Hello everyone, let's share today's important news that you can't miss. Today is November 11th. We'll start with today's financial headlines, sharing three pieces of the latest information with our viewers. First is a report from The Wall Street Journal, ADP estimates that U.S. private sector employment decreased in October. Private firm ADP released a report today stating that 11,250 people were laid off weekly in the private sector. The ADP report shows that in the four weeks ending October 25th, 11,250 people were laid off weekly in the private sector. Due to the delay in official employment data during the government shutdown, ADP's employment data has become the most important source of information for Wall Street to assess the U.S. job market.

This information has intensified market investors' concerns about U.S. employment issues. In fact, LT previously shared with viewers that, from a real-life perspective, the U.S. employment situation is much worse than the officially released data suggests. Moreover, this year's wave of layoffs differs from those seen in previous economic recessions. In past recessions, layoffs primarily affected low-skilled positions, whereas this year, the main victims of layoffs are technology and management personnel. These individuals belong to the middle or even upper-middle strata of the American middle class. Therefore, this not only has a significant impact on the economy but also shakes the confidence of the middle class, which forms the political and social foundation of the United States.

So, LT feels that the Trump administration has greatly underestimated the existence of this problem. The current U.S. economy is different from what it has been for decades: on one hand, large-scale layoffs, and on the other, high economic growth. This is a situation that has never occurred in previous U.S. economic patterns. The application of new technologies, especially the artificial intelligence revolution, has brought significant impacts to social structures and traditional economic frameworks. However, currently, neither the government nor public opinion is prepared for this. It's unclear if other countries are experiencing similar situations, but this sudden transformation or change in the U.S. has caught the entire society somewhat off guard.

The second piece of related news, also a focal point of discussion on Wall Street today, is from Bloomberg. SoftBank sold its Nvidia shares, cashing out $5.8 billion for investment in artificial intelligence. The Japanese SoftBank Group sold all of its Nvidia stock for $5.83 billion. SoftBank's explanation was that it sold all its Nvidia shares to raise funds for investments in the artificial intelligence sector. The subtext was, "I'm not selling Nvidia because there's a problem with it; I just need money to invest in AI."

Wall Street clearly isn't buying this explanation today, because when it comes to investments in the artificial intelligence sector, Nvidia is currently soaring and still in its growth phase. Moreover, SoftBank had previously explained to the public that they intended to raise more capital to invest in Nvidia. So why did this big news suddenly emerge today? It's because the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was about to release some of SoftBank's data, which had to be made public, prompting SoftBank to offer this explanation. Clearly, SoftBank's decision, or its action last month, has had a significant negative impact on Nvidia's stock price today and the entire U.S. stock market. Regardless of the explanation, at least from SoftBank's perspective, continuing to hold Nvidia shares would not bring them greater benefits.

Consequently, last week's market skepticism about a bubble in the artificial intelligence sector has resurfaced. Today, SoftBank's CFO, Yoshimitsu Goto, made a statement during the earnings call that has been widely discussed by international financial media. He said, "I cannot definitively say whether we are in an AI bubble." This statement is somewhat like "protesting too much," or you could interpret it as SoftBank also being concerned about an artificial intelligence bubble. It is currently the most aggressive company investing in the AI sector, and so it has begun to scrutinize the situation.

As a result, investors across the market who have been chasing AI investments broke out in a cold sweat. LT believes this news will continue to develop. The CEO of the short-selling firm that caused a major drop in the U.S. tech sector last week issued a similar warning again today, still highlighting the investment bubble in the artificial intelligence field. Therefore, LT advises viewers to ponder this issue and not simply follow the crowd. Everyone should carefully discern the current skepticism surrounding AI. The focus of public opinion is very precise; it's not questioning AI itself. No one is saying that AI isn't developing rapidly or that its impact isn't significant; no one is raising such doubts.

Why? Because the current application of artificial intelligence has already created significant unemployment in the United States. If AI didn't solve problems, these bosses wouldn't dare to lay off employees on a large scale, replacing them with AI to impact their operating efficiency. The fact that these companies trust AI technology indicates that its application will bring them benefits. So, what is Wall Street questioning now? It's questioning that the investment bubble is too large. Regarding the internet bubble of the 1990s, there was both an investment bubble and an exaggeration of the internet's impact on the economy.

However, regarding this issue, Wall Street opinion is not clear so far. Of course, these are just some of LT's own judgments, and they may not be correct; perhaps the phenomenon of AI technology itself being overestimated also exists. We welcome viewers to share their insights on this issue in the comments section.

For the third related piece of news, LT will only share some headlines. This is an interesting article from MarketWatch, a subsidiary of The Wall Street Journal, titled "Wells Fargo Advises Locking In Tech Stock Gains, Shifting to Other Sectors." This article aims to guide its clients, suggesting that the U.S. high-tech sector has risen enough, and the risks will be higher going forward. If you've made a profit, it might be better to sell and cash out, then invest in other areas. Whether this advice or direction is right or wrong, LT believes viewers can ponder it; at least someone is offering this suggestion.

The second important news item to share with viewers is a report from The Wall Street Journal, titled "India and Pakistan Accuse Each Other of Bomb Attacks." India and Pakistan are restless again. The subtitle of the report is, "As India's Prime Minister Vows to Find Perpetrators of Deadly Blast Yesterday, Pakistan's Accusations Follow." Today, Pakistan accused Indian-backed militants of carrying out a suicide bomb attack in Islamabad on Tuesday, killing 12 people, which heightened the possibility of escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

At the same time, the Indian Prime Minister also vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of a car bombing that occurred in New Delhi the previous day. Indian police stated that an explosion occurred near the historic Red Fort metro station in New Delhi on Monday, igniting several nearby cars, killing 8 people and injuring at least 20. Police said there were 3-4 passengers inside the exploded vehicle, all of whom died in the blast. The cause of the explosion has not yet been determined. New Delhi police spokesperson Dyagi stated that after preliminary police investigation, the case was handed over to India's premier counter-terrorism agency, the National Investigation Agency.

Additionally, on Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated a deadly explosion outside a courthouse in Islamabad, Pakistan. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif blamed Indian-backed terrorists for the blast, which injured dozens. In a statement released today, Sharif said that India's actions in using terrorist organizations to attack Pakistani citizens should be condemned. From this news, we can feel that the conflict and contradiction between India and Pakistan are a normalized behavior; for reasons unknown and against an unclear backdrop, every so often, they launch mutual attacks.

The third important news item to share with viewers is a major piece of information that the global financial community and investors worldwide are closely watching: Warren Buffett's final attendance at a shareholder meeting, where he also announced his farewell. For the world's most successful investor, this departure has attracted global investor attention. We will share two pieces of related latest information. First, we share a Bloomberg report titled "Buffett's Farewell Letter: $1.3 Billion in Stock Donated, No More Year-End Shareholder Letters."

Yesterday, Warren Buffett released a public thank-you letter. The 95-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" is making final arrangements for his retirement as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, accelerating the transfer of $149 billion of his estate to his children's foundations, while retaining enough Berkshire Class A shares to help his successor, Greg Abel, earn shareholders' trust. Buffett stated in the letter that, overall, Berkshire's business prospects are slightly better than average, with several unrelated large, high-quality assets generating profits. However, he noted that many companies would outperform Berkshire in the next one to two decades, as their scale comes with a cost.

Second, we share today's report from The Wall Street Journal, which analyzed Warren Buffett's final letter to shareholders. The Wall Street Journal's report is titled "Quiet Exit: Nine Key Takeaways from Buffett's Last Letter as CEO." Buffett began his annual Thanksgiving letter by writing, "I'm going to be quiet for a while, so be it." The Wall Street Journal analyzed Buffett's final letter to shareholders, distilling nine key points.

First, Buffett spoke about himself. He said he felt generally good, although he could feel the effects of aging on his balance, vision, hearing, and memory. He stated, "Although I move slowly and reading becomes increasingly difficult, I still go to the office five days a week and work with a wonderful group of people." Second, Buffett discussed philanthropy. The billionaire converted approximately $1.3 billion worth of stock into other shares and donated them to four family foundations, marking the latest contribution.

Third, he discussed Berkshire Hathaway. Despite accelerating his philanthropic donations to his children's foundations, his optimistic outlook for Berkshire remains unchanged. He will hold a substantial number of the company's Class A shares until shareholders have full confidence in his successor, Abel. This point is crucial. Berkshire's stock price has recently seen some declines, and the prevailing market sentiment suggests that previously, due to Buffett's leadership and endorsement, the stock was given a premium valuation; as long as Buffett was at the helm, investors were willing to artificially inflate Berkshire's stock price. With Buffett's retirement, that premium would likely recede.

Regarding this move, Buffett stated that although he resigned as CEO, he continues to directly hold Berkshire Hathaway's stock, signaling to the outside world that he still cares deeply about the company and remains highly aligned with its interests, aiming to slow down or reduce any excessive decline in Berkshire's stock price caused by his retirement. The fourth key point discusses the succession plan. Buffett described his successor, Abel, as an outstanding manager, a tireless worker, and a candid communicator. He wished him a long tenure, hoping he would remain healthy for decades to come. If fortunate, Berkshire should only need five to six CEOs over the next century.

The fifth key point is Buffett's discussion of his hometown, Omaha. In his final letter to shareholders, he dedicated over two pages to describing the good life in Omaha, the city where he lives, and the successful achievements of his fellow Nebraskans, including his close friend Charlie Munger and former Coca-Cola president Don Keough. Buffett wrote in his letter, "Looking back, I believe that Berkshire and I have been able to achieve better results than anywhere else I have lived precisely because we are rooted in Omaha. The American Midwest is a wonderful place to be born, raise a family, and start a business."

Last year, LT also shared with viewers that he specifically drove to Omaha, and even visited the neighborhood where Buffett lives, sharing the experience with everyone. Therefore, Buffett is indeed worthy of admiration from our viewers who are engaged in investment and financial management. The sixth key point is Buffett's discussion of jealousy. Buffett stated that reformers attempted to embarrass CEOs by demanding public disclosure of their compensation and comparing it to average employee salaries. He said these good intentions actually had the opposite effect; CEOs began to focus on competitors and argue to their boards that their value was higher. The new rules sparked jealousy rather than restraint. What truly unsettles very wealthy CEOs, who are human after all, is often seeing other CEOs become even wealthier. Jealousy and greed always go hand in hand.

In fact, he criticized both public jealousy towards these CEOs and the insatiable greed of the CEOs themselves. Whether this is related to Elon Musk's trillion-dollar compensation package is unknown. However, LT noticed many American netizens discussing this, linking it to Musk's exorbitant award. The seventh key point is Buffett's discussion of difficult conversations. He said, "Sometimes excellent and loyal executives also suffer from dementia. Charlie Munger and I have encountered this situation many times and failed to take action. This oversight can lead to major mistakes. The board must be aware of this and take responsibility. I can only suggest one thing: directors should remain vigilant and dare to speak up."

So, he is still reminding people not to abandon supervision due to trust, especially since even the smartest managers can suddenly suffer from dementia, forgetfulness, or make elementary mistakes. This is a reminder he gives to the board members of Berkshire Hathaway. The eighth key point is Buffett's discussion of major stock market reversals. He actually reviewed some of Berkshire Hathaway's journey over 60 years. He said that during his 60 years at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway, the company's stock price had fallen by 50% three times. Therefore, he expressed not to be discouraged, as America would recover, and Berkshire's stock price would also recover. This belief in America is a point Buffett mentions in almost every letter to shareholders.

This is actually a meaningful reminder for all netizens, no matter where you live in the world. In the field of economics, there is a saying that economists prioritize investing in their home country. This is also a belief; Buffett believes in America, and he bets on America. Besides genuinely thinking America will be very strong, he also has a spiritual anchor and value belonging as an investor. The ninth point is Buffett's discussion of life. He said, "Think about how you want your report to read, and then strive to live a life worthy of it." At the end of his letter, he wrote, "Carefully choose your heroes, and then emulate them. You can never be perfect, but you can always do better."

This passage might be worth pondering for netizens, as it indeed points out a model for a successful life: carefully choose your heroes, and then emulate them. You can never be perfect, but you can always do better. If there's an opportunity in the future, we will share more of Buffett's thoughts, as he has left us with very valuable and rich spiritual wealth, not only in the field of investment but also in life.

The fourth important news to share with viewers is a report from Deutsche Welle. Yesterday, Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan's former president, delivered a widely acclaimed speech in Berlin, Germany. The report's title is "Tsai Ing-wen Says She Won't Take Security Partners' Support for Granted." Former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen stated yesterday at the Berlin Freedom Conference that Taiwan's high-tech industry has become an indispensable part of the global economy, and in the new era defined by artificial intelligence, Taiwan's chip industry is the cornerstone of global prosperity.

Tsai Ing-wen stated that this was her first visit to Germany in 15 years, and she mentioned that November 9th this year marked the 36th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which remains the clearest symbol of democracy triumphing over authoritarianism. She pointed out that democratic systems worldwide are facing increasingly severe challenges, and in recent years, Taiwan has confronted cognitive warfare and information manipulation, tactics that have ultimately appeared in Europe as well. She cited the Ukraine War as an example, noting that Russia not only invaded multiple countries' airspace but also damaged critical infrastructure, including undersea cables, demonstrating that authoritarian regimes in Europe and Asia employ very similar methods.

Tsai Ing-wen stated, "Our neighbors believe that through continuous influence operations, gray zone tactics, actions, and military exercises, they can make Taiwanese people fall into fear or numbness. But the truth is quite the opposite; today, Taiwan stands on the front line of democratic defense, but tomorrow, any country could face the same challenges." Tsai Ing-wen called on democratic nations to strengthen cooperation and defense, emphasizing that resilience is key to the survival of democracy in the face of authoritarian challenges. Regarding this report, LT has a point to share with viewers: Lai Ching-te's and Tsai Ing-wen's cross-strait discourses are entirely different. Although both belong to Taiwan's localist or pro-independence factions, their approaches to narrating cross-strait issues differ significantly.

Tsai Ing-wen's focus is on emphasizing the internal recognition of Taiwan's sovereignty. For example, she used the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement to warn Taiwanese people that whether they have sovereignty depends on themselves; this is one of her core views, meaning that sovereignty in cross-strait issues is rooted in the Taiwanese people. The second core idea of her cross-strait discourse is that the nature of Taiwan's confrontation with the CCP is not about unification or separation, nor is it an internal Chinese issue, but rather a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. And in today's world, the confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism is not only a problem for Taiwan but also for Europe.

Therefore, Tsai Ing-wen hopes to establish a united front or alliance against authoritarianism. She adopted a different approach to gain international recognition for Taiwan. You could say she either subtly shifted the concept or grafted a new one; she doesn't ask you to support Taiwan's independence, but you cannot help but support what Tsai Ing-wen calls the confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism. Since Europe also faces a confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism, by extension, if Taiwan supports you against Russia, Europe will naturally support me against the CCP, because this is not merely a sovereignty dispute; beyond that, it is a conflict of values and ideologies.

Therefore, Tsai Ing-wen expanded Taiwan's sovereignty issue into a global one. It was also from Tsai Ing-wen's tenure that Lithuania began to support Taiwan unequivocally, leading to more official exchanges between European countries and Taiwan. So, from another perspective, she gained sovereign space. Now let's look at the core of Lai Ching-te's cross-strait discourse. His core view on cross-strait relations is that Taiwan is an independent country. Who is he telling this to? The CCP.

Second, his core view on cross-strait issues is that the CCP is not qualified to discuss cross-strait unification, nor is it qualified to discuss Taiwan as part of China. In articulating this view, he attacks the CCP's weaknesses. For example, when the CCP proclaims that Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory, Lai Ching-te retorts, "Russia occupies so many of your territories, why don't you want any of them back? And those territories are much larger than Taiwan." Therefore, the CCP's desire to invade Taiwan is not about territorial issues. How does the CCP respond? It has no way to respond. But Lai Ching-te's attack hurts the CCP, making it jump with anger.

For the CCP, maintaining its rule within China and on the mainland is its absolute top priority. The so-called unification of Taiwan is a secondary or tertiary interest. So, Lai Ching-te, in order to protect Taiwan, attacks the CCP's absolute primary interest. This indeed can hurt China. But what benefits does Taiwan gain from this? Taiwan doesn't get any tangible benefits. This is similar to the first term of Donald Trump, when Mike Pompeo and others proposed distinguishing between the CCP and the Chinese people. This indeed hurt the CCP, but what benefits did the U.S. gain? None.

Although Hsiao Bi-khim's recent speech at the European Parliament was very successful, it was given to an organization of visiting parliamentarians, and it won't have binding effects. So, when LT discusses this point, comparing Lai Ching-te and Tsai Ing-wen, it might offend some Taiwanese netizens from the Green Camp. LT supports Lai Ching-te and the Democratic Progressive Party, but in terms of cross-strait discourse, LT believes Tsai Ing-wen might be wiser, meaning her approach might have higher intrinsic value. What is your ultimate goal? What do you gain after all your words are spoken?

LT believes that Tsai Ing-wen's two core points in her cross-strait narrative are very effective. Regarding the first issue, Taiwan's sovereignty, the biggest vulnerability and risk to sovereignty in Taiwan today does not come from the CCP's potential invasion, but from within Taiwan itself. Look, even the Kuomintang chairman has stated that cross-strait relations cannot remain indefinitely ununified, implying that unification is inevitable or a destined outcome—how alarming is that? Even Ma Ying-jeou at the time advocated "no unification, no independence, no use of force," but the current Kuomintang chairman says unification is the only path. This is truly frightening.

For example, Huang Kuo-chang, the former chairman of the New Power Party, a past pro-independence figure in Taiwan, now strongly supports the "Curator" (Chen Chih-han), who claims to be Chinese and loves everything about China. In terms of political leaning, the Blue-White Alliance has become more pro-China. Therefore, the main contradiction regarding Taiwan's sovereignty issue is not the CCP, but rather the problem of a sovereignty-disregarding capitulationist faction within Taiwan. Lai Ching-te has not resolved this, and under his administration, this anti-Taiwanese sovereignty sentiment has become increasingly rampant on the island. So, while you make Xi Jinping jump with anger, there are calls for surrender domestically—this is something Lai Ching-te needs to pay attention to.

The second point is how to address the international community. Tsai Ing-wen's discourse on the confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism is actually a gradual attempt to break away from Taiwan's traditional reliance solely on the United States for security. She hopes to expand this security chain, which is a major breakthrough for Tsai Ing-wen. Today, Lai Ching-te faces Donald Trump, with whom he can neither communicate effectively nor predict due to Trump's highly unpredictable nature. In such circumstances, it would be more beneficial to emulate Tsai Ing-wen in seeking more international resources. Therefore, overall, LT believes that Lai Ching-te's camp, and his assistants, should remind Lai Ching-te about certain strategies regarding cross-strait issues. Of course, from Taiwan's perspective, or the Green Camp's perspective, LT's remarks might be considered meddlesome, and I welcome netizens to criticize and correct me in the comments section.

The fifth important news to share with viewers is a report from the Financial Times. It's very interesting; the headline is "Jack Ma's Wife Buys London Luxury Villa, Formerly Italian Embassy." This news has been reported as financial gossip by many financial media outlets, and it's unclear if Chinese media have covered it. The Financial Times report describes that Jack Ma's wife, Zhang Ying, bought a villa in London for £19.5 million, which in earlier years served as the Italian Embassy in the UK. The report mentions that this villa further expands the Ma family's vast real estate portfolio outside China.

According to informed sources and UK land registry records, the villa is located in Belgravia, a high-end residential area in central London. It is a Grade II listed building, spanning 7,948 square feet, and served as the Italian Embassy in the UK in the 1920s, later also housing the office of the Italian military attaché. The villa has 6 bedrooms, was listed for £21.5 million, and sold for £19.5 million. The report also highlights the Ma family's continuously expanding real estate portfolio worldwide. Jack Ma's wife, Zhang Ying, spent S$45 million in 2024 to purchase three interconnected shophouses on a commercial street in Singapore. Additionally, over the past decade, the Ma family has acquired castles, vineyards, luxury homes, and estates in France, Hong Kong, and the United States, respectively.

Regarding this news, LT has a point to share with viewers. Not long ago, Pan Shiyi and Zhang Xin, the founders of SOHO China, made big news in the United States by announcing their plan to redevelop a luxury residential area in New York. This garnered significant attention from the American media. So why does seeing Jack Ma's wife invest in luxury homes remind one of Pan Shiyi and his wife's development in the U.S.? People are increasingly realizing that while Pan Shiyi's "escape" was a bit later than Li Ka-shing's, compared to other Chinese tycoons, Pan Shiyi's departure was clean, decisive, and relatively early.

So why is Jack Ma willing to endure a certain deprivation of freedom in China, accepting this painful situation, instead of decisively leaving like Pan Shiyi? LT believes there might be two reasons. First, Jack Ma might have things he cannot let go of, such as his perceived career or social status. This is a question of whether one can abandon or let go. Second, we might have previously overlooked factors preventing Jack Ma from leaving. Besides his unwillingness to leave, which is certainly a factor, there are also reasons why he couldn't leave. Let's compare Pan Shiyi and Jack Ma from a financial perspective.

Why could Pan Shiyi leave? Because the real estate business model is different. A real estate developer's assets consist of two parts: existing development resources and financial assets. Financial assets are easily transferable; when fleeing, the financial assets part is easy to move. As for the remaining real estate resources, whether land or properties, where was Pan Shiyi clever? He mortgaged all of them to Chinese banks, even transferring multiple times the loan amount abroad. This means, "I have land and properties domestically, but the money I took from Chinese banks far exceeds the value of the properties and land I left behind." So, if you confiscate, I'll just leave with the money. If you don't confiscate, I'll continue to operate with my assets.

So Pan Shiyi made it very difficult for the CCP, and they didn't have many options against him. Although Pan Shiyi still has businesses in China and continues to make money there, he is in a state of having fled; he will not return to China, as it would be absolutely unsafe. On the other hand, most of Pan Shiyi's net assets have already been transferred out of China and are in the United States. So, this was a very successful "escape." Can Jack Ma do the same? Running a business in China, transferring all assets abroad, not staying in China, being free from CCP constraints, and the CCP being unable to do anything about it. Jack Ma cannot do this. Why? Because Jack Ma's main asset is Alibaba stock. This is his absolute asset.

So, if Jack Ma were to flee, the CCP could zero out the value of the Alibaba shares he holds. As for Pan Shiyi, his "escape" was entirely different. What Pan Shiyi transferred out were purely net assets, purely financial assets, purely liquid assets. Jack Ma's main asset, however, is stock, and although it's held abroad, this stock relies on Alibaba, a company based in China. His relationship with Alibaba is not that of a direct shareholder; it's a virtual, indirect holding through a VIE (Variable Interest Entity) structure. Therefore, the CCP could declare the virtual company listed in the U.S. null and void, and confiscate Alibaba's shares in China, leaving Jack Ma with nothing.

So, did Jack Ma transfer some money, like the money his wife used to buy a house? These are small sums. This is a small amount of money he took after selling a tiny portion of his shares. Could he sell more? No, he couldn't. If he sold too much, the market would sense that Jack Ma was fleeing, and Alibaba's stock price would plummet. Then the value of the shares Jack Ma hadn't sold would also drop significantly, leading to huge losses for his wealth. So Jack Ma himself doesn't dare to flee. This is his situation; he can only use small amounts of money to speculate in real estate. Therefore, what LT primarily wants to share with today's news is that, besides being unable to flee, Jack Ma also has unspoken difficulties and factors preventing him from leaving.

The sixth important news item to share with viewers is today's report from The Wall Street Journal, titled "China Plans to Block U.S. Military Access to Rare Earth Magnets." Beijing is considering implementing an end-user certification system to expedite the approval of certain export licenses. Sources familiar with the matter revealed that China plans to establish a system to mitigate the flow of rare earths and other restricted materials to the United States. This system would exclude companies linked to the U.S. military while accelerating export approvals for other companies.

Sources familiar with the matter revealed that the CCP's establishment of a Verified End-User (VEU) system would enable Chinese leader Xi Jinping to fulfill his commitment to Donald Trump to promote the export of such materials, while ensuring these materials do not ultimately fall into the hands of U.S. military suppliers, which is China's core concern. If strictly enforced, the system could make it more difficult for automotive and aerospace companies with both civilian and defense customers to import certain Chinese raw materials. Sources indicated that Beijing's plan could still change, and its licensing system remains uncertain before implementation.

Today's exclusive report from The Wall Street Journal caused a stir in the United States. Americans felt that despite the Trump-Xi summit reaching a truce agreement, the CCP was still tightening control over rare earth exports to the U.S. This is because major importers of rare earths from China are large companies with dual military and civilian uses. For example, General Motors, which is both a manufacturer of general civilian vehicles and a major military producer of aircraft engines and fighter jets. This also includes Boeing, which produces civilian aircraft and provides advanced fighter jets and missiles to the U.S. military.

So, the Chinese side's stated intention to establish a VEU (Verified End-User) mechanism, which is an end-user certification, reflects its continued desire for long-arm jurisdiction. It wants to track and extend its management: where did this rare earth ultimately go? In the process of this supervision, it could potentially probe for secrets. Because to prove you didn't keep it, you have to provide proof. Therefore, from the perspective of American public opinion on The Wall Street Journal's report, the CCP has not truly ceased hostilities but is, in some respects, signaling greater hostility.

There's no way around it, as Binst said, you still have at least two years to break free from dependence on China. In the past couple of days, much of the American public opinion has been saying Binst is boasting; how can one break free in two years? Well, if you can't break free, then you have to endure Beijing's various ways of exerting pressure.

The seventh important news to share with viewers involves two reports concerning China's Shenzhou-20 spacecraft being stranded in space for some reason. This has happened to the U.S. before, and now China is facing the same trouble. We'll share two interesting reports. First, we share a report from the CCP's People's Daily, titled "Shenzhou-20 Delays Return to Earth, Return Mission Progressing in Order." This is to reassure Chinese netizens.

The report describes that, according to today's news from the China Manned Space Agency, after the Shenzhou-20 spacecraft's return mission was postponed, the project, adhering to the principle of "life first, safety paramount," immediately activated emergency plans and measures. It organized comprehensive simulated analysis, testing, and safety evaluations for Shenzhou-20. The plan for the Shenzhou-20 astronaut crew's return was studied, and all systems strictly followed procedures to conduct various tests and joint trials, organizing critical product status interpretation and quality confirmation. The landing site is currently conducting a comprehensive drill for the Shenzhou-20 astronaut crew's return, with all work progressing steadily and as planned.

Previously, the office announced on November 5th that the Shenzhou-20 spacecraft was suspected of being hit by space debris, and impact analysis and risk assessment were underway. After deliberation, it was decided that the Shenzhou-20 return mission, originally scheduled for November 5th, would be postponed. The official news aims to alleviate Chinese netizens' concerns, assuring them that contingency plans and backup solutions are being implemented. Phoenix New Media also introduced the contingency plan, which involves using Shenzhou-22 to retrieve the stranded astronauts.

On another front, we share Western media's coverage of this event. The Guardian's report is titled "How Will China's Three Stranded Astronauts Get Home? Netizens Call for Elon Musk's Help." Chinese officials confirmed on the 5th that Commander Chen Dong and astronauts Chen Zhongrui and Wang Jie, who were on the Shenzhou-20 mission, were originally scheduled to return to the Dongfeng landing site in Inner Mongolia on the 5th. However, their spacecraft may have been damaged by space debris during orbital docking over the past six months. The impact and associated risks are currently being assessed, and the three astronauts will delay their return to Earth.

This incident has attracted significant attention on social media, with netizens frequently mentioning Elon Musk's SpaceX company, which successfully rescued NASA astronauts William Williams and Terry W. Virts, who were stranded in space for 287 days, using its Dragon spacecraft on March 18th this year. Many British netizens commented on The Guardian, asking, "Who do you call for help when stranded in space? Only Musk and SpaceX." This reflects an instinctive concern from British netizens, and it's unclear whether Chinese netizens will accept this goodwill. Therefore, the incident of astronauts being stranded in space will undoubtedly become a global focal point of public opinion and will continue to be monitored, as it is in space every day, above people's heads, so this matter will be discussed worldwide for some time.

The eighth important news to share with viewers is about Chinese "wolf warrior" Xue Jian's remarks threatening to behead the Japanese Prime Minister, which even alarmed Donald Trump. This matter became an international big news story because anything involving Trump tends to. Before that, people mostly viewed the performances of China's wolf warriors with sarcasm and ridicule, not as serious political statements, or not worth taking seriously. Just like the Japanese official stance, his remarks were highly inappropriate. As for expulsion, or whether it's that serious, it's just a mad dog or a wolf warrior.

So, this matter, reported by American media today, has once again involved Trump. Fox News reported that Chinese Consul General in Osaka, Xue Jian's comments about Fumio Kishida reached Trump. Fox News's star anchor, Laura Ingraham, asked Trump what he thought about China's expanding missile bases, increasing nuclear weapons, and their consul in Osaka claiming he would behead Kishida. In a nationally watched interview with Trump, the remarks of Chinese "wolf warrior" Xue Jian were suddenly brought up to Trump. The host also specifically emphasized, "I know Kishida is your good friend."

The Fox News host, of course, expected Trump to severely reprimand the CCP's "wolf warrior." However, Trump's response clearly disappointed the Fox News host. But if you listen carefully, Trump still expressed his evaluation of the "wolf warrior" rhetoric. He first said, "I have a very good relationship with Xi Jinping." Why does he have a good relationship with Xi Jinping? He said that to get along well with China, you must have strength. The CCP only respects your strength. Being nice to them is useless. If you have capability, they will respect you. He said, "China certainly has a lot of missiles, but we have a lot too. I can tell you, they don't dare mess with us."

He didn't directly answer Xue Jian's threat to Fumio Kishida; he merely emphasized that China wouldn't dare to treat the U.S. that way. The implication is that if a Chinese consul general in the U.S. dared to talk about beheading Trump, the trouble would likely be immense. It's not out of the question that, as in Trump's first term, he might announce the closure and forced demolition of the entire consulate. So, while Trump's words didn't satisfy the Fox News host, who wanted him to scold Xue Jian, Trump's truth was that China wouldn't dare to treat the U.S. like that. He emphasized that when dealing with the CCP, you must have strength; show your strength, and don't engage in verbal sparring without it. So, while many netizens felt unsatisfied with Trump's attitude, LT feels he indeed has his own logic.

However, LT noticed another piece of information: Xue Jian not only criticized Japan this time but had previously criticized Israel, calling it Nazi. In Western culture, this is also crossing a high-voltage line. Did he really not challenge the United States? No. He also criticized the U.S. Ambassador to Japan. When the U.S. Ambassador to Japan addressed Xue Jian's threat to the Japanese Prime Minister, he pointed out that Xue Jian had previously attacked Israel, and he thoroughly criticized Xue Jian. Xue Jian, in turn, criticized the U.S. Ambassador to Japan. So, if Fox News had told Trump that Xue Jian had criticized his ambassador to Japan, Trump's response might have been different. Regardless, the fact that Xue Jian's incident reached Trump and was mentioned in his interview means its impact is now different from the public opinion of the past two days; it's escalating.

Finally, we share today's report from The Wall Street Journal regarding China's financial issues. Everyone is concerned about China's economy or its financial risks, but the CCP always gives the impression of being invulnerable, with data always looking good. Today, the People's Bank of China reported financial data, which was clearly quite poor. So, how did the central bank explain it? The central bank's explanation today was caught by The Wall Street Journal, and it differed from the official optimistic narratives about China's economy from the National Bureau of Statistics of China, the National Development and Reform Commission, Li Qiang, and Xi Jinping.

China's central bank refuted concerns about slowing new loan growth after the economic transition away from old growth engines. Previously, China's credit experienced a record contraction earlier this year. The People's Bank of China's quarterly monetary policy report released on Tuesday pledged to maintain a relatively loose financing environment. The report pointed out that the economic transformation, moving away from over-reliance on the real estate sector, is one of the factors leading to slower loan growth, and a general slowdown in financing growth in the future is a natural phenomenon. Not only are loans contracting now, but this state will persist for a period in the future. This aligns with the trend of China's economy transitioning from high-speed growth to high-quality growth.

In July this year, China's outstanding loan balance saw its first contraction since 2005. In September, the annual growth rate of loans to the real economy slowed to 6.4%, reaching a historic low. The scale of loans is expected to continue contracting for a period in the future. This clearly represents a negative outlook, certainly not envisioning an optimistic economic future. Therefore, in its announcement today, the People's Bank of China further emphasized that it will gradually de-emphasize its focus on total loan volume in the future. It is no longer interested in this data because it has no alternative.

Regarding this news, LT has two points to share with viewers. What exactly is happening with China's economy? In the realm of the National Bureau of Statistics of China, it has always been a story of triumph, with both domestic and international circulation maintaining robust growth. However, beyond the National Bureau of Statistics, related structural data are generally very pessimistic. For example, the central bank's data is very pessimistic, the Ministry of Commerce's total retail sales of consumer goods are very pessimistic, and even the National Development and Reform Commission's fixed asset investment for this year's Double Eleven is even more pessimistic, now showing negative growth, with no increase but rather a decline. Therefore, structural data do not support GDP growth.

Today's central bank data further corroborates the skepticism from both Chinese and international public opinion regarding China's forced GDP growth. This includes what was previously shared with viewers: The Economist calculated a 2% inflated growth, and they found solid evidence. Because while official sources claim fixed asset investment drives 2% of GDP growth, fixed asset investment is actually declining, making it impossible for there to be any incremental growth to boost GDP. So, the central bank's data corroborates the reality of shrinking investment, which aligns well. Of course, the CCP isn't afraid of your skepticism; by year-end, Xi Jinping will still announce 5% GDP growth.

The second point I want to share with viewers is that the most crucial information in the financial data and the National Development and Reform Commission's data is not actually about investment growth or whether there is sufficient capital to drive economic growth. Instead, it's about the unwillingness of Chinese enterprises, especially private enterprises, to expand reproduction. This is the most dangerous aspect. Not only Chinese private enterprises, but data from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange also show that their unwillingness to expand reproduction indicates a state of contraction. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which most directly reflects corporate investment willingness, saw a direct collapse in the third quarter's foreign direct investment in China, as announced by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange last week, with a massive 51% decrease compared to the second quarter.

As netizens know, foreign direct investment has plummeted year after year over the past three years. Look at how dire the situation was in the third quarter; if foreign businesses could make money here, they would definitely invest. They wouldn't listen to Donald Trump's calls, or the EU's calls for decoupling; as long as they can make money, they will do so regardless. The large-scale withdrawal of these foreign businesses, who are shrewder than rabbits, also corroborates from another angle that China's economic environment or situation is indeed much worse than what official Chinese propaganda suggests. Therefore, poor financial data and poor fixed asset investment data from the National Development and Reform Commission, besides affecting the authenticity of GDP or GDP growth, more importantly highlight the deteriorating investment environment and economic conditions, a consensus shared by both domestic and foreign capital.

LT believes this is more worthy of public attention than slight fluctuations in GDP. However, LT has a pessimistic concern: although the resulting data reflect that China's economy has encountered significant difficulties, the data already provided by the National Bureau of Statistics still appears prosperous. It disregards major deficiencies in foundational data and forcibly presents overall positive data. What is LT's pessimistic concern? Xi Jinping can only continue to inflate already inflated data. Because he cannot bear problems like those of Enron Corporation in the United States. Years of false data had completely detached from the company's operations, and once external pressure hit, the entire company's data chain collapsed.

LT is indeed worried about this issue. Because data is being inflated step by step, this year's inflation is built upon last year's, but this kind of inflation cannot last forever. And once it collapses one day, the unluckiest will be netizens who have venture capital in China. So, when we discuss this issue, some positive-energy netizens might think, "Are you insulting China again?" This has nothing to do with insulting China. Even for positive-energy netizens, if you have investments in China, you must consider the risks of a systemic, long-term fraud, similar to Enron, suddenly collapsing and causing devastating effects on investors. This is unrelated to ideology.

But even if a phenomenon like Enron occurred, would it harm Xi Jinping? Or would it affect Xi Jinping's dictatorship? Not at all. So, when we discuss economics and politics, the focus should be more on how netizens should protect their assets and safeguard their vested interests. That concludes today's sharing with viewers. Thank you for watching.