International stocks? China?

[aetech]

You are welcome to make whatever investment decision you want. It's your money. The companies you buy are necessary 'nice' or has done everything legally.

As for laws, are you applying usa laws in china or china laws in the usa? There's no international law against imprisoning people whether are extremists, muslim, catholic, jewish, palestinian, japanese, chinese, atheist, homosexual, etc. Lots of countries do it including the usa. There's no international court/law that's recognize by every country. will you stop investing in companies that invest in those countries?

As for national laws that coerce non/citizens to obey, every country has them. china is no different than the usa. all usa firms are force to obey usa laws whether they exist in china or usa, or europe. All firms are force to obey usa laws if they want access to usa markets/usd/banks. the same will be true of the china. china is not there yet but once it gets enough power, it will be. it's the state of progression to a super power. also, note, hk has never been a free sovereign during the 100+ yrs of history. It was either rule by the chinese, japanese, british, etc.

The idea of the USA being a policeman to the world sounds nice but none sense when you break it down. who police the policeman? No body. So what's the difference between a corrupt police and thug? In the end, it's might makes right. usa is no different. the usa sees a threat and tries to take out the threat. whatever justification it is, it's just to make the usa feel better. china will be no different. everyone follows the 'rules' when it's in their interest to follow it, and breaks them if it's in their interest. It's the law of the jungle. the jungle is not necessarily chaotic/bad, you just have to be careful where you are, who your friends/enemies and what's your position in the hierarchy. that this make it right? no, but what's right and what's wrong? is your right better than mine?

[TheQuietOne]

The difference is that I can criticize the USA, it’s government, it’s president, and it’s history of slavery or negative aspects about the USA, but I won’t be arrested. If I criticize China, the CCP, Tiananmen Square, Uigher camps, or other aspects that the CCP does not want people to talk about, then I can be arrested. Even if I was living in a different country or am another country’s citizen, I can theoretically be arrested by the new law passed in Hong Kong. Plenty of people disappear from speaking their mind. Which is why so many mainlanders want to come to the US.

[burritos]

The difference is that I can criticize the USA, it’s government, it’s president, and it’s history of slavery or negative aspects about the USA, but I won’t be arrested. If I criticize China, the CCP, Tiananmen Square, Uigher camps, or other aspects that the CCP does not want people to talk about, then I can be arrested. Even if I was living in a different country or am another country’s citizen, I can theoretically be arrested by the new law passed in Hong Kong. Plenty of people disappear from speaking their mind. Which is why so many mainlanders want to come to the US.

What America has done to Blacks and the Natives is on par with whatever China has done to it's lower hierarchical inhabitants +/- the freedom of speech thing. Didn't Lincoln suspend a bunch of liberties, yeah, and he is a hero.

[Tim]

Investment decisions should be politically agnostic.
However, if you choose to “boycott” or “cancel” for a specific reason it simply removed options.
EM is an index which includes China.

Boycott England, Africa, Europe, USA or Russia.
Your choice. From and investment standpoint it comes down to political risk. EM has a higher political risk on your investment. That risk is relevant. Boycott if you wish is not the same as avoiding investing due to political risk.
You can invest in BRIC without the C.
Use Brazil, Russia, and India.
Just realize you are boycotting for personal political opinions, not for political risks of your investment.

[Bev]

Throw your question out on the Boglehead site.

There is no perfect answer.

[Brains428]

Accounting aside, eliminating the world's second largest economy from your portfolio seems like a bad idea for today and tomorrow.

[TravisRADMD]

Investment decisions should be politically agnostic.
However, if you choose to “boycott” or “cancel” for a specific reason it simply removed options.
EM is an index which includes China.

Boycott England, Africa, Europe, USA or Russia.
Your choice. From and investment standpoint it comes down to political risk. EM has a higher political risk on your investment. That risk is relevant. Boycott if you wish is not the same as avoiding investing due to political risk.
You can invest in BRIC without the C.
Use Brazil, Russia, and India.
Just realize you are boycotting for personal political opinions, not for political risks of your investment.

think the point is being missed. You can divest because of both moral, economic and political issues combined. China with its massive market share is unique because there is no difference between the agenda of the state and political responsibilities of companies and its citizens because of CCP law and oversight. It would seem that every individual entity is required by law to be an agent of the state. That being said If the state is pulling the strings and the CCP is really the "CEO" of let say Tencent and not Ma Huateng then isn't that enough uncertainty to scare any savvy investor?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/beijings...efense-offense

[jacoavlu]

think the point is being missed. You can divest because of both moral, economic and political issues combined. China with its massive market share is unique because there is no difference between the agenda of the state and political responsibilities of companies and its citizens because of CCP law and oversight. It would seem that every individual entity is required by law to be an agent of the state. That being said If the state is pulling the strings and the CCP is really the "CEO" of let say Tencent and not Ma Huateng then isn't that enough uncertainty to scare any savvy investor?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/beijings...efense-offense

it doesnt really seem like you’re looking for investment advice

[Tim]

"then isn't that enough uncertainty to scare any savvy investor?"

Different degrees of separation. Stalin was a known quantity. Churchill and Roosevelt cut a deal. It had advantages and disadvantages. Was it a good investment of bad?
Do you win the battle or the war?
Do you want to bypass China because of the situations described?
As an illustration only, some are tremendously opposed to California for strongly held views. This does not mean they are correct. One can refuse to hold stock in a company based in California. One solution is for the company to simply move. Oracle choose to move. Ellison chose Hawaii. You tell me whether it was because of political opinion or economic reasons? I would say it was economic. Isn't it enough? Your choice. I am only suggesting that political risk in investing is not the same as your moral or ethical choices, different choices.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oracl...205441890.html

[aetech]

The difference is that I can criticize the USA, it’s government, it’s president, and it’s history of slavery or negative aspects about the USA, but I won’t be arrested. If I criticize China, the CCP, Tiananmen Square, Uigher camps, or other aspects that the CCP does not want people to talk about, then I can be arrested. Even if I was living in a different country or am another country’s citizen, I can theoretically be arrested by the new law passed in Hong Kong. Plenty of people disappear from speaking their mind. Which is why so many mainlanders want to come to the US.

It's a 'free' country, you're allow to criticize the govt however you want. HOWEVER, there's consequences. (say label as a terrorist-no trial, just a label) 1. you can get fired/layoff/terminated. 2. the banks can freeze your assets. 3. not allow to leave the country. so sure, you will not be in jail for 'freedom' of expression but essentially ex-communicated by the govt/business/etc. try living without a job, money, etc.
note: criticize, not threaten. threaten will land you in jail.

btw, i'm not sure you spoken to mainlanders recently - but the flow has reverse. i don't know of any that want to come here. there's boat load (students) that wants to leave but can't (usa flights to china are difficult to get-and expense). it's like minimal 1 hop (no directs), 2 week 'stay' in a hotel, etc. a person i know spent 4k to go back. 2020 flights are expensive. 2021 flights are cheap--but who knows if the govt's allow international flights in 2021.
a majority of mainlanders i know want to come to here for economic reasons. the working rich wants to hide the money but don't plan to stay (kids will stay, they will not). there's only a few who come here for political reasons. so if the economics change, the flow will change irrespective of politics. it's been changing for yrs, covid accelerated it.

[jfoxcpacfp]

Sorry, guys, this wandered just a little to much off the rails into politics. Ok to discuss international investing objectively, just please avoid discussion of your personal political views of why you do or don’t invest in the assets of specific countries.