century was out.



Source link

Analysis

Investors rethink China strategy after regulatory shocks

Published

on

By


After four days of heavy selling in Chinese stocks, regulators in Beijing decided it was time to offer some reassurance to Wall Street. But some investors have still been left figuring out whether to double down or flee.

In a hastily arranged call on Wednesday evening, Chinese regulators told a dozen or so executives from global investors, heavy-hitting banks and Chinese financial groups not to fret about the shock overhaul of the country’s $100bn private tutoring industry. Investors should not worry about intervention to curtail profitmaking in other companies, they said. Rather, China remained committed to allowing companies to access capital markets. 

The message did not stick. Tech stocks in the country have wrapped up their worst month since the financial crisis of 2008. “Clearly there will be more [regulatory intervention] to come,” said one person briefed on the call. “That much was obvious to everyone.” 

Now, foreign investors in China have been left nursing huge losses, and anxious over where, after education, regulators might turn their attention next. They must decide whether the drop in stocks is an opportunity to double down on a fast-growing economy or a sign that unpredictable political risk outweighs potentially lucrative returns.

“The political risk factors of investing in China have grown exponentially in the past 18 months,” said Dominic Armstrong, chief executive of Horatius Capital, which runs a geopolitical investment fund. “People learned the hard way in Russia and they’re learning the hard way in China.” 

Line chart of Stock index performance year to date (%) showing China's tech crackdown hits foreign listings harder

Tough lesson

Following a leaked memo just over a week ago suggesting Beijing was planning to clamp down on education companies, the market sell-off was sharp.

It was led by a drop in education stocks that, according to one Gavekal analyst, made for “some of the most traumatic viewing since the charts of Lehman’s bonds”. TAL Education, Gaotu Techedu and New Oriental Education, which are listed in New York, all fell close to 60 per cent in the first hour of trading on July 23.

Further jitters came on Tuesday when Tencent, one of China’s biggest tech groups, announced its flagship WeChat social network had suspended user registrations as it upgraded security technology “to align with all relevant laws and regulations”. 

Nerves have pummelled Chinese tech groups listed in New York, taking the Nasdaq Golden Dragon China index down more than 20 per cent in July — the worst month since the global financial crisis. 

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Tech index fell almost 15 per cent, dragging the broader Hang Seng benchmark almost 9 per cent lower as Chinese internet giants Tencent and Alibaba fell 18 and 14 per cent, respectively. 

Big institutional investors have driven the selling, according to strategists at JPMorgan Chase. Meanwhile Ark Invest star manager Cathie Wood has also been slashing her China holdings. The $22.4bn Ark Innovation exchange-traded fund, which held an 8 per cent allocation to China shares in February, has now almost completely exited Chinese stocks, according to the company’s website.

But some have stepped in for a potential bargain. “We have been net buyers,” said a fund manager at a $15bn Asia-based asset manager. “It is unheard of to see these types of moves . . . You’ve got to buy them, unless you think the entire world is going to crash and burn.”

The new rules will ban companies that teach school curriculum subjects from accepting foreign investment © Costfoto/Barcroft Media via Getty

National objectives

The crackdown on education marks part of the Chinese Communist party’s attempts to address falling birth rates by removing some of the perceived financial obstacles to having children. The rules will ban companies that teach school curriculum subjects from making profits, raising capital or listing on stock exchanges worldwide, and from accepting foreign investment.

This sector is dominated by three large US-listed groups — TAL Education, New Oriental Education and Gaotu Techedu — which have enjoyed soaring valuations in recent years and drawn billions of dollars of backing from some of the world’s top investment firms such as BlackRock and Baillie Gifford.

Private rivals like Yuanfudao and Zuoyebang, which have held multibillion-dollar funding rounds in recent years, are backed by groups including Tencent, Sequoia, SoftBank’s Vision Fund and Jack Ma’s Yunfeng Capital.

The government intervention came shortly after anti-monopoly and data security measures against some of China’s largest tech companies. Last November the $37bn blockbuster initial public offering of Chinese payments group Ant was torpedoed by Beijing regulators, and its controlling shareholder — Alibaba founder Ma — disappeared from public view for several months.

In the past few months Beijing has also been expanding its influence in to the domestic online sector. In April it fined ecommerce group Alibaba $2.8bn for abusing its market dominance, and opened an antitrust investigation into Meituan, the takeaway delivery and lifestyle services platform. 

And earlier in July, Chinese regulators announced an investigation into possible data security breaches at Didi Chuxing, less than a month after the ride-hailing app raised more than $4bn in a New York listing. Its shares have dropped two-fifths since then.

Line chart of Performance of American depository receipts showing Once high-flying Chinese education stocks tumble back  to Earth

Baillie Gifford, the Edinburgh-based fund manager with £352bn in assets under management, is the second-largest shareholder in US-listed TAL and has made big bets on China’s tech sector.

“It’s not saying we like the geopolitics or the national politics or anything like that,” Baillie Gifford fund manager James Anderson told the Financial Times in June, referring to its decision to add exposure to China in recent years.

But potential gains are too compelling to ignore, he added, pointing to “the excitement we see around businesses, the ambition levels among Chinese entrepreneurs, and the relationships we can build with the individual companies”. 

Baillie Gifford declined to comment this week on the latest developments in China.

The new restrictions for private tutoring companies prohibit them from accepting foreign capital through “variable interest entity” structures — the model that many big Chinese tech firms have used to list abroad for two decades. The VIE structure, which allows global investors to get around controls on foreign ownership in some Chinese industries, has never been legally recognised in China, despite underpinning about $2tn of investments in companies like Alibaba and Pinduoduo on US markets. 

In response to Beijing’s restrictions on China-based companies raising capital offshore, on Friday the US Securities and Exchange Commission announced that China-based companies will have to disclose more about their structure and contacts with the Chinese government before listing in the US. 

“I worry that average investors may not realise that they hold stock in a shell company rather than a China-based operating company,” SEC chair Gary Gensler said in a statement.

Beijing has opened an antitrust investigation into Meituan, the takeaway delivery and lifestyle services platform © Yan Cong/Bloomberg

Widening crackdown?

The education crackdown sparked fears the VIE ban could be extended to other sectors.

Revoking the rights of Chinese companies to use VIEs is seen as China’s nuclear option. On Wednesday, Beijing regulators sought to reassure investors that it would not target VIEs more widely. But one Wall Street executive briefed on this week’s call with regulators said “it was more about what they didn’t say, there were questions about the VIE structure they didn’t address”.

The consequences of restricting VIEs in sectors outside of education would be so severe that some are confident Beijing would not eradicate them completely.

“The government will allow the VIE structure to survive, but one thing is clear: if a company wants to use the VIE structure to circumvent certain regulations then that is not going to work,” said Min Chen, head of China at $8bn emerging markets specialist Somerset Capital Management.

Rather than selling out of China altogether, some investors say they are focusing on trying to select stocks that are in line with the government’s strategic priorities. 

“Companies such as taxi-hailing groups or community group buying businesses, where their model is to use their competitive pricing advantage to squeeze out smaller players are likely to find themselves vulnerable to more regulation,” said Chen. “There is also the potential for winners in this environment, such as domestic leaders in the tech space and semiconductor producers . . . as well as companies that are exposed to mass consumption.” 

Alice Wang, a London-based fund manager at €2.7bn Quaero Capital, agreed that investors will need to switch to betting on sectors that are “important to China’s long-term economic future . . . areas like renewables and industrial automation companies that drive the ‘Made in China’ narrative.”

David Older, head of equities at €41bn asset manager Carmignac, echoed these sentiments and said he likes sectors such as semiconductors, software, renewable energy, healthcare and electric vehicles. He is overweight China and has been adding to his positions this week: “It’s a great buying signal when you see strategists saying that China is uninvestable.”

Trying to align yourself with the government’s strategic objectives “is the only way you can sleep at night”, said Horatius Capital’s Armstrong.

Chinese government intervention is about addressing its “demographic time bomb,” he said. “This is a Chinese problem and there will be a Chinese solution. You can come along and be a passenger if you want, but the ride is not going to be smooth.”

International asset managers rush to tap ‘huge’ China wealth opportunity

Some of the world’s biggest investors are pushing into China with wealth management joint ventures to create investment products for the country’s vast and growing pools of savers. A report from Boston Consulting Group and China Everbright Bank showed that China’s wider wealth market was worth Rmb121.6tn ($18.9tn) in 2020, up 10 per cent from a year earlier. 

While China’s wealth management sector is still dominated by banks, early overseas movers include Europe’s Amundi and Schroders, and BlackRock, JPMorgan Asset Management and Goldman Sachs Asset Management from the US, lured by the country’s liberalisation of its financial markets.

“There’s a fast-growing middle class in China that has huge [asset management] needs for savings and retirement,” said Valérie Baudson, chief executive of €1.8tn group Amundi, which recently launched a wealth management subsidiary with the Bank of China. This year the joint venture has launched over 50 funds to sell to the Chinese bank’s network of clients, and raised €3.4bn in assets. 

Executives downplayed the political risk of these initiatives, pointing to the importance of partnering with domestic Chinese institutions. “It’s not a risk that keeps me up at night. For us it’s about a long-term investment,” said Peter Harrison, chief executive of £700bn asset manager Schroders, which gained approval in February for a wealth management subsidiary with China’s Bank of Communications. Bringing Schroders’ long-term investment approach to China, “is very much for the benefit of long-term Chinese savers,” he added.

The value of Amundi has been updated since first publication.

Additional reporting by Eric Platt in New York



Source link

Continue Reading

Analysis

Can plant-based milk beat conventional dairy?

Published

on

By


You can enable subtitles (captions) in the video player

Plant-based milk brands are churning up the global dairy business, with a surge in sales, investment, and new products coming to market. The plant derived dairy trade is now worth an estimated $17bn worldwide.

Growing consumer demand has boosted investment. According to data firm Dealroom, venture capital funding across the plant-based dairy and egg sector has skyrocketed, from $64m in 2015 to $1.6bn in 2020.

The world’s biggest food company, Nestle, recently launched its first international plant-based dairy brand, a cow’s milk substitute made from yellow peas. Wonder will come in a variety of flavours, competing with established brands like Oatly oat-based milk. Founded in Sweden in the 1990s, that company is now valued at around $15bn. Demand for alternatives to soya, which once dominated the dairy free market, continues to escalate.

In the west, sales for other plant-based milks, including oat, cashew, coconut, hemp, and other seeds overtook soya back in 2014. Since then, they’ve raced ahead to be worth almost three times as much as soya products, with a combined projected value of more than $5bn in sales by 2022.

Advocates argue that plant-based production emits less greenhouse gas than cattle, making it the way forward to help feed the world and curb global warming. But dairy groups are fighting back with their own sustainability campaigns. And cow’s milk is hard to beat when it comes to naturally occurring nutrients, like protein, vitamins and minerals.

The average 100 millilitre glass of cow’s milk contains three grammes of protein, compared to 2.2 grammes in pea milk and just one gramme in oat-based substitutes.

Dairy producers have also won a legal bid, preventing vegan competitors in the EU from calling their products milk and yoghurt. Despite their growing popularity, plant-based brands are a long way from displacing conventional milk products. Their current $17bn turnover is still a drop in the pail, compared with the traditional cattle-based dairy trade, which is worth an estimated $650bn worldwide.



Source link

Continue Reading

Analysis

'It’s more than sport – every day we are fighting for our rights to be equal’

Published

on

By



French pro basketball player and podcaster Diandra Tchatchouang on her role beyond the court



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending