+0.0
net board stance
what this means
34.97
-2.6% · close 2026-09-08
-3% / +2% / -10%
1m / 3m / 12m
-41%
vs SPY since 2023-10-13
36%
of 52w range · -14.7% off high
1/3
hit rate as primary · α +2
Where we stand — 0 live ideas
No active idea holds this ticker. Anything below is history.
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 60 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
Track record on FXI
As a PRIMARY play the besties are 1 hit / 2 partial / 0 miss over 3 closed windows — credit 0.67, average α +2.2. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚡ China's nuclear build gives it a cheap-electricity manufacturing edge | ▲ LONG | adjacent | PARTIAL | +37.0% | -18.2 | 2025-01-20 |
| 🌍 China's crackdown spirals its own economy down | ▼ SHORT | primary | HIT | +23.9% | +28.6 | 2022-07-30 |
| 🌍 China's growth engine breaks - property bust plus bank runs | ▼ SHORT | primary | PARTIAL | +9.4% | -6.9 | 2023-07-22 |
| 🏛️ China goes for the jugular on its own tech founders | ▼ SHORT | adjacent | HIT | +58.4% | +64.3 | 2022-05-22 |
| 🌍 China tips into outright deflation and drags global demand | ▼ SHORT | primary | PARTIAL | +6.2% | -15.1 | 2024-08-11 |
| 🏛️ US capital gets walled off from Chinese AI and advanced tech | ▼ SHORT | adjacent | PARTIAL | +10.2% | -18.2 | 2024-04-07 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding FXI, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
JO
Joe Lonsdale
support ×2
▲ on
⚡ China's nuclear build gives it a cheap-electricity manufacturing edge
E206 · 2024-12-07
▶ 15:39
This is a key national security thing, too, because we need manufacturing here to be affordable and competitive in order for national security
which is the increment in electricity production capacity in China compared to the United States. And so we are going from one terawatt to two terawatts. They're going from, I think, two to eight over the same time period, and they're doing it at a price
Maybe it's not such a bad thing that other countries are taking the early adopter risk of this technology.
But if China runs away with this and they have so many of these running, and then they're able to power AI and solve problems were not, we're going to have to get our act together and start standing these up.
We can fix that tomorrow. We already rely on a nuclear reactor that works, and to Sacks' point, it just happens to be millions of miles away.
If China races towards five cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, and we're sitting here at 20 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity, what's that going to do to our economic competitiveness?
China has more electricity production. It's cheaper to make electricity and it's cheaper to build new capacity and they're building at an accelerated rate.
China's building 150 nuclear reactors and they're only spending about $2,500 a kilowatt.
Today, 79% of lithium ion battery production comes out of China. The US is only 6.2% of global lithium ion battery production... that China has a huge leg up and is going to become a critical point of dependency for the United States to develop an arsenal necessary to be competitive in this kind of next evolution of warfare
China has 50 million homes ahead of schedule. 50 million additional supply that can house 150 million people. So as acute as our issues are, the China issue might be much, much seismic.
You also have what looks like a crash happening in China. The Chinese government took some actions to prop up the stock market there, which is a pretty negative signal.
the number of people that could have been pulled out of poverty if we made cheap, abundant energy available at an accelerated pace rather than at a decelerated pace, it could have had a much more significant effect. ... Meanwhile, you see China building 450 nuclear fission stations and the US building none. And I think that that's part of the story of where the US is today.
if you look at nuclear, we just had a bunch of, I think it was senators signing a bill. I think you might have tweeted it, Chamath, of support of nuclear, 21 nuclear power plants are being directed at this moment in China, eight in India. The United States only has one, which is kind of an extension.
And China just saw CPI down three-tenths of one percent in the month this week. Annualized, that's over three and a half percent. That is a major problem for China. So I think you have some yellow flags here, right? That say, do we have too much tightening? If one of the global engines of growth is experiencing this level of disinflation, that's going to impact the global economy, global demand, et cetera.
China economically, I don't know where the demand is going to come from. You know, on the same time that their internal demand is imploding, they're creating all these export controls that I think are not going to actually help them solve the problem because it just accelerates Western economies' desire to delever from China.
Just real quickly, I would say there's a real appetite in the business community to be engaged. This idea that we're going to decouple the world and never have to deal with these folks is just a farce. ByteDance bought a billion dollars worth of NVIDIA chips announced this week.
I think that it should be possible to do business with China without it being seen as either unpatriotic or immoral. However, there are strategic technologies that are just going to be, I think, it's too hard and too risky to be supporting China.
And so what really is happening is the government is going to stop all US venture investing in China. That's what's going to happen in the coming months.
China has real problems. There is no question about it. They have got demographic problems, they have got problems in the banking system, they have got a real estate bubble.
So, you know, to Sacks's point, I'm not sure you can really say China is a true and complete adversary in the sense that we're on opposite sides. There's obviously deep interdependencies. So, you know, it's hard to kind of say I draw the line at this kind of technology investing there, but I benefit from their technology investing that's going on there in other ways with some of my other businesses, right?
This is the very simple rule we would use. We would never consider taking money from Russia or China.
On the other thing, though, with US firms investing in Chinese AI, it should not be allowed. And I do think that the folks that are responsible for CFIUS need to get a handle on this.
Even if energy is zero in China, you have to think about inputs, meaning factories make things with inputs. And if you look, for example, in natural resources, the inputs, by and large, don't exist in China.
My point was that in China, and I've made this point many times, but I just think it's a really important one that will play out over the next couple of years. They're building 450 nuclear power plants, they're going to get the cost of industrial power below five cents or four cents a kilowatt hour, and they're electrifying all their factories.
We always think that it's a linear line and that it's super dogmatic and fixed, but there's certainly responsiveness. And the release of the lockdowns in Guangzhou and Beijing this week seems to have been a pretty good indication that when things do get, when the tides do change, leadership there seems to respond, not always, but enough to kind of keep things going.