And does "the beat go on"?  See the following exerpt from a news item about spying via downloaded apps in China:

"There is no evidence that Pinduoduo has handed data to the Chinese government. But as Beijing enjoys significant leverage over businesses under its jurisdiction, there are concerns from US lawmakers that any company operating in China could be forced to cooperate with a broad range of security activities."

I don't know about anyone else and how they interpret that last sentence, but I interpret as a cautionary note about doing business in China: 

"Beijing enjoys significant leverage over business under its jurisdiction, there are concerns from US lawmakers that any company operating in China could be forced to cooperate with a broad range of security activities."

Does "any company operating in China" really mean "any company"?  Is this a real threat or is it some right wing propaganda devoid of any modicum of veracity?  

Regardless of the truth or lack therof regarding this above statement it is probably safe to state that if the present crescendo of articles being published about possible security issues for Western companies operating in China continues to build then those companies in the West engaging in partnerships with Chinese companies will be under increased scrutiny by potential investors trying to decide whether or not to put their money into those companies, companies such as POET Technolgies that has the JV shared with Sanan.

So, CNN is pointing out that "Beijing enjoys significant leverage over businesses under its jurisdiction".  Is CNN wrong?  Does any potential POET Technologies investor give a flip about what CNN says regarding Beijing enjoying "significant leverage over businesses under its jurisdiction"?  Maybe not.  I don't think CNN caries the same weight as it did 10 or 15 years ago, but not everyone may agree with that conclusion.  

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the whole issue is much to do about nothing, an exercise in fear mongoring or some other such waste of time.  Even if the concern generated by such articles is absolutely unjustified is it safe to proceed under the assumption that there won't be some negative effect on potential investors, including corporate investors?

"News" items tend to be similar to tomato plants. When the first tomatoes come up and are almost ready to harvest they do so in small numbers and some plants don't bear any tomatoes while the one next to them might have 3 or 4.  Over time all of the tomato plants are bearing fruit and there comes a point in the harvest season when the maximum per day yield occurs and there are almost too many tomatoes to count.  That is great for the gardner, but if the analogy holds for geopolitical concerns regarding North American business in partnership with the Chinese then that maximum production of new articles about caution to foreign business operating in China is not going to be the cherished event for those stock holders in those businesses affected as opposed to the happy harvest of the tomato farmer.

Rotten tomatoes?

‘I’ve never seen anything like this:’ One of China’s most popular apps has the ability to spy on its users, say experts (msn.com)

The present news article is from CNN and is focused on malware implanted malicously by Pinduoduo into the downloaders computer that allows for spying on the person who performed the download.  My intent on focusing on this article was not so much to highlight the illegal use of the downloaded app (illegal even by present day Chinese law) but to illustrate this as another concern by some U.S. legislators about the advisability of doing business in China. Perhaps their "concern" is entirely misplaced and unjustified, perhaps. 

In investing situations the truth doesn't always determine the actions of the market, more important in divining the "UP" or "Down" motion of a company's stock shares can often be the "perception" of reality vs the true reality.  "Truth" may be irrelevant in guiding the market to shine or shun a particular company at a particular point in time.  Perception, on the other hand, may be the engine that determines which way the chart line tilts until harsh or fortunate reality makes its corrective action on that same chart line.  The interval between perception and reality may be a matter of days or it could be weeks or even months before a false direction of the stock price is corrected in the event that perception is in the cat bird's seat.

What is going to be the perception of the market in the near term and in the long term regarding investing in companies in Canada and in the U.S. that have one or more Western-Chinese JVs under their belt?

This specific example may not serve that purpose the best to illustrate my point, however this type of article is not unique on the one hand and also, in fairness, not ubitquitous on the other hand at this point in time. 

In summary, I would just surmise that it is worth having at least a little bit of caution about this developing story line of how the CCP interdigitates in companies doing business in China, both Chinese only businesses and in regards to Western-Chinese partnershps.

Vigilance is not a "bad thing" when considering investments.  It should not be confused with jousting at windmills, either.  We just need to keep both eyes open in this situation.  

Okiedo