⚠️ Attention all traders and holders of Chinese stocks: You should read this if you don’t know what a VIE is. Sure, most of you will be repelled by the great wall of text here (so many words!), but you might want to keep this post nearby.
Hello. You are aware that Wall Street’s bustling bazaar hosts a veritable Forbidden City of Chinese companies draped in ticker tape rather than silk. Today, I will provide background and data on all allowed Chinese companies listed on three of the largest U.S. stock exchanges: New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), Nasdaq, and NYSE American.
I should note that a bustling troupe of 26 national securities exchanges are registered with the SEC in the United States. Most are owned by the Nasdaq, NYSE, or the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE).
Nonetheless, based on data from the World Federation of Exchanges as of August 2023, the NYSE and Nasdaq were the top two exchanges behemoths of the global financial stage, accounting for 42.4% of the total $110.2 trillion in valuation traded across 80 major global exchanges.
🖼️ I had a photo of Wall Street to add here, but I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
2022 vs. 2023
According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, as of January 8, 2024, there were 265 Chinese companies listed on the three U.S. exchanges, with a total market capitalization of $848 billion. That valuation is down from a year prior—January 9, 2023—when a slightly lower 252 Chinese companies were tracked, but they represented a total market capitalization of $1.03 trillion.
Since January 2023, 24 Chinese companies have entered the spotlight of the three U.S. exchanges, raising $656 million in combined initial public offerings (IPOs). On the other hand, eleven Chinese companies have folded their tents and delisted.
China Securities Regulatory Commission
The American stock exchanges witnessed a springtime bloom of Chinese IPOs in the first quarter of 2023. However, this listing activity came to an abrupt halt as the clock struck March 31, 2023.
Why? The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) implemented a revised approval process for companies going public overseas.
I won’t get into the details, but China has rules to cap foreign investment and ownership in sectors deemed strategic, such as technology. In the past, those regulations have driven several Chinese firms to the legal gymnastics of a Variable Interest Entity (VIE) structure—a clever contrivance that allowed them to leapfrog domestic constraints.
However, under the revised review mechanism, every company, regardless of its corporate ownership structure, must now bow before the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) to register its intent to list overseas.
🖼️ I had a photo of the CSRC building to add here, but I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
The gatekeeper
Therefore, although the CSRC touted this regulation as a necessary measure for enforcing regulatory compliance and preventing fraud (which is true), it also helps regulators act as gatekeepers poised to block any proposed listing they deem poses a risk to their national security or jeopardizes China's national interests.
This process is wide-ranging. For instance, it includes an evaluation of the company’s safeguards against disclosing what the Chinese Communist Party considers potential state secrets. But we’re not talking about top-secret black-ops projects meant to be hidden from international oversight committees. No… any company that collects personal information on more than one million users requires stern data security review mechanisms for its cross-border data flows.
For perspective, TikTok has over 150 million users in the U.S. alone and is not subject to the same scrutiny from the Western nations.
Currently, the CSRC approval process is reportedly taking upward of six months.
Audit inspections and investigations in China
You’re probably unaware of the HFCAA, so let’s start there.
The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act of 2020 (HFCAA) is a law that requires companies publicly listed on stock exchanges in the U.S. to disclose to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) information on foreign jurisdictions that prevent the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) from conducting inspections.
That law laid down a stern ultimatum: If Chinese authorities kept obstructing the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) from inspecting audit firms in China or Hong Kong for three consecutive years, the companies audited by these entities would face a ban from the bustling arenas of the U.S. exchanges.
Basically, either China allowed the PCAOB to inspect the audit firms, or the companies had to change to another auditing firm within three years.
Then, as 2022 waned to its final days (literally, on December 29), President Joe Biden signed a Consolidated Appropriations Act, which contained a provision that will tighten the noose, shortening future timelines from three consecutive years to only two.
Once they looked under the rock
Finally allowed to conduct full investigations of audit firms in mainland China and Hong Kong after over a decade of obstruction, the PCAOB announced the findings of its first round of inspections in May 2023, identifying deficiencies in seven of eight audits conducted by the auditing firms KPMG Huazhen and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Hong Kong. Audits of Chinese Companies Are Highly Deficient, U.S. Regulator Says
On November 30, 2023, the PCAOB announced fines against three audit firms in China, totaling $7.9 million for misconduct. For perspective, that number included the second and third-largest fines ever doled out by the PCAOB.
Why were the fines so bad?
Those sneaky Chinese accountants
Imagine a gaggle of accountants in the far reaches of PwC China and Hong Kong applying for a U.S. auditing curriculum. But alas, these foreign accountants find the U.S. auditing training tests a trifle tedious, so someone came up with the answers and decided to pass them around like a secret note in a schoolroom.
From 2018 to 2020, over 1,000 of these busy bees completed their U.S. auditing online exams by copying the answers from two unauthorized apps with a fervor that would make a gossip columnist blush.
When confronted with the evidence, PwC China and PwC Hong Kong response: 🤷‍♂️
And let me remind you, this happened late last year. Both firms are expected to provide reasonable assurance that their personnel will act with integrity in connection with internal training and to report their compliance to the PCAOB within 150 days—April 2024.
🖼️ I was planning on using an AI-generated image of Chinese accountants cheating, but I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
State-owned enterprises
According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, this graph represents the total market capitalization of Chinese companies listed in the three U.S. exchanges.
Market Capitalization of Listed Chinese Companies
The number of listed companies has stayed at around 260. However, all Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have delisted themselves from U.S. exchanges, most of them soon after the PCAOB announced it had secured complete access to Chinese auditors’ records.
Variable Interest Entities (VIEs)
Most traders—and that means you—are unaware that 166 Chinese companies currently listed on the three major U.S. exchanges use a VIE structure.
As of January 8, 2024, these companies have a market capitalization of $772 billion. For perspective, that represents 91% of the total market capitalization of all the Chinese firms listed on the three major U.S. exchanges.
What the hell is a VIE?
It is a complex corporate structure that grants shareholders contractual claims to control via an offshore shell company without transferring actual ownership in the company.
A Variable Interest Entity (VIE) is a bit like a riverboat casino’s cleverest trick, allowing a company to sell its chips on a foreign table without ever letting the players hold the cards directly.
A VIE is a structure used primarily by companies that wish to partake in the financial streams of another country (the U.S. exchanges) without breaking local laws (Chinese laws) that prevent full ownership.
Remember, Chinese companies structured themselves as VIEs to circumvent China’s restrictions—not U.S. restrictions—on foreign ownership in industries the CCP deems sensitive.
Therefore, when you hold stock in one of these Chinese companies, you’re not officially holding any actual ownership in the company. Because if you did, then that company could be breaking Chinese restrictive caps on foreign investment and ownership.
That’s why they set up a façade, or a legal entity, that controls the business on paper, but the true power and profits are funneled back to the company pulling the strings.
Granted, it’s not as shaky as asking a random stranger to hold your shares, but it is crafty, and you should be aware of the risks.
Wait. What are the risks?
You need to understand that there’s a shadow of potential risk looming. Potential. Now, don't mistake me for the town crier of doom; I'm not proclaiming that the sky is falling on these shares. Nor am I declaring that disaster is certain for Chinese stocks.
What I am pointing out, however, is the presence of a risk—a subtle beast that might just catch you off guard if you remain unaware.
And let’s face it: Most of you are completely oblivious to these issues.
There are two sides here: 🇺🇸 & 🇨🇳
🇺🇸
Since July 2021, the SEC has imposed additional disclosure requirements for Chinese companies using a VIE to sell shares in the U.S. These requirements include greater transparency about the relationship between the VIE and its Chinese operating companies.
In summary, the SEC aims to push VIEs toward the company behind them to offer more clarity on U.S. investor ownership in the Chinese operating company.
🇨🇳
On the other side, Chinese companies that list overseas using a VIE were not required to register their listings with the CSRC, as the VIE is not considered a Chinese company under China’s law. This is the reason VIEs were used in the first place.
However, as I mentioned earlier, after March 31, 2023, the CSRC established requirements for all new Chinese companies to register and receive permission before going public overseas—even those planning to use VIE structures. That’s why there was a boom of Chinese IPOs before that deadline.
Granted, on September 14, 2023, a Chinese auto insurance platform became the first company that received the elusive blessing of the CSRC to list, and it did so using a VIE arrangement, breaking the long, dry spell that had plagued Chinese IPOs when she listed on the Nasdaq four days later.
However, even though VIEs received some sort of recognition from the CSRC, the VIE corporate structures still hold dubious legal status under China’s laws. Remember, VIEs purpose is to avoid being considered a Chinese company under China’s laws.
So… do you see the potential risk here?
Umm… No, I don’t get it.
Think about it. Either country could potentially increase regulations for VIEs, but if the SEC forces them to be more transparent, the VIE would not be able to circumvent China’s restrictions. That’s one risk.
Also, at some point, China’s CSRC might question whether it’s appropriate to recognize a corporate structure that was created to circumvent its laws.
Which leads me to this: What’s keeping the CCP from deciding to start reigning in those VIEs?
The answer is simple: They’re not in a hurry to do so because if misfortune should befall, it’ll be the foreign investors who’ll see their assets deflated like a punctured balloon.
🖼️ I would've added a nice image or two by now, to balance all the text and make this more appealing, but I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
If a VIE-listed company goes private at a lower valuation, businesses fail, or there’s a valuation discrepancy, the enforceability of a VIE’s contractual arrangements is unproven in Chinese courts. With VIE-listed companies, foreign investors’ recourse in the Chinese legal system is as elusive as a catfish’s whisper.
Yeah, but that’s unlikely…
Sure. Of course, I’m not saying every Chinese stock will have these issues. But it can happen. And it has happened.
The unlucky case of Luckin Coffee
Due to the lack of compliance with international audit inspections, Chinese corporate financial statements’ reliability for valuation and investment is not assured.
Such is the case of Luckin Coffee. In a bold bid to capture Wall Street’s hearts and wallets, Luckin Coffee showed up dressed in finery, flaunting alluring figures of revenue, operations, and bustling customer traffic.
At her grand debut, the stock sashayed onto the Nasdaq at $17, swirling up a storm of interested buyers to the tune of $561 million in capital.
For a fleeting moment, Luckin shimmered like a star over the financial firmament, boasting a market capitalization that soared to a heady $12 billion, with shares peaking just over $50.
Ah, but as the adage goes, ‘Truth will out.’ And out it came—the revelation of those embroidered numbers caused the company's stock to plummet like a stone tossed from a bridge, leaving a wake of investor losses and culminating in a disgraceful delisting from Nasdaq 13 months after her debut. Luckin Coffee Drops Nasdaq Appeal; Shares to Be Delisted
🖼️ I would've added an AI-generated image of a cup of Luckin Coffee jumping from a bridge, but I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
Well… but that won’t happen to me…
Uh-huh. On April 2, 2020, after announcing that employees—including its chief operating officer—falsified 2.2 billion yuan (about $310 million) in sales throughout 2019, Luckin's shares nosedived -80%.
This is from one of you unluckin bastards: I've lost 240k on Luckin Coffee, all my life savings. Now I'm broke af.
I’m sure many of you might reckon yourselves immune to a similar debacle since you think you’re smart enough to use stops to escape any runaway losses. It's time to wake up and smell the Luckin coffee. Chinese news catalysts often strike like lightning at night, and the stops you set under the sun cannot shield you from storms that explode in the moonlight. Dumbass.
Chinese regulators can be mercurial
Even though the PCAOB is currently able to perform its oversight responsibilities, concerns remain around the possibility that Chinese regulators might backtrack, potentially clamping down once again on the PCAOB's ability to access audit firms and personnel across mainland China and Hong Kong.
If that happens, the PCAOB can quickly declare a negative determination. HOWEVER, this action would only start the countdown under the HFCAA, giving U.S.-listed Chinese companies a window of TWO years to secure services from an auditor in a compliant jurisdiction or face a trading ban. That’s it.
Of course, within that time, Chinese regulators could agree once again to allow access to the PCAOB, thus resetting the two-year countdown without significant consequences.
What lurks in the shadows
Although the risk of PCAOB non-compliance looms over these financial engagements, it is the ghost of potentially misconstrued—or, let's say, creatively presented—earnings reports coming to light that should scare you most. Or, on the flip side, present the biggest opportunity.
I believe it is possible that there are several ghosts out there—ghastly financial figures dressed up a tad too finely—lingering in the shadows, unchecked and unchallenged. If they’re found and unveiled under the harsh spotlight of scrutiny, the fallout would be immediate and severe, leaving investors scrambling.
And if that happens, it’s not about diamond-holding through the plunge since the company might opt (or be forced) to delist from the U.S. exchanges.
🖼️ I would've added an AI-generated image of an attractive young Chinese ghost woman, implying both the allure of Chinese stocks, but also the risk of getting closer. However, I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
You need to understand a crucial concept. Many traders believe that if a company messes up, plunges, and gets delisted, it means the company is basically over—dead. But that’s not the case here. A delisting does not equal death.
I mean, Luckin Coffee is still out there, alive and kicking.

16,218 stores and counting, covering 240+ cities across China.

You would think that a company like that would not be able to cheat on its balance sheet. Yeah, just like you would think PwC China would notice 1,000 accountants cheated their way through the U.S. auditing curriculum.
🖼️ I would've added an AI-generated image of a Chinese accountant dabbing like a boss for getting his cheated accounting diploma, but I'm only allowed to include one attachment.
So… is it too far-fetched to believe more ghosts might come to light, now that the PCAOB can supervise the numbers?
I mentioned a flip side since you could specialize in tracking everything the PCAOB does. If you can get a whiff about increased auditing on a certain company, you might decide to play a short position in anticipation of a potential ghost coming to light. Be warned, though, that it’s not as if they tweet out which companies they’re auditing.
If I were to do it, I would research and join whatever digital saloon young Chinese ledger-keepers convene in. Perhaps I’d stumble upon a post by SumYungGuy or another pleading for advice on how to parley with the PCAOB Laowai making a fuss over his figures. The poor lad's in a pickle, you see, since he cheated the exam and doesn’t know squat.
Methodology
For the purposes of this table, a company is considered Chinese if:

1. It has been identified as being from the PRC (the People's Republic of China) by the relevant stock exchange;
2. It lists a PRC address as its principal executive office in filings with the SEC; or
3. It has a majority of operations in the PRC, including a company structured offshore but whose value is ultimately tied through a relationship in the PRC.

⚠️ Some Chinese companies that use offshore corporate entities hide or do not identify their primary Chinese corporate domicile in their listing information. This complicates tracing, making it difficult to guarantee that this list captures all Chinese companies registered offshore.
I should also point out that this list does not include companies domiciled exclusively in Hong Kong or Macau.
⚠️ Remember, this list only considers Chinese companies listed on three of the largest U.S. stock exchanges: New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), Nasdaq, and NYSE American.
Oh, and btw, this isn’t a list I came up with. This info was compiled by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. It’s their methodology and list.
Since the majority is a VIE, I’ve marked the ones that are not registered as a VIE with an asterisk (*). This is determined using the most recent annual report filed with the SEC. A company is judged to have a VIE if:

1. It explicitly describes using a VIE to conduct all or part of its business operations in China, or
2. It describes a subsidiary in which it has no direct equity interest but relies on contractual arrangements to exercise control and receive economic benefits from its operations in China.

⚠️ For companies that have been listed for less than a year, information contained in the company’s most recently updated investment prospectus, as filed with the SEC, is used instead.
Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges
Companies are arranged by the size of their current market capitalization. All companies utilize a VIE corporate structure, except those marked with an asterisk (*).
BABA Alibaba Group Holding Limited PDD Pinduoduo Inc. NTES NetEase, Inc. JD JD.com, Inc. BIDU Baidu, Inc TCOM Trip.com International, Ltd. TME Tencent Music Entertainment Group LI Li Auto BEKE KE Holdings BGNE BeiGene * ZTO ZTO Express (Cayman) Inc. YUMC Yum China Holdings Inc. EDU New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc. HTHT H World Group Limited * NIO NIO Inc. YMM Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd VIPS Vipshop Holdings Limited TAL TAL Education Group LEGN Legend Biotech * MNSO Miniso * BZ Kanzhun Limited XPEV Xpeng BILI Bilibili Inc. IQ iQIYI, Inc. HCM HUTCHMED (China) Limited * ATHM Autohome Inc. QFIN Qifu Technology RLX RLX Technology LU Lufax ATAT Atour Lifestyle Holdings * WB Weibo Corporation ZLAB Zai Lab Limited * ZKH ZKH Group Ltd * YY JOYY Inc. GOTU Gaotu Techedu, Inc. MSC Studio City International Holdings Limited * GCT GigaCloud Technology Inc GDS GDS Holdings Limited ACMR ACM Research, Inc. * HOLI Hollysys Automation Technologies, Ltd. * FINV FinVolution Group JKS JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. * DQ Daqo New Energy Corp. * MOMO Hello Group Inc. CSIQ Canadian Solar Inc. * EH Ehang TUYA Tuya Inc. NOAH Noah Holdings Ltd. HUYA HUYA Inc. KC Kingsoft Cloud YALA Yalla *
These are only 51 of the 261 Chinese companies currently listed on the major U.S. exchanges to comply with rule three. I kept the market cap minimum at $750M to allow for some wiggle room.
I mentioned earlier that the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission had 265 tickers, but that was on January 8, 2024. Since then, three companies have been acquired, and the other one has voluntarily delisted.
As you can confirm, the vast majority is structured as a VIE.
I was going to include charts to illustrate how several Chinese stocks—aside from the ones with the biggest market caps—tend to display sudden rallies, followed by after-hours reversals. It is important to recognize them, whether you want to capitalize on them, or avoid them entirely. But I can't add any more attachments, so...
Besides, it's unlikely that many of you have even read this far without images.
Have a good day.

A Time to Forget About Ordinary Excel Sheets and Take an Enhanced Data Upload Tool
Thousands of users worldwide of Oracle Fusion ERP use ADFdi and FBDI for data loading or data management generally. Excel has some great features that help to streamline data analysis. There is no argument that Excel is a highly functional tool for organizational data management.
Ordinary Microsoft Excel spreadsheets have many limitations regarding data loading to Oracle Fusion Cloud. Excel is great for simple ad hoc calculations, but it needs connectivity features to automate and document its contents, making its use prone to error.
Manually keying in data in Oracle Cloud from Excel worksheets or copy-pasting is a slow, time-consuming process that is bound to reduce employee productivity. Accuracy is also compromised, and inaccurate data can cost an organization millions in revenue. Excel needs more automation, so if you handle large volumes of data, there may be a better tool for you. Furthermore, data security is not assured since Excel does not have encryption features.
The standard Oracle tools (ADFdi and FBDI) are rigid in nature; the user cannot move columns around or even easily paste data from another sheet to ADFdi or FBDI. The error reporting and resolution cycle is too cumbersome and needs specialized technical knowledge.
Why do people still use Excel sheets for data management?
● It’s cheaper
For a team that doesn't care about automation, why bother spending on something more costly if they can get away with something that stores data tables? Considering its limitations, is it worth it in the long-run cost?
● Easy-to-use
Excel is easy to use. It is one of the basic Microsoft Office tools that most people learn to use in basic computer interactions. Because they are already familiar with it, most people find Excel easy to use and often prefer to do so than learn new about new tools.
● Limited knowledge of what’s available
Some people are just stuck in their routines. They need help staying current on the newest software available on the market. If the leadership of a team or members does not take the initiative to look around and find out what the market has to offer, they will be stuck with Excel and its attendant costs when others are enjoying the benefits of more advanced tools.
● Poor experience with some project management software
Choosing a data loading tool to suit your data loading needs is a task that should be taken seriously. Many data-loading teams that used Excel have been turned off by their previous experience with data-loading tools. Some tools are cumbersome and difficult to use, others are code intensive and not suitable for most end users, and some may need more features you are looking for. The poor experience is a result of poor customization.
Suppose you had a tool that allowed you to use the easy-to-use and familiar Excel worksheet while providing you with advanced specialized features for loading data into the cloud. Wouldn’t that be great?
How to make Excel work with advanced tools
Working with Excel in data loading does not have to be a slow and cumbersome process that does not ensure the accuracy or security of your data. You can harness the power of Excel and still enjoy using advanced data-loading tools. More4Apps and Simplified Loader are Excel-based data-loading to consider.
More4Apps
More4Apps is an Excel-based data-loading tool that allows businesses to integrate familiar Excel spreadsheets with Oracle EBS and Oracle Fusion. Its tools work within the familiar interface of Microsoft Excel, leveraging the many features of Excel to facilitate data loading.
Training is optional since Excel is the main interface, and end-users are familiar with it. Unlike ordinary Excel spreadsheets, which are limited in scalability, More4Apps empowers data owners to carry out mass data uploads and updates.
A plugin must be installed on a PC before you can use More4Apps. The IT Helpdesk needs to be involved in installing the plugin, so only specific PCs can be used.
More4Apps sends and receives data from the server hosted by More4Apps. Considering data security, allowing data transfers to a third-party server without ensuring the details are transferred is risky. Robust testing is required with every release of More4Apps update to ensure your data is transferred to a safe place. The IT Security department needs to get involved in verifying the third-party server and plugin.
Simplified Loader
~Simplified Loader~ is an Excel-based tool designed explicitly for uploading or downloading data to and from Oracle Fusion Cloud. The Simplified Loader template is easy to use. It includes a toolbar that contains operations specific to the template. The output of any operation is displayed in the Excel template's Load Status and Error Message fields.
Simplified Loader Excel files upload or download data from Oracle Fusion Cloud. Simplified Loader’s Excel templates are used either for mass data loads, for example, data migration, or everyday data loading activities in Oracle Cloud.
Simplified Loader ensures your data’s security by routing data from the Excel template directly to Oracle Cloud without a third-party server. The Simplified Loader template doesn’t need plugin installation and runs using Macros, similar to how other Oracle Cloud tools interact with Oracle.
Which template should you choose?
User convenience - Both More4Apps and Simplified Loader provide features that enhance user experience. Most UX features are similar in both products. Since they use Microsoft Excel, additional training is rarely necessary. More4Apps provides a form to input data that is not in the tabular format. Whereas the Simplified Loader provides a single unified sheet to enter data, the same sheet is used to invoke the list of values.
Both tools allow you to insert custom columns, hide or delete columns you don't need, and insert formulas you may need for data analysis. You can also analyze or validate data before uploading it.
Data Security - Oracle Fusion only allows interaction through APIs. Both More4Apps and Simplified Loader use APIs to interact with Oracle, so the security protocols are the same in both toolsets. More4Apps uses an external system to manage licenses. From the IT point of view, in a highly data-sensitive environment, the IT has to open additional ports to interact with the More4Apps servers to validate licenses.
In terms of data security, both toolsets have the same features.
License Management - This topic is considerably different in More4Apps and Simplified Loader. More4Apps restricts the number of times an administrator can update users licensed to use the Simplified Loader template, whereas, in Simplified Loader, the Administrator has full control over maintaining the users licensed to use the Simplified Loader templates.
Support—Both organizations offer excellent support to users who log defects using the support system. Simplified Loader has a vast library of short videos demonstrating product features and functionalities. More4Apps has recently adopted the approach of video tutorials.
Plugin installation - This is a key difference between the two templates. The More4Apps template requires an additional plugin installed on the user's machine. The user will always see an additional toolbar in Excel when working on any Excel document. The user always has to use the PC where the plugin is installed. In comparison, the Simplified Loader Excel doesn’t need any plugin installation on the user’s machine. When the user opens the Simplified Loader file, the Simplified Loader toolbar appears. Users won’t see the additional toolbar when they open any other Excel file.
Using Excel parallelly: When using either toolset, Excel cannot be used for any other purposes. The user has to wait until the data is loaded to Oracle.
Pricing: Both toolsets offer per-user licensing. More4Apps offers licenses per user by module, whereas Simplified Loader offers licenses per user by Template. License management at the template level gives the administrator higher control to assign the right user to the right template, resulting in purchasing the right number of licenses per user. The More4Apps licenses are considerably higher (more than 5x) than the Simplified Loader licenses.
Conclusion
Using ordinary Excel spreadsheets for data loading may not be very effective. Excel may have shortcomings, but you can use it efficiently with advanced data-loading tools to get the best of both applications. Both More4Apps and Simplified Loader provide similar features for loading data in Oracle. Both are advanced data-loading tools that make your experience more pleasant and effective. Simplified Loader is more handy as it does not need plugin installation, and the user doesn’t need any involvement from IT to install the plug-in.

https://preview.redd.it/3fbcmrfpc90d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=035c1ef66f3334c34425df0cc438efa1473a9f07
The audience was more than ready to return to the Planet of the Apes.
​
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes topped the box office and showed there's still life in the reboot franchise even with the death of its lead character. And while it wasn't the film to kick off the summer season, it sure felt like it. There were two other newcomers, Not Another Church Movie and Poolman, and both had awful debuts.
​
The Top 10 earned a combined $89.5 million this weekend. That's off 5.9% from last year, when Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 stayed at #1.
​
Debuting on first place, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes opened with $58.4 million in 4,075 theaters. That marks the second highest debut in the reboot franchise, just behind Dawn ($72.6 million). It's also beneath Tim Burton's reviled version ($68.5 million), but that's not really a downside.
​
The fact that it opened higher than War ($56.2 million) is impressive, considering that film opened in the lucrative July month where people had more free time. Even more impressive is the fact that it could achieve it without its lead character Caesar. But credit has to go to Disney and 20th Century Studios for offering something worth watching in theaters.
​
To differentiate it from the previous films, Kingdom chose to jump 200-300 years from the previous film, which allowed for some creative freedom. The audience could now see a Planet of the Apes film where the apes are the ruling species, which deviated from the previous films establishing that humans could still fight apes. This in turn could also lead to new audiences; the massive time jump meant that people could watch the film without having to watch the previous films. With pretty good reviews, it was a sign that the franchise was worth continuing.
​
According to 20th Century Studios, 64% of the audience was male and 57% of the audience was in the 18-34 demographic. Critics liked the film, but there's a twist with the audience's reception. The film received a "B" on CinemaScore, far below the previous film and suggesting lukewarm word-of-mouth. Deadline said that 85% of the CinemaScore audience gave the film an A or a B, while the rest went as low as C and D. It's tough to predict its legs, so we'll have to wait until the second weekend drop to see how much effect it has. As long as the film does not drop higher than War (62.9%), that should be considered a win.
​
Last week's champ The Fall Guy dropped to second place with a $13.6 million weekend. That 51% drop is fine, but it's still not enough to offset disappointment. Through ten days, the film has earned a meager $49.6 million, and it's guaranteed to finish below $100 million, which makes it even more disappointing considering this opened the summer season.
​
In third place, Challengers eased 43% and earned $4.3 million. That takes its domestic total to $37.7 million, and with the competitive summer season coming up, it looks like $50 million is out of reach by this point.
​
Sony's horror film Tarot earned $3.4 million. That represents a 48% drop, which is good considering its putrid reaction, although that's not saying much considering how low it opened last week. Through ten days, the film has made $11.9 million, and it will face The Strangers: Chapter 1 next week.
​
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire dropped 42% and added $2.6 million. Its domestic total is now $191.9 million, but this pretty much confirms the film will finish below the $200 million milestone. Looks like Godzilla will still be the MonsterVerse's highest grossing film 10 years later.
​
After its awful drop last week, Unsung Hero recovered this weekend, easing 15% and grossing $2.5 million. Its Sunday was boosted by Mother's Day, as the film jumped 36% from its previous Sunday. The film has made $17 million so far.
​
Kung Fu Panda was in seventh place, easing 27% and adding $1.8 million. Its domestic total is $191 million, and it will certainly be impacted with the arrival of IF and The Garfield Movie now.
​
A24's Civil War dipped 49% and earned $1.8 million. That takes its domestic total to $65.2 million.
​
Unsurprisingly, the re-release of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace lost so much interest after its first weekend. The film made $1.4 million this weekend, marking a colossal 84% second weekend drop, one of the biggest in history. With this, the film's lifetime gross is now $486 million.
​
Rounding up the Top Ten is Universal's Abigail, which continues bleeding audience. The film dropped 51% for a $1.1 million weekend. Its domestic total is now $24.7 million, and it's now officially losing to Radio Silence's Ready or Not ($28.7 million).
​
There was another release, Briarcliff's spoof movie Not Another Church Movie. And it was pretty much ignored, as the film earned just $360,000 in 1,100 theaters (a disastrous $325 per-theater average). This will fall like a rock quickly.
​
Another disastrous release was Chris Pine's directorial debut Poolman. It opened in 162 theaters, but it made an awful $131,000 ($809 per-theater average). That shouldn't come as a surprise; it had a terrible premiere at TIFF last year, where it got widely panned. Will Chris give it another go at the director's chair?

OVERSEAS

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes also conquered the box office overseas. It debuted with $72.5 million in 52 markets, for a $130.9 million worldwide debut. Its best debuts were in China ($11.4M), France ($7.1M), Mexico ($6.4M), UK ($4.8M), Korea ($3.2M), Australia ($2.7M), Brazil ($2.6M), Germany ($2.2M), Spain ($2.2M) and Indonesia ($1.9M). The China numbers were underwhelming, but it performed strongly in Latin America. Let's see how it goes in the following weeks.
​
In a notable milestone, A24's Civil War has hit $100 million worldwide, becoming the studio's second film to hit that mark. It's currently sitting at $107 million so far.
​
The Garfield Movie added $11.2 million this week, taking its overseas total to $36 million. Mexico remains its best market at $12.5 million, while the film had an okay $2.1 million start in Germany. It continues expanding this week, before hitting North America.
​
The Fall Guy fell to $9.4 million overseas (a 54% drop), taking its worldwide total to just $103.7 million after two weeks. Its best markets are the UK ($8.3M), Australia ($6.6M), Mexico ($3.6M), Germany ($3.4M) and France ($3.4M). It still has China and Japan left, but don't expect those markets to save it.
​
IF had early premieres in a few markets, earning $3.2 million. It debuted in France with $3.3 million, but it had a soft start in Belgium ($300K). Its international run expands this week.

MOVIES THAT ENDED THEIR RUN THIS WEEK

None.

THIS WEEKEND

We've got three wide releases.
​
The first is Paramount's IF, which marks John Krasinski's directorial follow-up to A Quiet Place. It stars Cailey Fleming, Ryan Reynolds, Krasinski, Fiona Shaw, along with the voices of Steve Carell, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Louis Gossett Jr., Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Maya Rudolph, Jon Stewart, Sam Rockwell, Sebastian Maniscalco, Christopher Meloni, Richard Jenkins, Awkwafina, John Krasinski, Blake Lively, George Clooney, Matthew Rhys, Bradley Cooper, Amy Schumer, Keegan-Michael Key and Vince Vaughn. Its plot follows a young girl and her neighbor who find themselves able to see imaginary friends. Reynolds is one of the world's most popular actors today, and there hasn't been a remarkable family film since Kung Fu Panda 4, so maybe this could surprise. Although it will compete the following week with The Garfield Movie for the family demo.
​
The second is Lionsgate's The Strangers: Chapter 1, and is the first part of a trilogy (all directed by Renny Harlin). Horror could take a win, considering the genre has been performing very badly this year. But is The Strangers the answer to that?
​
And the last one is Focus Features' Back to Black, a biopic focused on Amy Winehouse's life. The film has attracted controversy since its announcement, especially because Winehouse's father was involved (if you know her life, you'll understand why this is not well received). It already opened in a few markets, including the UK, and it has amassed $32 million so far. With this kind of bad buzz and weak reviews, don't be surprised if the film is front-loaded.