The China Vortex

This is pretty self-explanatory.

Investors who bought notes due February 2018 on March 17, just after the Fed helped arrange the bailout of Bear Stearns Cos., have lost 6.2 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

The 10-year note, at 4.25 percent, yields no more than the inflation rate, leaving investors with real returns near zero. Consumer prices have exceeded 10-year yields by an average of 36 basis points since December, Bloomberg data show. In 1980, inflation reached a 33-year high of 14.8 percent and yields averaged 11.4 percent.

`Out of the Bottle’

Yields on 10-year notes had dropped to an almost five-year low of 3.28 percent on March 17, after the Fed cut the discount rate at an emergency weekend meeting and backed JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s deal to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Rates on three-month bills plunged to 0.39 percent, the lowest since the 1950s, the same day as investors sought the safety of the shortest maturity government debt.

Consumer prices advanced 4.2 percent in May from a year earlier, the Labor Department said June 13. The rate was above the median forecast of 3.9 percent in a Bloomberg survey of economists, and the highest since January.
Economists at New York-based Morgan Stanley say inflation will reach 5 percent to 5.5 percent this summer, the highest since 1991.

“The global inflation genie is out of the bottle,’’ Morgan Stanley analysts led by Joachim Fels, co-head of global economics, said in a June 11 report. Even if the pace moderates in coming months, “we are likely to see higher average inflation rates,’’ they said. Inflation averaged 3.1 percent during the past two decades.
`Unsustainable Levels’

Inflation is also eliminating the rewards of owning U.S. stocks. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index shares yield 0.2 percentage point more in profits than the interest on 10-year notes, the smallest advantage since 2004, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The last time corporate earnings returned less than bonds, the index posted its biggest monthly decline in five years.

“What did you say? You wanted us to buy more US assets?”

Oh, and I forgot to mention, this is in straight dollar terms only. You need to also figure in how much the US dollar is going to depreciate against other currencies in the coming ten years.

“Ouch!”

I wonder how the Chinese government is going to explain this to Chinese citizens, since it is their official responsibility to protect Chinese investments and assets? And that the situation, particularly re inflation, is going to get much worse before it gets better?

And it really doesn’t matter who becomes US president either, at least with regard to this set of issues.

Not even a US president can do anything about this.

In Sept. 2007 I wrote an article about how Apple’s global marketing for the iPhone was attracting and creating a new user base in China. Now, we know that there are more than 400,000 unlocked iPhones in regular use in China.

Since Apple gets recurring revenue for the iPhone through its contracts with the operators, many analysts have said that these unlocked iPhones represent lost revenue for the company. In China, China Mobile gets all the revenue spent by users for moving data up and down from the cracked iPhones, and does not have to share any of the income with Apple. And the statistics show that iPhone users consume much larger amounts of data than competing mobile phone platforms.

Obviously this is a serious loss for Apple.

I say “Not so fast!”

Today, Apple just announced its new iPhone SDK. Now, the Apple iPhone will talk with Exchange servers, morphing the Apple iPhone from something corporate IT departments viewed as a consumer toy, to a full-fledged platform on a par with Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Symbian and Linux.

As in most Apple presentations, the most important stuff always get buried close to the end of the presentation. That was the announcement of the Apple App Store, which will allow developers from all over the world to build and sell their iPhone applications. Developers will be able to charge any price they want, and Apple will keep 30% to cover hosting, distribution and credit card fees. The App Store will be available as a new button on the iPhone beginning in June. Presumably, this download will work on all iPhones, including cracked and jailbreaked iPhones.

Make no mistake about it, this is truly revolutionary news. The iPhone platform has taken over the role which the carriers once took for themselves. Today is as important a day as when Apple announced the Macintosh platform in 1984, singlehandedly launching the desktop computing industry.

Today Apple launched the mobile applications industry. When the Macintosh platform was launched in 1984, it led to the growth of Microsoft with the Office applications suite, which was developed for the Macintosh before the PC platform.

Now, do you think that Microsoft will have enough sense to develop apps for the Apple App Store, or will they continue to stick to developing for the Windows Mobile platform only? My feeling is that if Microsoft developed for the Apple App Store, they would get traction very quickly, if only they would let their developers develop.

Make no mistake about it, today, Apple launched the mobile computing industry with the iPhone computer SDK which user statistics show, is the favorite platform among consumers, and is gaining headway in the corporate space.

Even in China, where it is not officially sold and supported yet.

With the iPhone computer SDK and App Store, along with Apple’s excellent development tools, any developer with any sense will start building apps for the iPhone computer.

Including in China.

So where does this leave China Mobile? Much press has been devoted to Apple’s unsuccessful negotiations with China Mobile to distribute the iPhone in China.

In reality, the interests of the companies are aligned.

• Both China Mobile and Apple want the mobile computing industry to succeed.
• Both stand to make MUCH more revenue when the platform takes off.

Right now, they are just jockeying for position in this new business ecosystem. Where they rub against each other is on the applications platform level, which China Mobile wants to control as much as possible, and on the revenue share level, which China Mobile wants to control, and does not want to share with anyone.

Today, Apple just won on the application platform level round on the rapidly growing iPhone computing platform.

But I predict that China Mobile is quietly pleased with all the extra revenue data consumers on the iPhone computer platform have been generating, and which it does have full control over. Have you noticed that China Mobile has not broken out those revenue numbers yet? When the Apple App Store launches in June, those numbers will shoot up even higher.

You see, there is nothing wrong with being a commodity data mover when you run into the ideal data platform for users.

Round two will be about who will define ad standards and specifications for the iPhone platform (Apple), and how advertising revenue will be shared in different markets on this platform.

There has been a lot of talk lately about valuing social networks and Facebook's management knows that, which is why they try to track everyones' activities across the Internet with Facebook Beacon.

There has been a lot of discussion
if/how/when/who Facebook will acquire a social network company in China. As usual, I will jump out to offer my often contrarian views on social networking.

Let me put it this way, I don’t think that there is a way to value social networks, even though this is what advertisers would very much like to see happen. And the reason that social networks cannot be valued in a top-down/corporate/advertising way is because they are entirely subjective and dynamic according to each individual at any given moment in time.

That’s why it makes much more sense for each individual to assign a value for _access_ to his network, and anyone who wants to access it has to pay an access fee. If you don’t like the access fee, then don’t pay. If you like the fee, pay, and you will get access.

It’s that simple. Nobody owns the network except me. Not Facebook, LinkedIn, Google or anyone else. I own my relationships, just as you own your relationships. They only exist on Facebook insomuch as I’m active on Facebook now, but that is no guarantee that I will be there tomorrow.

That is why it doesn’t matter if Facebook owns all my data; if I no longer go there, it’s dead, out-of-date data. My data is only valuable as long as I’m active there.

I talked about the idea before, let me fill it out some more.

Here is my problem with Facebook’s Beacon:

1. If Facebook wants to track my activities across the Internet, they should explicity ask me first, and give me an opt-out option.
2. If I say “Yes”, they should ask me how much I want to be paid for access to my network activities on a 24-hour basis
3. I go in and set my fee for 24 hour access beginning immediately and click submit.
4. Facebook’s servers churn and return “yes” or “no”. If “yes”, they will be directed to my payment gateway. After confirmation, Facebook will say something like “Thank you for giving Facebook access to your network activities for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the cookie installed in your browser will automatically expire. (More blahblahblah from corporate and legal departments.)

In this model, each user has control over his/her activities, and is paid for access to their data by each social network.

Now wouldn’t this be a much better world than the current free-for-all where everybody is playing “Let’s screw the users and see how much we can get for free?” The current valuations on social networks are based on not paying users for access to their data.

How would you value social networks if they had to pay users for access to their data?

And since the Internet is all about pushing power to the edge, then why shouldn’t users have the power to earn money from having their activities and relationships tracked?

It would be great to hear what Seth Godin, Dare Obasanjo, Dave Winer and Robert Scoble have to say about the idea.

UPDATE: It’s been three hours since I posted this article, and I wanted to see if Facebook had imported this article into Facebook Notes so that I could tell my Facebook friends about it. (I have set Facebook to automatically import my posts here.)

Guess what? Facebook has not imported this article. Now what have I done to get that kind of treatment? I seem to have some recollection about “empowering users” and all that stuff.

Charming. Did their PR and marketing people go to the “Khmer Rouge Charm School of How to Win Friends and Influence People”. I guess I should be so grateful to Facebook and their management where they can watch all our moves and try to monetize it without passing anything down to us dumb users who haven’t figured out the shill yet.

I’m a great believer that if you fail, you should fail fast. In this respect, Mark Zuckerberg and his flaks have done a great job in record time. Mark, what are your chances now that you will hit that 15B valuation?

Scott Karp has written a great piece “Facebook’s Crisis Demonstrates That People Matter More Than Technology”. Be sure to read it.

I have spent a lot of time recently thinking, writing and researching on the implications of the Internet (hence my sparse article posting; my apologies) and what that means for how people do things in a corporate setting.

The most important takeaway so far is that blogging and the Internet will accelerate the death of corporatespeak. By “corporatespeak” I mean the gargled and mangled language which comes out of public relations agencies in the form of press releases, and which sometimes make it into mainstream articles in magazines and newspapers. This is the stuff where a company tries to preserve and protect its “corporate image” and speaks with authority to its customers, and ends up sounding like a robot because the message has been run through corporate communications and the legal department to insure that the company won’t get sued for any claims it makes. Ad agencies spend a good part of their time undoing corporatespeak in order to get the company message through to consumers in a way which sounds like there are actually human beings on the corporate side.

Even though I come from a marketing background, I have really hated corporatespeak with a passion, which is an important part of why I like the Internet. For me, the Internet is about facilitating asynchronous conversations. It allows me to meet people I have never met before, and would never have the opportunity to meet before if the medium had not existed. For instance, just yesterday, I connected with a group of IT professionals in France who enjoy reading this blog. It was good to know that there are people in France, and maybe other countries, who enjoy the content of this blog. The Internet is like a huge room with many small groups of people chatting away. If you are polite and friendly, you can walk up, introduce yourself, listen and contribute to the conversation. Then, when you want, you can say thank you, and move on to another conversation.

And the neat thing is that these conversations need not be going on at the same time.

Now, marketing and corporate communications departments are wondering what to do because they have been set up to “protect the corporate image” and “protect the management” respectively, and really don’t know what their new roles are. It takes a new kind of corporate communicator and a new kind of marketer to say “My job is to engage with the customers (or shareholders) in a new kind of one-on-one conversation” when that is not what they are used to doing.

It takes a certain of confidence and good judgment to engage in conversation. They can’t be corporate drones anymore; that way doesn’t work in this new world.

Did you know that corporate CEOs are human beings too? It would be really good if some of them expressed their thoughts online, without having to worry about getting spammed, etc.

One of the things I have noticed in China which is very different from the US is the huge number of people always in bookstores, especially the larger ones. Many Americans like to get their information from radio and TV and think of reading as a chore. I have never understood this attitude; I prefer reading to radio and TV. Words and text in an article expose how a person thinks, and how they analyze a problem in a way video and audio do not. It goes deep while television, especially in the US, is all about sound bites. It encourages shallow thought, which leads to (surprise!) shallow behavior.

This is why sometimes, when asked to comment on a given subject on radio or TV, I say no. If I feel that I cannot add something new, or a deeper viewpoint which people can think about later, I prefer to keep quiet. If I want to offer a viewpoint which will make people think a little longer and deeper, then an article is the best approach.

The great irony about the Internet is that it encourages the development of a whole new set of soft skills. Traditional advertising stressed divisions along media; now those divisions no longer exist. People have a whole smorgasbord of media available and they don’t divide along media lines; they divide according to where the content is and what is most convenient for them at the time.

The new soft skills will stress:

• How to converse intelligently with people, one on one, even in asynchronous conversations;
• How to listen to people and use that information to get insights;
• How to handle a difficult or bad situation and turn it into a good situation;
• How to keep the conversation going and add to it from time to time;
• Being proactive all the time;
• And maybe most importantly, knowing when not to say anything

Marketers and advertisers being able to have intelligent conversations? What a revolutionary idea!

If you will excuse my initial sarcasm, that is exactly what is needed. In writing, I have found the greatest challenge to be finding a voice I’m comfortable with. Now it’s easy.

The new advertisers and communicators will have to be able to think this way too.

It will be interesting to watch how this all develops…