← Back to list
Oakmark FundsDeep research1 Nov 2021Source: oakmark.com

Regulatory Changes in China and Our Approach to Risk Management

Oakmark is the mutual fund family launched in 1991 by Harris Associates, the Chicago deep-value firm founded in 1976 (about $105bn AUM). Bill Nygren runs the flagship Oakmark Fund and David Herro the Oakmark International Fund, buying businesses at large discounts to intrinsic value and holding them like owners — publishing quarterly fund commentaries, market commentaries and insight articles.

Bill Nygren、David Herro · 1991 · 美国芝加哥Deep value / contrarian long-term

In plain words

This report looks at China's recent internet regulations (like antitrust laws, data privacy rules, and gaming limits for kids) and what they mean for investors. It argues these rules aren't meant to destroy Chinese tech firms, but to prevent abuse and protect consumers—similar to what Western regulators are doing with Google or Facebook. The difference is China moves faster and more unilaterally, which spooked markets and caused a sell-off. For regular investors, the takeaway is: investing in China means accepting that policy can change quickly, so you should either keep your exposure small or build extra risk into your valuation. Worth reading because it helps you stay calm instead of panicking.

AI SummaryAI-generated · may contain errors · verify against the original

Oakmark’s report examines regulatory changes in China’s internet sector and its risk management strategies. Over the past nine months, the Chinese government has intensified regulation in areas such as the internet, real estate, and education, triggering a significant market correction. The core arg

~3 min full read · 5 sections
Deep Analysis

Theme and Background

This chapter focuses on the intensive regulatory new rules introduced in China's internet industry over the past nine months (the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Personal Information Protection Law, restrictions on youth gaming time, etc.) and their impact on the market. The report notes that these new rules appeared sudden and were implemented rapidly, triggering market panic and leading to a significant pullback in Chinese stocks. As a fund holding positions in Chinese internet companies, Oakmark pays particular attention to this area.

Core Thesis

The report's central judgment is: Most of the new rules are not intended to suppress domestic internet companies or drive out foreign capital, but rather to prevent the abuse of power, protect consumers, and lay a more solid foundation for long-term sustainable growth. The author argues that these regulatory directions are essentially consistent with Western regulation of internet giants (such as data fines, antitrust investigations, and protections for gig economy workers), with the only difference being that China, as a one-party state, makes decisions and implements them more quickly and unilaterally.

Counter-Intuitive Judgment: The extreme narrative widely feared by the market—that "the government intends to destroy internet companies"—lacks sufficient supporting evidence. The report argues that China's regulatory intent converges with the long-term goals of Western regulatory bodies, rather than representing a disruptive change.

Key Arguments and Data

1. Comparison of Regulatory Content: The report draws direct parallels between China's new rules and Western regulatory practices, arguing that China is not an outlier.

  • Western internet companies have been fined billions of dollars for improper use of consumer data.
  • Multiple regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Europe are conducting antitrust investigations into Western internet companies.
  • Some U.S. states are attempting to strengthen protections for gig economy workers.

2. Risk Pricing Mechanism: Oakmark manages its China investment risk through higher discount rates and more conservative competitive assumptions. Specific practices include:

  • Applying significantly higher discount rates to Chinese companies compared to regions with more collectively established rule-making (such as the U.S. and Europe).
  • Viewing China's internet market as one of the most competitive globally, with rapid technological iteration and changes in the competitive landscape, thus adopting more conservative assumptions in valuation.
  • Having already assumed that the low tax rates for Chinese internet companies (e.g., tax incentives for "key software enterprises") would normalize over time. The recent tightening of tax incentive eligibility by the government confirms this judgment.

3. Historical Position Data: Before the regulatory announcements, the overall weight of China in Oakmark's international and global portfolios was typically only 4% to 5%, indicating that it had already hedged risk through low exposure.

Companies/Assets Involved

  • Ant Group: The report mentions the suspension of Ant Group's IPO in November 2020 as the starting point for this round of regulatory tightening.
  • Chinese Internet Companies (General): The report does not name specific companies but notes that its holdings are concentrated in Chinese internet giants (such as implied targets like Tencent and Alibaba). The author holds a bullish view on these companies, believing the market has become overly pessimistic and that the risk-reward ratio is favorable.

Investment Implications

1. Do Not Be Dominated by Panic Narratives: Investors should distinguish between "regulatory intent" and "market panic." The report argues that the long-term direction of China's regulation (antitrust, data protection, labor rights) is consistent with global trends and is not aimed at the survival of companies.

2. Risk Must Be Priced In: Investing in China requires accepting its unique political risks (unilateral, rapid decision-making). Oakmark's approach is to: use higher discount rates, more conservative competitive assumptions, and proactively assume tax rate normalization. Investors should assess whether their own portfolios have adequately reflected these risk premiums.

3. Position Management is a Risk Control Tool: The report implies that even when bullish on specific companies, the overall weight of Chinese assets should be controlled (e.g., 4%-5%) as an additional layer of risk management. Under the current market pessimism, if risks have been fully priced in, it may present a contrarian buying opportunity.