POST MODERN FORDISM

BYD calls on China automakers to unite, 'demolish the old' in global push

Reuters
Fri, August 11, 2023 



Auto Shanghai show, in Shanghai

(Reuters) - A patriotic call by China's bestselling automaker to band the industry together and "demolish the old legends" of the global market has gone viral, drawing both raves and a rebuke from a rival.

BYD used an event this week to mark a production milestone to celebrate a bigger purpose: the emergence of China as a global auto manufacturing powerhouse.

"I believe the time has come for Chinese brands," BYD founder and chairman Wang Chuanfu said at the event, standing in front of an image of the logos of 12 major Chinese automakers.

"It's an emotional need for the 1.4 billion Chinese people to see a Chinese brand becoming global."

The call by BYD – Tesla's closest rival in the global electric vehicle sales race – prompted widespread praise, and underscored how China's automakers are riven by competition at home and chasing growth overseas.

China's automakers are locked in a bruising price war that was started by Tesla in January and which shows no signs of easing. They are also all competing in the same global markets, where they face consumer wariness and sometimes regulatory roadblocks.

At its event on Wednesday, BYD released a video marking the founding of a dozen rivals from state-run automaker FAW Group in 1956 to commercial EV startups Xpeng, Nio and Li Auto in the past decade.

The video shows historical footage, sweeping vistas and cars being loaded for export. "Our stories are different from each other but share the same direction," the narrator says, adding in reference to overseas markets: "There's no distinction between 'you' and 'me'."

It ends with a call for China's automakers to "demolish the old legends and achieve new world-class brands," under the slogan, "Chinese Autos".

"FACE THE REALITY OF COMPETITION"

The video went viral on Chinese social media. Executives from BYD's rivals posted notes of appreciation. "I feel proud for China’s auto industry!" said William Li, CEO of Nio on Weibo. "We should learn from BYD's success."

"Salute to BYD!" said Li Xiang, CEO of Li Auto, who reposted the BYD video. "Let's give a thumbs up to every participant in the new energy era!"

Other automakers warned the message could raise regulatory risks for Chinese brands overseas, including in Europe, where Chinese EV exports face potential anti-dumping scrutiny.

A senior executive of China's Great Wall Motor shot back that Chinese automakers should embrace the "reality of competition".

"At such a critical moment, how can Chinese automakers be together?" Wang Yuanli, Great Wall Motor's Chief Technology Officer, posted on his social media Weibo account on Friday. "If we only talk about being together but keep our bitterness in our hearts, it would be better to have the fight first."

Wang said later he had been quoting a senior editor from China's Auto Business Review.

In July, the industry group representing China's automakers retracted a pledge to avoid "abnormal pricing" brokered between 16 automakers, including BYD. The China Association of Auto Manufacturers said it recognized the agreement had violated China's antitrust law.

In May, Great Wall said it had filed a report with China's regulators against BYD, claiming two top-selling hybrid models did not meet emissions standards. BYD rejected the claim and said it could take legal action.

BYD has extended its lead in China's new-energy market, which includes plug-in hybrids and EVs, with a 37% share in the first seven months, up from 29% a year earlier. It also topped Volkswagen brand, China's longtime sales leader, in total sales.

(Reporting by Zhang Yan and Brenda Goh, editing by Kevin Krolicki and Miral Fahmy)

Biden Escalates Trade War With China

Eric Boehm
Wed, August 9, 2023

Sarah Silbiger - Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom

The Biden administration escalated America's trade war with China on Wednesday, as President Joe Biden declared a new national emergency and immediately used it as the justification for creating a new screening system that will limit Americans' ability to invest overseas.

The new rules, which have been in development since last year, will prohibit private equity and venture capital firms from investing in China-based businesses working in a variety of high-tech fields, The New York Times reports. The ban will apply to businesses working to develop artificial intelligence and those that build or develop semiconductors, the tiny chips that power modern computers. American investments that flow to other Chinese businesses will also be subject to new government scrutiny.

All of that springs from a vaguely worded executive order issued Wednesday afternoon. In that order, Biden declared the "rapid advancement in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence capabilities" by "countries of concern"—China is not mentioned by name—to be a national emergency. In response to the newly declared national emergency, Biden directed the Commerce Department and Treasury to design new rules governing outbound investments.

Congress, of course, will not be involved in the process.

"This narrowly targeted action will complement our existing export control and inbound investment screening tools, and protect our national security while maintaining our longstanding commitment to open investment," the Treasury Department said in a statement.

Narrow or not, this is the first time that the U.S. government has targeted outgoing investments in such a manner. As I reported in a feature published in this month's issue of Reason, the effort appears to be modeled on a similar screening system for inbound investments that was created in the 1970s and recently given greater powers. Biden administration officials, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, have in recent months talked about the desire to limit how private sector investments flow between the U.S. and China—often blurring the lines between economic and military concerns.

The idea to create an outbound investment screening mechanism, Yellen said in a speech in April, was "driven by straightforward national security considerations. We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force tradeoffs with our economic interests."

Biden's executive order echoed that framing—acknowledging the importance of global trade, but then declaring that vague national security concerns must be valued as more important. "Open global capital flows create valuable economic opportunities and promote competitiveness, innovation, and productivity, and the United States supports cross-border investment, where not inconsistent with the protection of United States national security interests," the president wrote. "However, certain United States investments may accelerate and increase the success of the development of sensitive technologies and products in countries that develop them to counter United States and allied capabilities."

Wednesday's announcement by the White House is a significant expansion of what the U.S. government considers to be under the purview of national security. It is in some ways similar to how former President Donald Trump flexed his executive power to declare steel and aluminum imports to be national security concerns. In both cases, the government's definition of what's in America's national security interest has been stretched wider so officials can have greater control over the private transactions of businesses and individuals.

"For a long time, the U.S. national security community has been reticent to recognize the international financial system as a potential warfighting domain," Claire Chu, a senior China analyst at Janes (a defense intelligence company) told The New York Times on Wednesday. "And the business community has pushed back against what it considers to be the politicization of private markets. And so this is not only an interagency effort, but an exercise in intersectoral coordination."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other entities have raised similar worries, as I reported in the piece for this month's issue of Reason. There are only two other countries—South Korea and Taiwan—that have outbound investment screening systems, making Wednesday's announcement yet another blow to the global norm of free-flowing capital.

Though the specifics of the outbound investment screening system remain to be seen, there's no doubt that Wednesday's announcement is a significant escalation of the ongoing political conflict between the world's two largest economies. It is likely to end up being a massive power grab aimed at severing the peaceful exchange of money and goods across national borders.

The post Biden Escalates Trade War With China appeared first on Reason.com.

CARROT

US reports big interest in $52 billion semiconductor chips funding

David Shepardson
Wed, August 9, 2023 

Illustration picture of semiconductor chips

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Commerce Department said on Wednesday that more than 460 companies have expressed interested in winning government semiconductor subsidy funding in a bid to boost the country's competitiveness with China's science and technology efforts.

The White House is marking the one-year anniversary on Wednesday of President Joe Biden's signing of the landmark "Chips for America" legislation providing $52.7 billion in subsidies for U.S. semiconductor production, research and workforce development.

Biden said in a statement that companies have announced $166 billion in semiconductors and electronics manufacturing over the last year, adding the law will "make America once again a leader in semiconductor manufacturing and less dependent on other countries for our electronics or clean energy supply chains."

The Commerce Department began accepting applications in June for the $39-billion subsidy program for U.S. semiconductor manufacturing as well as equipment and materials for making chips but has not yet issued awards.

"We're finally making the investments that are long overdue to secure our economic and national security," Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told reporters. "We need to move quickly but it's more important we get it right."

A senior Commerce Department official told reporters the department is moving quickly: "We are in active dialogue with applicants and we expect to be announcing major progress in the months ahead."

The chips law also includes a 25% investment tax credit for building chip plants, estimated to be worth $24 billion.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said Tuesday "governments around the world are working at a historic pace to revitalize semiconductor manufacturing and ensure a robust, resilient supply chain. In the U.S., progress is undeniable."

The Commerce Department spent the last year building a team of more than 140 people and writing rules for accepting and assessing applications.

The department is also seeking to ensure China will not benefit from U.S. funding and is requiring companies seeking major awards provide access to affordable high-quality childcare and share any excess profits.

The department previously said direct funding awards are expected to range between 5%-15% of project capital expenditures and total award amounts generally not exceed 35% of project capital expenditures.

"We're going to be doing our own diligence. We're not writing blank checks to any company that asks," Raimondo said in February.

Once the Commerce Department decides on worthy projects, officials must decide how much to award in government funds -- and how to structure awards with a mix of grants, government loans or loan guarantees.

The law also dedicates $11 billion for advanced semiconductor manufacturing research and development. The focal point will be the National Semiconductor Technology Center.

Commerce said that discussions are underway between the departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and National Science Foundation to establish the center "to better integrate research and development and workforce efforts across the semiconductor ecosystem." No location has been identified.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

How the end of ‘Made in China’ is crippling the world’s second-largest economy


Melissa Lawford
Tue, August 8, 2023 

Xi Jinping China

A new social movement emerged during the pandemic in China. Tang ping – “lie flat” – became a widespread term for young professionals resisting the pressures of the rat race in a flagrant denial of President Xi Jingping’s “Chinese dream”.

“They’ve lost their optimism about where China is headed and I think with good reason,” says George Magnus, an independent economist and author of Red Flags: Why Xi’s China is in Jeopardy.

China’s Communist Party panicked. President Xi publicly condemned the movement.

Yet when it comes to economic data, Chinese policymakers might now prefer the concept of lying flat. The nation’s trade figures are doing something much more flagrant – nosediving.

China’s exports fell for the third month in a row in July, plunging by 14.5pc year-on-year in dollar terms. This was the biggest drop since February 2020, when the pandemic began.

Meanwhile, imports fell for the fifth month in a row, dropping by 12.4pc.

Consumption is so low that the economy fell into deflation in July for the first time since the start of 2021. China’s consumer prices index fell by 0.3pc year-on-year, after 0pc growth in June. An anticipated resurge in spending has simply not happened. Factory gate prices fell by 4.4pc.

The export figures are symptomatic of a slump in global demand, particularly in Western nations that are grappling with soaring interest rates and high inflation.

But analysts warned that the numbers are likely to fall further as rising geopolitical tensions, tariffs, the fallout from China’s zero-Covid policy and Xi’s increasingly authoritarian regime push international companies and investors away from China – just as the nation’s domestic economy tanks.

HUBRIS
“Xi Jingping doesn’t understand economics. That is the problem,” says Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China Institute.

China was once known as the workshop of the world. Yet “Made in China” is now in decline.

Shipments to the US fell by 23.1pc in July. A flurry of other markets including Taiwan, Japan and the EU also recorded double digit drops.

Direct investment liabilities – a key measure of foreign direct investment (FDI) in China – plummeted 87pc to $4.9bn between April and June. This was the lowest amount in any three-month period since at least 1998, according to the State Administration of Foreign Exchange.

The true investment numbers are in fact likely to be far worse, says Magnus, as official figures include Hong Kong.

These figures are a precursor for future trade. Foreign companies operating in China account for around 30pc of China’s exports – and they are slowly but steadily starting to move operations elsewhere.

Tsang says: “Companies are beginning to see that investments in China are subjected to all kinds of restrictions that they were not used to in the last 20 years.”

Foreign companies in China have to give a Communist Party secretary a seat on their board of directors. Communist Party agents have always operated in Western multinationals, but previously they lobbied for the company, says Tsang.

“Now that Xi Jingping is tightening party control and requiring party secretaries to do more for the party in the companies than the other way around. It has become more of an enforcement role,” he says.

At the same time, foreign companies have witnessed the Chinese government’s extreme, authoritarian policy swings around Covid restrictions.

“The zero Covid policy flip flop created a huge amount of uncertainty for investments in China,” says Tsang.

“Companies don’t care what politicians have to say. Companies care about their secure supply, their reputation, their businesses. And the Chinese have made investments more risky.

“Three to five years ago, Western companies looked at investments in China as a sure bet. If you didn’t have China operations, everyone asked you why not. Now, you probably have to explain why you’re planning to expand in China.”

A flurry of big Western companies are already trying to diversify their supply chains. Apple is making plans to move some of its manufacturing out of China. Samsung has already shifted significant chunks of its supply chain away. Siemens is looking for factory sites in Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand.

Magnus says: “Bit by bit, trade controls, export controls, foreign direct investment, scrutiny, will chip away at China’s status as the workshop of the world over the decade.”

The drop in investment in China will have widespread implications.

“The reason it’s really significant is that that is an important way that China gets technology,” says Ken Rogoff, chair of international economics at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.

“The foreign companies build plants and they copy them. That has been the Chinese model. The slowdown in FDI will also imply a slowdown in innovation.”

Barriers have come up on both sides. The Trump administration introduced new tariffs on Chinese goods. The Biden administration has maintained these tariffs and the US has also introduced restrictions on China’s access to advanced chips.

Almost 70pc of all imports to the US from China now have an average tariff of 20pc, according to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, up from 3pc before the trade war began.

China is also becoming less competitive as a production location – it is more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Its labour force is shrinking as its population ages – a demographic transition that is unusual in an emerging economy and caused in part by China’s former one child policy.

“That is going to push wages up even further,” says Magnus. “It’s not going to happen overnight, but virtually every company now has a China plus one strategy, or China plus two, meaning they keep their factories in China, but their new factories will be in Vietnam, or Indonesia, or India. So China’s not getting growth,” says Rogoff.

One in five UK importers have made alterations to their supply chains because of geopolitical pressures, particularly in relation to China, according to research by the Institute of Directors. A further 15pc are considering making alterations.

The fall in exports has come at a tricky time for China. Real estate and infrastructure were previously China’s internal economic growth engines. But now these projects have hit saturation and real estate is in a prolonged downturn.

“Exports is their go-to strategy if they can’t rely on housing,” says Rogoff. “It is just one more sign of many that China is in for a sustained slowdown.”

He expects economic growth in China will slump to between 2pc and 3pc through the next decade – far below levels enjoyed in recent decades and well below Xi’s 5pc target this year.

China’s growth rate already halved between the 2000s and the 2010s, falling from about 10pc to 5pc, says Magnus. “Now I think it is halving again.”

The drop in imports is the biggest warning sign for China’s economy, he argues. Imports in the first seven months of 2023 were down 7.5pc, compared to the same period in 2022. That is a sign that the domestic economy is weak.

Youth unemployment has soared and the property market is in a prolonged downturn. Both of these factors are weighing on consumption.

“Most Chinese people’s long-term savings are invested in real estate. People are holding onto the properties and they are only taking paper losses, but it has a huge impact on the feelgood factor,” says Tsang.

The Xi administration is struggling to find ways to boost demand while China’s working age population is in sharp decline. All the traditional levers it would look to pull are no longer working.

“They are running into the same problems that Japan did and the Soviet Union did,” says Rogoff. “You just can’t keep building houses that nobody lives in.”

RESISTING THE HEGEMON

US wants China's chip industry 5 generations behind cutting edge, head of equipment maker AMEC says at Wuxi conference

South China Morning Post
Fri, August 11, 2023 

The head of one of China's leading semiconductor equipment makers believes Washington's escalating export and investment restrictions betray the real goal of the US: keep China's chip-making technology at least five generations behind the cutting edge.

Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc China (AMEC) chairman and CEO Gerald Yin Zhiyao made the comments on Thursday at the China Semiconductor Equipment Annual Conference in Wuxi, a city near Shanghai in eastern China. He referred to the US export restrictions imposed last October, which came ahead of another escalation this week when the Biden administration unveiled plans to restrict investment into China in sensitive areas including semiconductors.

"The October rules really exposed the US' true intention, which aims to fix China's chip-making on 28-nanometre, at least five generations behind the global leading edge of 3-nm to 14-nm," Yin said during his talk at the conference. "We can't accept [this]," he added.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc China (AMEC) chairman and CEO Gerald Yin Zhiyao speaks at the China Semiconductor Equipment Annual Conference in Wuxi on August 10, 2023. Photo: qq.com alt=Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc China (AMEC) chairman and CEO Gerald Yin Zhiyao speaks at the China Semiconductor Equipment Annual Conference in Wuxi on August 10, 2023. Photo: qq.com>

Yin described the updated US tech export controls targeting all China-based foundries as the most "lethal" ban since the US started rolling out related sanctions on China's hi-tech firms in 2019. Yin called the latest executive order - which targets US investment into China's semiconductor, artificial intelligence and quantum computing industries - as Washington's "16th move" against the country since then.

The rules imposed last October aim to cap China's logic chip-making capabilities at the 14-nm level, DRAM chips at 18-nm and 3D NAND memory at 128 layers. The US cited national security risks and the potential military applications of advanced chips.

Yin, a 20-year veteran of the US chip equipment industry including time at Applied Materials, said locally-procured semiconductor equipment in China's foundries accounted for just 15 per cent of the total. The other 85 per cent of machines come from the US, Netherlands and Japan, he said.

"That's why the US needed Japan and Netherlands on board to curb our development," he told a room packed with semiconductor professionals and investors.

Chinese semiconductor equipment firms still lag global peers in both market share and technological sophistication, according to industry professionals attending the conference. China's tool makers have virtually no global presence in some segments such as lithography. Catching up in these areas is an uphill battle for Chinese firms in a worsening geopolitical environment that is squeezing out foreign money and technological cooperation.

Li Jinxiang, deputy secretary general of China Electronic Production Equipment Industry, said some China-made equipment fails to meet the efficiency needs of foundries.

"It's a huge waste that a 1 billion yuan [US$138.7 million] ASML-made lithography machine has to wait for a domestically-made wafer coating and developing machine to catch up in speed," Li said, referring to the Dutch chip equipment firm that has a virtual monopoly on the most advanced lithography machines.

An ASML lithography machine is capable of processing 350 12-inch wafers per hour, Li explained, while China-made wafer coating and developing machines cannot match that output.

A wafer coating and developing machine is crucial in assisting the lithography process. It applies the light-sensitive photoresist material to the wafer, which is then put into lithography systems for exposure. The machine then takes the exposed wafer to develop the pattern.

However, Yin said he has confidence that China can develop a globally competitive equipment industry within years, as many US-trained Chinese experts have returned home. Using chip-making equipment to curb China's progress will yield no good results, he said.

Yin also called AMEC's brief inclusion in 2021 on a US defence department list of companies allegedly supporting the Chinese military "sheer nonsense". It was the first time Yin publicly commented on the US sanctions against AMEC.

He said the US "reluctantly" removed AMEC from the list after "four months of intense negations".

Tech war: new US investment curbs to have limited impact on China's targeted semiconductors, quantum computing and AI sectors, analysts say

South China Morning Post
Thu, August 10, 2023 

New American investment restrictions overseas under US President Joe Biden's latest executive order are expected to have a limited impact on the targeted tech sectors in China, according to analysts, although it could disrupt the flow of fresh funds to the country's private sector amid a weakening economic recovery.

The executive order issued on Wednesday restricts US venture capital and private equity investments in Chinese companies involved in semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems, according to a fact sheet released by the US Department of Treasury, the agency tasked to implement a new national security programme based on that directive.

The Biden administration identified mainland China, including the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau, as "a country of concern" in the executive order. It said China was "exploiting, or has the ability to exploit, US investments to further its ability to produce a narrow set of sensitive technologies critical to military modernisation".

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

That directive, however, was "more smoke than actual fire" because it only "regulates US investment in a small number of tech sectors", said Brock Silvers, chief investment officer at private equity firm Kaiyuan Capital in Hong Kong.

US President Joe Biden issued on August 9, 2023, an executive order targeting three tech sectors in China, which it described as developing and exploiting "sensitive or advanced technologies and products critical for military, intelligence, surveillance or cyber-enabled capabilities". Photo: AP alt=US President Joe Biden issued on August 9, 2023, an executive order targeting three tech sectors in China, which it described as developing and exploiting "sensitive or advanced technologies and products critical for military, intelligence, surveillance or cyber-enabled capabilities". Photo: AP>

"China can expect this long-awaited executive order to be fairly unobtrusive," Silvers said.

While Biden's new directive underscored the escalating tensions between Beijing and Washington, some Chinese investors downplayed the impact of new US investment curbs on funding for the targeted China tech sectors.

"US investment in China's chip sector has gradually dried up since 2019," Zheng Haowei, a manager at Sino IC Leasing, said in an interview on the sidelines of the three-day China Semiconductor Equipment Annual Conference, which opened on Wednesday in the city of Wuxi in eastern Jiangsu province.

"Chinese semiconductor companies are basically supported by Chinese domestic capital," Zheng said. Shanghai-based Sino IC Leasing buys semiconductor-manufacturing equipment that it leases to local chip fabrication enterprises.

That view was echoed by venture capital (VC) analysts Kyle Stanford and Kaidi Gao at investment consultancy PitchBook. They said overall investment by US firms in China's semiconductors, quantum computing and AI sectors represents "a relatively small portion of deal activity".

On a broader scale, there were only 64 US investors involved in China-based VC deals so far this year, according to data from PitchBook. That showed a rapid decline from 179 in 2022, which was down from 246 in 2021.

"The executive order ... will be another hurdle in US-China private market investment," Stanford and Gao said on Wednesday.

"From a US investor perspective, such effort brings an additional layer of challenge for putting capital to work in the Chinese market," they said, adding that some US investors including pension funds have halted their funding allocation to China amid growing acrimony between the two countries.

Covid-19 lockdowns, declining economic growth, and US-China tensions resulted in a 53 per cent drop in Greater China private equity deal value, shrinking its share in the Asia-Pacific region to a nine-year low of 31 per cent in 2022, according to a survey published in March by global management consulting firm Bain & Co.

"A growing tech and trade war won't be good for either side," Silvers of Kaiyuan Capital said. "An unrestrained tech war could become a significant jolt to an already shaky global economy."

Meanwhile, the US Treasury Department said it will accept written public commentary for the next 45 days to inform its formulation of a targeted national security programme based on Biden's latest executive order.

US tech-investment curbs have China gravely concerned, with already shrinking FDI looking even less attractive

Thu, August 10, 2023

The latest "small yard, high fence" investment restrictions by the United States on China would choke venture capital and dwindle foreign direct investment inflows into the world's second-largest economy, while also hitting its technological advancement, analysts said.

US President Joe Biden revealed a long-anticipated executive order on Wednesday, declaring "a national emergency".

The latest restrictions are intended to curb US venture capital and private equity investments in Chinese companies covering semiconductors and micro electronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence (AI) systems.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.


China's Ministry of Commerce responded on Thursday, saying the US restrictions were moves to "decouple and sever supply chains under the cover of eradicating national risks".

"[The] US is defying its advocacy of maintaining the market economy with the principle of fair competition, affecting ordinary business decisions of companies, destroying international trade orders and seriously disrupting the safety of global supply chains," the ministry said.

"China expresses grave concerns on this matter and we reserve the right to take measures regarding the situation."

Washington, as part of the ongoing tech rivalry, has already blocked China's access to core US-controlled technologies, including semiconductors, and halted grants from US hi-tech companies that produce "advanced chips" in China.

The new investment screening mechanism, which requires the US Department of the Treasury to be notified about any outbound capital flows in selected areas, is set to be the first to curb US financial investment in hi-tech industries in China.

The latest moves could also add uncertainties regarding ongoing talks over a visit to China by US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, who expressed interest in visiting in "late summer" after intensive senior-level engagements resumed in June.

Alfredo Montufar-Helu, head of The Conference Board's China Centre for Economics and Business, said the US restrictions have become more in-line with the "small yard, high fence" concept since late last year.

This involves restricting China's access only to technologies that could have a military end use, especially AI, instead of "fully decoupling".

But Montufar-Helu noted that "how high will the fence be" would be an issue sticking out as "everything suggests that US authorities intend to make this 'fence' unscalable".

"[While] the 'yard' is supposed to remain small, the restrictions might spillover into theoretically non-sensitive areas, such as autonomous driving, synthetic biology and climate science," he added.

"The restriction of certain technologies now is likely to impair the innovation potential of certain commercial products over the next decade."

According to the Rhodium Group, the value of US foreign direct investment in China was US$8 billion last year - the lowest since 2005.

The value of US venture capital investments in China was US$1 billion last year, compared to a high of US$19 billion in 2018, according to the think tank.

He Jun, a senior researcher with a focus on Chinese technology and the economy at the Beijing-based Anbound Consulting, said that investment restrictions would hit China's hi-tech industry because "the details were designed very directly targeting Chinese companies".

"Right now, the Chinese venture capital market is shrinking, foreign investment has shrunken by a chunk and what is left is mainly state-backed funding," he said.

"It is becoming more and more of a closed-loop market. This is bad for China's venture capital industry, as well as for the development of hi-tech industries."

A co-founder of a mainland China-based private equity firm, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the issue, was also sceptical about the future development of Chinese hi-tech companies.

"The biggest source of finance in our sector would be from the US and in US dollars. Even if we do not source money from the US, it means the companies we invest in might find it more difficult to be backed by other US-related finances in the future," he said.

He added that the restrictions are set to limit how Chinese companies can grow and how successful they can be.

"It will be felt not just in their next round of financing, but all the way until when it becomes an [initial public offering]," he said.

China has already experienced a significant pullback from US private equity and venture capital investments in 2022 due to its coronavirus lockdowns and broader geopolitical tensions.

They dropped by around 76 per cent, year on year, to US$7.02 billion in 2022 from US$28.92 billion a year earlier, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence data published in February.

Huo Jianguo, the former head of a think tank under China's Ministry of Commerce, said that if US investors pulled further back in response to Wednesday's executive order, "investment from other countries could hardly fill in the gap".

In the second quarter, China's direct investment liabilities - one measurement of foreign direct investment (FDI) - plunged by 87 per cent from the same period last year to a historical low of US$4.9 billion, according to figures released by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange on Friday.

Stephen Olson, a senior fellow at Hinrich Foundation, said the latest US measures would "certainly not improve China's attractiveness to foreign direct investment providers".

Although the current information reflected that "only a small slice of US FDI into China will be directly and substantially impacted", Olson added that there are "anticipated future restrictions that could be imposed by the US, as well as any counterpunches China might direct at US business in response".

Reva Goujon, senior manager at Rhodium Group, said that the executive order should be viewed as an initial step, outlining the strategic intent of capturing US capital and know-how in force-multiplying technologies that could be used by adversaries towards military end-use purposes.

"It will be important to see how the executive order defines AI with potential military end-use applications," she added.

"I will also be watching for how the executive order defines covered transactions, for example, will it avoid retroactive review as rumoured? Will it set a [minimal] threshold? How will it draw the line between active and passive investment?"

Before the new investment restrictions, the Biden administration implemented the Chips and Science Act in August last year, which aims at providing around US$52 billion in incentives for companies to reduce reliance on China and other markets for key components, including semiconductors.

The Conference Board's Montufar-Helu added that the investment restrictions "will for sure have a negative impact on FDI into China, in targeted sectors and areas".

"And it won't only be investment coming from the US, but also from other economies due to the extraterritorial nature of the restrictions," he said.

"This will exacerbate the negative impact that China's softening demand and the global growth slowdown are already having on China's inward FDI levels."

In terms of merger and acquisition activities, Rhodium Group expects the outlook will remain dim this year.

"But we'll also be carefully examining transactions moving forward for signs of defensive investments in China, that is multinationals furthering localisation plans in response to growing regulatory pressures," Goujon added.

In the face of the restrictions, "Beijing has not been starving for capital" and "can continue to pump funding into strategic industries", she said.

"But if that capital isn't utilised effectively, then it's only compounding its gargantuan debt problems," said Goujon.

In the long run, Olson at Hinrich Foundation said companies "will look for and probably find work around solutions that will allow them to serve the China market without running afoul of US restrictions".

"Companies from third countries are not pleased about losing out on the lucrative China market," he added.

"And finally, any restriction regime will inevitably experience leakage and circumvention over time."

This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. 

For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. 

Copyright © 2023 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Nvidia, Other Chip Stocks Shrug Off Latest China Curbs.

Why the Restrictions Aren’t All Bad.

By Adam Clark
BARRONS
Updated Aug. 10, 2023
Nvidia NVDA –0.39% and other U.S. chip stocks were rising early Thursday as they brushed off the Biden administration’s latest restrictions on the Chinese semiconductor industry. Curbs on investment in China pose less of a threat than export bans.

QUIET QUITTING OH MY

Millions of kids are missing weeks of school as attendance tanks across the US

POST PANDEMIC RESISTANCE

BIANCA VÁZQUEZ TONESS
Thu, August 10, 2023 





 An empty elementary school classroom is seen on Tuesday, Aug. 17, 2021 in the Bronx borough of New York. Nationwide, students have been absent at record rates since schools reopened after COVID-forced closures. More than a quarter of students missed at least 10% of the 2021-22 school year.

 (AP Photo/Brittainy Newman, File)

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) — When in-person school resumed after pandemic closures, Rousmery Negrón and her 11-year-old son both noticed a change: School seemed less welcoming.

Parents were no longer allowed in the building without appointments, she said, and punishments were more severe. Everyone seemed less tolerant, more angry. Negrón's son told her he overheard a teacher mocking his learning disabilities, calling him an ugly name.

Her son didn’t want to go to school anymore. And she didn’t feel he was safe there.

He would end up missing more than five months of sixth grade.

Across the country, students have been absent at record rates since schools reopened during the pandemic. More than a quarter of students missed at least 10% of the 2021-22 school year, making them chronically absent, according to the most recent data available. Before the pandemic, only 15% of students missed that much school.

All told, an estimated 6.5 million additional students became chronically absent, according to the data, which was compiled by Stanford University education professor Thomas Dee in partnership with The Associated Press. Taken together, the data from 40 states and Washington, D.C., provides the most comprehensive accounting of absenteeism nationwide. Absences were more prevalent among Latino, Black and low-income students, according to Dee’s analysis.

The absences come on top of time students missed during school closures and pandemic disruptions. They cost crucial classroom time as schools work to recover from massive learning setbacks.

Absent students miss out not only on instruction but also on all the other things schools provide — meals, counseling, socialization. In the end, students who are chronically absent — missing 18 or more days a year, in most places — are at higher risk of not learning to read and eventually dropping out.

“The long-term consequences of disengaging from school are devastating. And the pandemic has absolutely made things worse and for more students,” said Hedy Chang, executive director of Attendance Works, a nonprofit addressing chronic absenteeism.

In seven states, the rate of chronically absent kids doubled for the 2021-22 school year, from 2018-19, before the pandemic. Absences worsened in every state with available data — notably, the analysis found growth in chronic absenteeism did not correlate strongly with state COVID rates.

Kids are staying home for myriad reasons — finances, housing instability, illness, transportation issues, school staffing shortages, anxiety, depression, bullying and generally feeling unwelcome at school.

And the effects of online learning linger: School relationships have frayed, and after months at home, many parents and students don't see the point of regular attendance.

“For almost two years, we told families that school can look different and that schoolwork could be accomplished in times outside of the traditional 8-to-3 day. Families got used to that,” said Elmer Roldan, of Communities in Schools of Los Angeles, which helps schools follow up with absent students.

When classrooms closed in March 2020, Negrón in some ways felt relieved her two sons were home in Springfield. Since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Negrón, who grew up in Puerto Rico, had become convinced mainland American schools were dangerous.

A year after in-person instruction resumed, she said, staff placed her son in a class for students with disabilities, citing hyperactive and distracted behavior. He felt unwelcome and unsafe. Now, it seemed to Negrón, there was danger inside school, too.

“He needs to learn,” said Negrón, a single mom who works as a cook at another school. “He’s very intelligent. But I’m not going to waste my time, my money on uniforms, for him to go to a school where he’s just going to fail.”

For people who've long studied chronic absenteeism, the post-COVID era feels different. Some of the things that prevent students from getting to school are consistent — illness, economic distress — but “something has changed,” said Todd Langager, who helps San Diego County schools address absenteeism. He sees students who already felt unseen, or without a caring adult at school, feel further disconnected.

Alaska led in absenteeism, with 48.6% of students missing significant amounts of school. Alaska Native students’ rate was higher, 56.5%.

Those students face poverty and a lack of mental health services, as well as a school calendar that isn’t aligned to traditional hunting and fishing activities, said Heather Powell, a teacher and Alaska Native. Many students are raised by grandparents who remember the government forcing Native children into boarding schools.

“Our families aren’t valuing education because it isn’t something that’s ever valued us,” Powell said.

In New York, Marisa Kosek said son James lost the relationships fostered at his school — and with them, his desire to attend class altogether. James, 12, has autism and struggled first with online learning and then with a hybrid model. During absences, he'd see his teachers in the neighborhood. They encouraged him to return, and he did.

But when he moved to middle school in another neighborhood, he didn’t know anyone. He lost interest and missed more than 100 days of sixth grade. The next year, his mom pushed for him to repeat the grade — and he missed all but five days.

His mother, a high school teacher, enlisted help: relatives, therapists, New York’s crisis unit. But James just wanted to stay home. He's anxious because he knows he's behind, and he's lost his stamina.

“Being around people all day in school and trying to act ‘normal’ is tiring,” said Kosek. She's more hopeful now that James has been accepted to a private residential school that specializes in students with autism.

Some students had chronic absences because of medical and staffing issues. Juan Ballina, 17, has epilepsy; a trained staff member must be nearby to administer medication in case of a seizure. But post-COVID-19, many school nurses retired or sought better pay in hospitals, exacerbating a nationwide shortage.

Last year, Juan's nurse was on medical leave. His school couldn’t find a substitute. He missed more than 90 days at his Chula Vista, California, high school.

“I was lonely,” Ballina said. “I missed my friends.”

Last month, school started again. So far, Juan's been there, with his nurse. But his mom, Carmen Ballina, said the effects of his absence persist: “He used to read a lot more. I don’t think he’s motivated anymore.”

Another lasting effect from the pandemic: Educators and experts say some parents and students have been conditioned to stay home at the slightest sign of sickness.

Renee Slater's daughter rarely missed school before the pandemic. But last school year, the straight-A middle schooler insisted on staying home 20 days, saying she just didn't feel well.

“As they get older, you can’t physically pick them up into the car — you can only take away privileges, and that doesn’t always work,” said Slater, who teaches in the rural California district her daughter attends. “She doesn’t dislike school, it’s just a change in mindset."

Most states have yet to release attendance data from 2022-23, the most recent school year. Based on the few that have shared figures, it seems the chronic-absence trend may have long legs. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, chronic absenteeism remained double its pre-pandemic rate.

In Negrón’s hometown of Springfield, 39% of students were chronically absent last school year, an improvement from 50% the year before. Rates are higher for students with disabilities.

While Negrón's son was out of school, she said, she tried to stay on top of his learning. She picked up a weekly folder of worksheets and homework; he couldn’t finish because he didn’t know the material.

“He was struggling so much, and the situation was putting him in a down mood," Negrón said.

Last year, she filed a complaint asking officials to give her son compensatory services and pay for him to attend a private special education school. The judge sided with the district.

Now, she’s eyeing the new year with dread. Her son doesn’t want to return. Negrón said she'll consider it only if the district grants her request for him to study in a mainstream classroom with a personal aide. The district told AP it can't comment on individual student cases due to privacy considerations.

Negrón wishes she could homeschool her sons, but she has to work and fears they'd suffer from isolation.

“If I had another option, I wouldn’t send them to school,” she said.

____

AP education writer Sharon Lurye contributed from New Orleans; AP reporter Becky Bohrer contributed from Juneau. This story was reported and published in partnership with EdSource, a nonprofit newsroom that covers education in California. EdSource reporter Betty Márquez Rosales contributed reporting from Bakersfield.

___

The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

China slams Fukushima water release plans in scorching UN paper. But will Japan be swayed?

South China Morning Post
Thu, August 10, 2023

"If the so-called treated water is really safe and harmless, why does Japan not dispose of it within its own territory or use it for industrial and agricultural purposes?" said the paper, which was submitted on Tuesday.

Japan plans to dump more than 1 million tonnes of water from the nuclear plant, where three reactors suffered meltdowns after an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

But Beijing and Moscow are so far the only governments to voice objections at the state level.

Beijing's question echoed criticism that has been brewing since the earlier days of the debate.

In 2021, Vanuatu stateswoman Motarilavoa Hilda Lini said: "If it is safe, dump it in Tokyo, test it in Paris, and store it in Washington, but keep our Pacific nuclear-free."

China said the move would be "at the expense of the natural environment and human health". But Tokyo accused Beijing of ignoring what it insists is sound science behind the plan and being guilty of more egregious releases from its own nuclear plants.

"There is no precedent of artificially discharging nuclear contaminated water into the ocean and no internationally recognised disposal standards," China argued in the document, which appeared at the ongoing session of the preparatory committee for the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference in 2026. The talks will wrap up on Friday.

It urged Japan to halt its discharge plan, consult neighbouring countries and other stakeholders, subject itself to "rigorous international oversight", and handle nuclear-contaminated water safely, transparently and scientifically.

Koji Haraguchi, a political science lecturer at Japan's Yamanashi Gakuin University, said China's working paper was a "direct response" to remarks made in July by top Japanese government spokesman Hirokazu Matsuno, who urged China to have "discussions based on scientific evidence".

While Beijing and Moscow jointly demanded clarification on three lists of technical questions about the procedure, Haraguchi said these requests may make a halt or postponement even more unlikely for Tokyo, which "does not want to appear to bend its decision because of pressure from China and Russia".

In a two-year review released in early July, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN agency, determined that Japan's plans were consistent with their safety standards.

China said in the statement that Japan should not use the report as a "shield" or "green light" for the discharge.

"The IAEA conducted its review and assessment solely based on the data and information provided by Japan, and carried out inter-laboratory comparative analyses of only a small number of nuclear contaminated water samples collected by Japan," it said, adding that the data and information used for the report were "unverified", making its conclusion "not sufficiently persuasive".

According to Zhang Chi, a postdoctoral researcher in international relations at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, the working paper's potential influence "remains limited", given the relatively modest consideration of the discharge's implications beyond the shores of Japan's immediate neighbours.

"While the NPT plays a key role in the containment of nuclear weapons and technology proliferation, its efficacy in dictating a nation's course of action concerning nuclear waste water management is inherently restrained," Zhang said. "It lacks robust enforcement measures to compel states into alignment."

Zhang said there was a "compelling need" to establish platforms to allow deeper integration between scientific evaluations and diplomatic negotiations, with the solutions balancing public safety, environmental concerns and regional considerations.

"An ideal scenario would involve neighbouring nations mobilising their own panel of experts to collaboratively assist Japan in formulating alternative strategies to the proposed discharge plan, or a monitoring framework to ensure radiation safety for the entire discharge process," Zhang said.

China said Japan "did not conduct thorough study of all disposal options" - which also include releasing vapour and hydrogen gas, ground injection and underground burial - and insisted on ocean discharge, which bears the lowest economic cost.

Andy Mok, senior research fellow at the Centre for China and Globalisation, a non-governmental think tank in Beijing, said that while it was uncertain whether the document would influence Japan's approach, it reflected the concerns shared by many in the region.

"A pivotal query raised by China is Japan's reluctance to utilise the treated water domestically for industrial or agricultural purposes, and this might very well be one the UN mandates Tokyo to address," Mok said. "The conundrum arises: who holds the ultimate authority, both scientifically and diplomatically, on the release of treated water?"

He said the positions taken by countries in the region were affected by factors beyond public health and the environment.

"The muted response from regional governments is perplexing, but some nations have openly opposed the decision, and understanding their motivations is crucial," Mok said.

"The backing of the US and Australia for Japan's plan could be perceived as a manifestation of their alliance and the prevailing geopolitical landscape - this support might further strain China's already tense relations with the West."

Haraguchi said governments held different positions for political reasons.

"The US can support Japan's plan given the much lower environmental concerns for American citizens at home, [their acceptance of] the IAEA's credentials, as well as Washington's position as Japan's ally," Haraguchi said.

"Both China and Russia have high or enough public health concerns - because of their geographical proximity to Japan - and low or limited diplomatic and security concerns about opposing Tokyo's decisions."

Polls suggest eight out of 10 South Koreans oppose Japan's water release plan.

Zhang noted that Seoul's stance was inconsistent with its continued bans on food and seafood products from the Fukushima region, but the position of Western nations was expected.

"Historically, the disposal of nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean has been a practice observed by entities such as the US and Europe," Zhang said. "The absence of opposition within the G7 also underscores the ascendancy of geopolitical factors over environmental concerns."

This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2023 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Copyright (c) 2023. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Severe floods in China's northern province killed 29 and caused tens of billions of economic losses

Associated Press
Fri, August 11, 2023 



- A man washes his clothes in a stream near debris left over after flood waters devastated the village of Nanxinfang on the outskirts of Beijing, Friday, Aug. 4, 2023. Severe floods in China's northern province of Hebei brought by remnants of Typhoon Doksuri this month killed at least 29 people and caused billions of dollars in economic losses, its provincial government said Friday, Aug. 11, 2023. 

(AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

BEIJING (AP) — Severe floods in China's northern province of Hebei brought by remnants of Typhoon Doksuri this month killed at least 29 people and caused billions of dollars in economic losses, its provincial government said Friday.

Official news agency Xinhua reported that rescue crews were still searching for 16 missing people as of Thursday and the province's reconstruction is expected to take two years to complete. Initial estimates showed the province's direct economic losses amounted to 95.8 billion yuan ($13.2 billion), state media China News Service said.

Last week, Hebei was hit by serious flooding as the remnants of the typhoon battered the region and brought the heaviest rainfall in neighboring Beijing in at least 140 years.

Official preliminary estimates announced Friday showed 3.9 million residents, or about 5% of the province's population, were being affected by the floods and more than 40,000 houses were collapsed, China News Service said. A further 155,500 houses and other facilities that provided electricity and communications were seriously damaged, it added.

More than 1.75 million residents have been relocated.

Repairs to damaged power cables and other facilities were underway Friday. According to Xinhua, the government pledged to ensure affected residents can move back to their homes or have new homes before winter.

Earlier this week, officials said the death toll from recent flooding in Beijing rose to 33 and it could take up to three years to restore services completely, given the level of damage.

The Chinese government on Friday has further allocated 1.46 billion yuan ($202 million) of disaster relief funds to support flood-stricken regions, including Beijing and Tianjin, state media CCTV reported. This brought the total amount of the relief funds to 7.74 billion yuan ($1.07 billion), it added.

'Put the American public first': Senators propose law to ban members of Congress and executive officials — including the president — from trading stocks

Bethan Moorcraft
Fri, August 11, 2023 

'Put the American public first': Senators propose law to ban members of Congress and executive officials — including the president — from trading stocks

A new law has been proposed that would ban members of Congress and the federal executive branch — including the president — from trading stocks.

The bipartisan “Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act” was introduced by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in late July.

It builds on the decade-old Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) law, which is supposed to combat insider trading by members of Congress and their staff.
Breakdown of the bill

The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts.

It would also impose penalties of varying degrees against those found to break the rules.

They could also be subject to additional civil penalties in “extraordinary” cases or those that involve “substantial monetary value,” according to a joint press release from Gillibrand and Hawley.

Read more: The US dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power since 1971 — invest in this stable asset before you lose your retirement fund
Huge public support

Public support for a ban on stock trading among members of Congress is almost unanimous — with 86% in favor nationwide, according to a recent survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

Sen. Hawley said the bill would “put the American public first” — but this rhetoric doesn’t appear to have swayed his colleagues in Congress.

Two bills on this matter — the TRUST in Congress Act and the PELOSI Act — have failed to move the needle this year, and it’s unclear if or when the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act will be debated and voted on.

KKK REDUX

Black women-owned firm targeted by conservative activist for grant program: 'We are not scared'

HE'S A CONFEDRATE

The suit is expected to be the first of many targeting diversity policies in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action.

Jayla Whitfield-Anderson and Christopher Wilson
Updated Thu, August 10, 2023 

Affirmative action supporters and and counterprotesters outside the Supreme Court on June 29. (Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) (Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag)


The aftermath of the Supreme Court’s June ruling against affirmative action has opened the floodgates of litigation against businesses that focus on diversity.

Fearless Fund, an Atlanta-based venture capital firm, was sued last week for discrimination for considering only businesses owned by Black women for a grant program. The lawsuit came from the American Alliance for Equal Rights, an organization backed by Edward Blum, the conservative legal activist who was behind the lawsuits that eventually led to the ban on race-conscious college admissions.

A supporter of affirmative action demonstrates in Washington, D.C., on June 29. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

At a press conference Thursday afternoon, Alphonso David, an attorney representing the Fearless Fund, called the case a “meritless lawsuit” being pursued by “right-wing” extremists. Arian Simone, an entrepreneur who is one of the group’s founders, said activism was part of her team’s mission, adding, “We are not scared.”

Co-counsel Ben Crump said the group had been sued first because its opponents thought it would make an easy target. He added that the scope of the battle is larger than one lawsuit.

“This is but another attempt to prevent the progress of women from having a seat at the table,” Crump said. “It’s not just about the Fearless Fund, it’s about marginalized people throughout America having a seat at the table.”

Blum has said more litigation targeting race-based policies and practices will come. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has historically looked favorably on his causes.
The lawsuit against Fearless Fund

Fearless Fund was founded in 2019 by Simone, the actress Keshia Knight Pulliam and the executive Ayana Parsons, and has a slew of big-name backers, from Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to General Mills and Coca-Cola.

Fearless Fund co-partners Arian Simone, left, and Ayana Parsons at a press conference in New York on Aug. 10. (Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)

Since its inception, the firm has supported dozens of businesses owned by women of color, but the lawsuit is focused on the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest. The grant, issued in conjunction with Mastercard, is open to Black women who own small businesses and hands out awards of $20,000, along with digital tools and mentorship.

The lawsuit against the firm alleges that it is in violation of a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which protects against racial bias in contracts. The American Alliance for Equal Rights alleges that 60 white and Asian American members of its group are harmed by the regulations of the grant contest.

In 2022, less than 1% of venture capital funding was granted to women of color, according to Q1 2022 PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor. Female founders overall received 2% of those funds.

“This lawsuit is simply misguided and wrong,” attorney Mylan Denerstein said at the press conference. “I think it's pretty simple. We look forward to demonstrating this simple fact, that it is not illegal to support economic opportunity for women of color.”

The fund had stayed silent since the lawsuit was filed but began its response Thursday with the press conference, an interview on "CBS This Morning" and a letter soliciting donations and support.

Liliana Garces, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Texas at Austin, says that there are arguments that can prove the “lawsuit is frivolous” but that it will have to play out in court.

“I think what this lawsuit represents is an ongoing effort by Edward Blum to challenge policies that are trying to provide an advanced equal opportunity. It's just that now, those challenges are happening in the corporate sector,” Garces told Yahoo News.
Who is Edward Blum?

Blum is an investment broker who for years has sought out potential plaintiffs who match up with causes in order to pair them up with lawyers and funding for their cases. Before his successful case against affirmative action, he led the push to gut the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 Supreme Court ruling decided along ideological lines that removed protections for race-based discrimination in voting.

“You cannot remedy past discrimination with new discrimination,” Blum told the New York Times in an interview last month after the affirmative action decision. “You cannot remedy the preferences that whites had in our nation’s life with different preferences for different ethnic groups. That cannot be how a multiracial, multiethnic nation maintains its social fabric.”

In that same interview, Blum said he didn’t believe in the concept of systemic racism, and he laid out possibilities of future challenges, noting that “internships, scholarships [and] certain research grants” were potential litigation targets in addition to employment.
What’s to come

Garces said lawsuits that aim to undermine equal opportunity will have “broad repercussions and consequences" but added that this was "just the beginning,” saying, “I think the corporate sector and all the DEI efforts within the business and corporate community are kind of the next level of attack that we're seeing.”

As Blum prepares his next lawsuits, the Fearless Fund founders have emphasized that they will not be deterred, citing the millions they’ve already distributed and noting a summit they are holding in Atlanta next weekend.

"We plan to continue to do the work we do for women of color,” Simone told CBS News.