|Bid||30.04 x 1000|
|Ask||30.09 x 900|
|Day's range||30.05 - 30.47|
|52-week range||26.66 - 47.22|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||0.89|
|PE ratio (TTM)||8.60|
|Earnings date||20 Dec 2016 - 28 Dec 2016|
|Forward dividend & yield||1.61 (5.09%)|
|Ex-dividend date||29 May 2020|
|1y target est||43.44|
Let's see if China Telecom (CHA) stock is a good choice for value-oriented investors right now from multiple angles.
(Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon unveiled a list of companies it says are owned or controlled by China’s military, opening them to increased scrutiny in the latest spat between the world’s biggest economies.The 20 companies included Huawei Technologies Co. and Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., as well as a number of state-run enterprises. In letters to lawmakers dated June 24, the Pentagon said it was providing a list of “Communist Chinese military companies operating in the United States,” which was first requested in the fiscal 1999 defense policy law.This list includes “entities owned by, controlled by, or affiliated with China’s government, military, or defense industry,” Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.“As the People’s Republic of China attempts to blur the lines between civil and military sectors, ‘knowing your supplier’ is critical,” Hoffman said. “We envision this list will be a useful tool for the U.S. government, companies, investors, academic institutions, and like-minded partners to conduct due diligence with regard to partnerships with these entities, particularly as the list grows.”While the move may be largely symbolic since it doesn’t confer new authorities on the president, it comes as relations between the two superpowers continue to deteriorate, and as China has emerged as a key foreign policy issue in the U.S. election campaign. The U.S. has threatened sanctions against China for its treatment of Muslim minorities and increased grip over Hong Kong, while Beijing has for the past year threated to produce its own blacklist of U.S. companies.The U.S. list of companies said to be affiliated with the Peoples Liberation Army was mandated under the Defense Authorization Act of 1999, but no administration ever put out the required report. Trump has the authority under the International Emergency Economics Powers Act of 1977 to level financial sanctions against those companies.‘Baseless’China’s foreign and defense ministries, as well as the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, which oversees China’s government-run companies, didn’t immediately reply to a fax during a public holiday in the country. Huawei, which already faces a number of restrictions from the U.S. government, also didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.Hikvision called the U.S. move “baseless,” saying its ownership details have always been publicly available as a listed company and “independently operated enterprise.” It said it would continue to work with the U.S. government “to answer questions and correct misunderstandings about the company.” The company was among a number of Chinese entities put on a blacklist last year by the Trump administration.“Hikvision strongly opposes the decision by the U.S. government to misapply a never-used provision of a 21-year-old law,” a company spokesperson said. “Not only is Hikvision not a ‘Chinese military company,’ Hikvision has never participated in any R&D work for military applications.”China has long pursued a policy known as ‘civil-military integration’ that allows enterprises from both sectors to share dual-use technologies. In some cases, the policy allows the Chinese military to access technologies that might otherwise be difficult to obtain under sanctions imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.“The list put out today by the Pentagon is a start but woefully inadequate to warn the American people about the state-owned and -directed companies that support the Chinese government and Communist Party’s activities threatening U.S. economic and national security,” Republican Senator Marco Rubio said in a statement.China hawks in Congress have long pushed him to direct his Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to deploy sanctions against Huawei. It’s unclear, however, whether the president would be willing to take such aggressive action against some of China’s most prized business champions in an election year, as the Beijing government would likely retaliate against American companies.‘Long Overdue’Derek Scissors, a China expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said it was “long overdue for the government to indicate which Chinese firms have tight links to the PLA. But if there’s no meaningful action coming with that, it would just be posturing, possibly in reaction to the Bolton book.”In his memoir, which on sale Tuesday, former National Security Advisor John Bolton asserted that Trump asked Xi Jinping, China’s leader, to bolster purchases of American agricultural products to help him win re-election in November. Trump has rejected that claim.Some of the other major companies on the list include:Aviation Industry Corporation of China: Known AVIC, this state-owned company makes military and civil aircraft, and also provides plane components to Airbus SE and Boeing Co. China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation and China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation: These are state-owned companies that manufacture military components as well as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.China Railway Construction Corporation: This is a state-owned company that’s involved in construction of infrastructure projects such as railroads, tunnels and port terminals.China Telecommunications Corp.: This company owns Hong Kong-listed China Telecom Corp., the country’s No. 2 phone company, with $54 billion in revenue last year. The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing the license for China Telecom’s U.S. unit, saying the company’s links to the government pose a national security risk. State-owned China Telecom’s lawyers responded earlier this month with a letter saying the company obeys all U.S. laws and does not present a security risk.China Mobile Communications Group Co.: It owns China’s biggest mobile phone operator, with more than 940 million subscriptions. The FCC denied the U.S. arm of Hong Kong-listed China Mobile Ltd. a license for the U.S. last year, saying that granting the application “would raise substantial and serious national security and law enforcement risks.”Here is the full list: Aviation Industry Corporation of China; China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation; China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation; China Electronics Technology Group Corporation; China South Industries Group Corporation; China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation; China State Shipbuilding Corporation; China North Industries Group Corporation; Huawei Technologies Co.; Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co.; Inspur Group; Aero Engine Corporation of China; China Railway Construction Corporation; CRRC Corp.; Panda Electronics Group; Dawning Information Industry Co.; China Mobile Communications Group; China General Nuclear Power Corp.; China National Nuclear Power Corp.; China Telecommunications Corp.(Updates with detail throughout)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The libel conviction for the head of a Philippine news outlet known for its scrutiny of President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration is a blow to one of Asia’s most vibrant media sectors. It’s also the sort of headline that’s often overlooked by foreign executives and fund managers casting around for fast-growing economies. They would be wrong to gloss over this one.Duterte’s rule has already seen institutions eroded and top-level opponents targeted. If fewer questions are asked, that will reduce transparency and drive up the risk premium for investing in the Philippines. That’s something the coronavirus-weakened economy can ill afford when inbound investment is already falling.The case against Maria Ressa — whose Rappler site has been directly denounced by the president and often critical of his war on drugs — was always about more than the allegedly defamatory article on a local businessman, first published in 2012. The verdict, similarly, has ripples far beyond the online publication.Monday’s conviction is no isolated incident. Ressa and her co-accused, Reynaldo Santos, were sentenced to as long as six years in jail, but she faces seven other criminal charges including for alleged tax evasion. There’s more. A month ago, the country’s largest broadcaster, ABS-CBN Corp., shut TV and radio stations after its license wasn’t renewed — a move repeatedly threatened by Duterte, reportedly because of a disagreement over paid election campaign commercials. Opponents elsewhere, from the human rights commission to the Supreme Court, have fared little better. Meanwhile, lawmakers passed an anti-terrorism bill this month that, while targeting a real problem, could also allow worryingly lengthy detentions without charge.The presidential spokesman says Duterte upholds free speech and played no role in the Ressa verdict. That should offer little comfort to investors, or to a local population facing the deepest economic contraction in decades. Indeed, it suggests weakened institutions are carrying out the president’s whims without needing to be told. The target is one of the country’s best-known journalists, at home and abroad. Ressa was honored by Time in 2018. With other governments behaving badly, there is little reason to hold back.To be clear, Duterte isn’t the first occupant of the Malacanang presidential palace to castigate the press, or indeed other institutions, since the end of martial law in the 1980s. While free and outspoken by the region’s standards, the Philippines has also had high rates of violence against journalists. The difference is in what Nicole Curato of the University of Canberra describes as the normalization of attacks on the press, and the sheer volume of vitriol released through spokespeople, political allies, and on social media. Worse, it is done with the language of democracy. At least in openly authoritarian states, as Ressa said Monday, the rules are clear.The economic context is grim. While the Philippines is young, promising and has been an outperformer in terms of headline expansion, its economy remains highly concentrated, unequal and opaque. Foreign direct investment and local stocks were fading even before the pandemic, despite infrastructure spending plans and tax reform efforts. After the coronavirus, an economy that had been projected to expand 7% this year will instead contract. Unemployment and underemployment are high and remittances, which account for about 10% of gross domestic product, have dropped.Ressa’s verdict brings more reasons for concern.The first is the increasingly arbitrary nature of the attacks, in part because of the disparate coalition behind Duterte vying for favor. This leaves investors vulnerable, says Aries Arugay, professor of political science at the University of the Philippines-Diliman. Duterte triggered a more than $2 billion stock rout in December after targeting the Ayala family and another local businessman, demanding the renegotiation of contracts with two concessionaires, Manila Water Co. and Maynilad Water Services Inc., to supply the capital. Companies such as Fraport AG and Suez SA left the Philippines over just such disputes.While the old guard is under fire, a new, Duterte-friendly oligarchy is being created, tilting an already uneven playing field. Aaron Connelly, research fellow at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, points to telecoms as an example of the change: Duterte ally Dennis Uy, with China Telecom Corp., won the country’s third telecoms license in 2018. Partner risk has always been a problem in Southeast Asia, but the shift away from Manila elites is making this less predictable.Lastly, there’s the issue of transparency. The simple act of questioning authority, deals and negotiations is becoming more challenging. It could get worse still if, as Arugay posits, the current purge fosters the flourishing of partisan Duterte-friendly media. The Manila Times closed in 1999 after running afoul of then-President Joseph Estrada, only to be bought by one of his close associates.Duterte’s enduring popular support, and a term that doesn’t end until 2022, create room for plenty more lasting damage. Investors could do worse than to ponder Ressa’s words after her conviction: This is a precipice. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Clara Ferreira Marques is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities and environmental, social and governance issues. Previously, she was an associate editor for Reuters Breakingviews, and editor and correspondent for Reuters in Singapore, India, the U.K., Italy and Russia.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.