[yurlungur]

I dunno, reading the article I get some mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it doesn't seem that bad that regulators can rein in even the biggest players and at least judging from the description the move may not be that bad for consumers. What if Ant is indeed taking too much risks and now is on its way to grow to too big to fail? On the other hand, the timing and turn of events look very capricious to say the very least.

[eunos]

Do you think it's better for China's regulator to rein them before the IPO (with delaying the said IPO) or after the IPO? if the regulators rein them after the IPO, the stocks gonna crash for sure and people will speculate that the regulators might play insider trading or simply cheat international investors.

[afjl]

They should have reined them in long before the IPO date this week, when they were supposed to be doing their due diligence and assessing the risk that ANT's lending practices pose.

The decision to do so after this PR broadside from Jack Ma appears (to some) as a political statement, and not truly policy-based regulation.

[geodel]

> turn of events look very capricious to say the very least.

In so many places that's the only way when hotshot businessman's tactics get investigated. Otherwise they wine and dine with top politicians and their brokers. So regulators can't touch them.