The China Vortex

The Chinese government’s watchdog for equities, the CSRC (China Securities Regulatory Commission) has issued an edict to local fund managers that they are not to issue any pessimistic reports about equities during the Olympics in Beijing.

My question is “Why bother?”

The Shanghai market has been down 50% in the first half of the year, and what started out as a subprime mortgage problem in the US has now morphed into a banking problem with more US banks at risk.

In the meantime, Pony Ma, CEO of Tencent has joined in the chorus with Alibaba’s Jack Ma to talk about hard times ahead. The Chinese government has signaled that the rise of the yuan against the dollar will slow down, with a very public discussion in the People’s Daily. The signs of economic deceleration are everywhere.

When there is so much public discussion about upcoming economic challenges in the Chinese and western media, what good could possibly come from telling local fund managers not to say anything bad which might upset the Chinese equities markets? While many western observers of China see this as a sign of an authoritarian regime, for many Chinese, it looks more like desperation. Instead of allaying fears, it makes those who are still in the market fear the worst, and think that the government is trying to suppress even worse news, which in turn will fuel the rumor mill and make the market even more volatile.

In short, this looks more like a desperation move than a well-thought policy move. Instead of helping the market, it’s likely to make things worse.

This is what happens when politics interfere in the markets.

Some signs point to a rapid deceleration of the Chinese economy:

• Politburo to convene urgent economic meeting
• Chinese Domestic Olympic Travel Falls Lower Than Expectations
• Unsold inventories climbing
• Shanghai Vanke first to lower real estate prices in Shanghai (in Chinese)

The whole idea of an urgent politburo meeting just three weeks before the Beijing Olympics is a strong indicator of how serious the ruling levels of the Chinese government see this situation and would, in my opinion, be an ominous sign.

All of the signs point to an economy which is rapidly deflating, following on the falling performance of the Shanghai stock exchange, which has fallen more than 50% in the first half of the year. A lot of money which people thought they had made, and did not think of converting into cash thinking that it would go higher, is no longer there.

In China, this is always a warning sign of potential social instability. It also explains a lot about why the Chinese government has introduced new licensing regulations for online video and other communications means where people can communicate quickly, spreading views contrary to the official line, and events can quickly spin out of control.

If the Chinese economy deteriorates, as signs suggest, then it would be safe to say the government controls would tighten further. This would especially be the case in areas where foreign investment capital has gone into sensitive media sectors, which is always viewed with some degree of suspicion by the Chinese government.

China’s economic growth over the past several years has excited many members of the international community, who see it as an alternative to the US’s and west’s leadership of the world order for the past two centuries. There has been a deep underlying distrust of the west, but it was brought to the fore by the Bush administration’s single-minded focus on the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and what to many, have seemed like trumped-up reasons for the invasion.

This, along with China’s dramatic economic growth, has opened up a great opportunity for China to offer an alternative vision of economic and social development. But China has fallen short with the recent fuss over the torch relay, and the actions of the fenqing (angry youth). In a very short period of time, a great deal of the goodwill China has earned has dissipated.

This situation has forced many supporters of the reform and opening-up of China into a lose-lose situation. If they support the Chinese position, they become seen as Chinese toadies, and if they criticize certain aspects of what has happened during the Olympic torch relay, they become dismissed by the Chinese, especially fenqing, as western toadies. Intelligent people should not be forced into making choices like this which are not real choices, and further polarize the two sides. People should be able to make constructive criticism without being forced to make bad choices and being pigeon-holed into one group or the other.

I, for one, believe that there is validity to the Chinese criticisms of the way China and the Chinese have been shown in the western media. There are biases; some are based on ignorance and some may be based on malice. But anger and heavy-handedness are not the right way to correct these perceptions; instead they validate the views and fears of China’s worst critics.

But this is not purely a public relations exercise. If China was a smaller and less influential country, maybe that would work. What China needs is to offer an alternative vision to the western model of development. This model must include dialogue, institutions and rules without a pre-conceived agenda which are pre-packaged for others, who must buy into it. Basically, a new framework needs to be created for Chinese engagement and dialogue on a global scale.

One of the criticisms of western hegemony is that it has offered a pre-packaged vision which in reality, offers pre-packaged western interests at its core. Joseph Stiglitz talked about this in his book Making Globalization Work.

So what is China’s vision? Is it just anger for western wrongdoing and the way it is depicted in the western-controlled media? How much goodwill will venting anger get China? There needs to be a better more thought-out way which offers more constructive results.

More people need to be included, and it should not just be government to government. It should be open where all can offer their views, and be listened to. Differing opinions should be debated and allowed to co-exist. Out of this, some kind of rationale for China’s rise has to come out, and this vision needs to be consistent with the rest of the world, as well as the Chinese people.

China is now a real power in every way. Real powers listen to and debate different views. If they don’t like certain views, they can offer a point by point rebuttal, or they can debate those views, but there is no need to get angry.

New times bring new challenges, and new challenges call for new thinking.

When I talk about the west in the title, I’m referring to the western part of China.

A great deal of thought and ink and pixels have been devoted to how the recent violence in the western part of China has affected the country’s image in the runup to the Beijing 2008 Olympics. I’m not going to talk about that because I have nothing new to add to that conversation.

Instead, I’m going to talk about how those events are likely to affect Chinese government fiscal and monetary policy.

These recent events have shown that the income gap between Han Chinese and Tibetans is growing, and that there are significant numbers of Tibetan youth who do not see a bright future for themselves. They are perfect fodder for unrest. Beijing has tried to mollify things by moving significant numbers of Han Chinese into Tibetan areas to start small businesses but, for the most part, Tibetans are still deeply religious, and many prefer a nomadic lifestyle to living in cities where they cannot find work.

This is the trouble with an urbanization policy: it works fine if people are employed. If they are not employed, there are all kinds of social problems.

The biggest problem is that there is no Tibetan merchant class as there is among Han Chinese.

The central focal point of Chinese social policy is low unemployment at all costs, even if the businesses are not profitable. It is better to have people working in a loss-making enterprise than for them not to have a job at all and wandering the streets.

Part of the rationale for the violence was to scare Han Chinese out of the Tibetan regions. Many Han Chinese families may prefer to move back to their places of origin; the Chinese government may offer economic incentives for them to stay.

Faced with this situation, the Chinese government is unlikely to let the yuan rise significantly more this year. If asked to choose between which is more dangerous, social unrest in China, or increasing pressure from the European Union and the US over letting the yuan appreciate, I’m sure that the residents of Zhongnanhai would say that the former is the threat they fear the most, not the latter.

For them, it’s much more important to keep people working at their jobs in China.

One of the most popular cliches in the west about China is that Chinese are generally good and reasonable people, but when it comes to nationalism, they are unreasonable. On the political level, national sovereignty is not negotiable, and when it comes to business, you need to realize that nationalism is a wildcard, and can throw a monkey-wrench into your best-laid plans. Put into this context, the 2008 Beijing Olympics is all about righting past wrongs, and showing that China is now an equal, maybe even a leader, in the world stage.

Like all bad cliches, this cliche contains a kernel of truth.

In my previous article, I mentioned why it’s so important for any business to be successful in China, decisions must be made locally by local management; it cannot be micromanaged from the US or anywhere else. Established business sectors such as finance, banking, retail, and fast moving consumer goods (FMCG), all understand this very basic rule of international business.

In the venture capital field in China, there has been a large influx of companies and partnerships which have opened offices and partnerships in Beijing and Shanghai. These companies understand that good investment decisions must, for the most part, be made in China where the local partners can understand the business environment, the competition and perform the due diligence to make the right decisions. Smart decisions cannot be made outside China.

And even that is not necessarily enough. Now more companies are going into the Chinese tier 2 and 3 cities and they are realizing that Beijing and Shanghai have more in common with New York, London or Tokyo than with other Chinese cities.

So why do so many US technology companies continue to try to second-guess and micromanage their China local management?

This is a mystery to me, and I continue to be befuddled by it. How can intelligent people continue to make and repeat over and over again mistakes which others have made before?

And then, when the Chinese local management complains that they are not empowered, sometimes they dismiss it as the Chinese “going nationalistic”. Never mind that the people questioning the Chinese management in the US do not speak, read or write Chinese; never mind that the people coming into China spend only a few days on the ground in China and think that they have China “all figured out”, yet they continue to do this over and over again.

Does this make sense? Any sense at all? And should there be any surprise that leading US companies including Yahoo!, eBay and AOL have failed in China?

And yet, these people control the budget and resource allocation for China. Should there be any surprise at all that US Internet companies have not been able to be successful in China?

What value do these people contribute to the success of the business in China? I can’t see any. Then when the company fails, it isn’t because headquarters slowed down the decision loop; it’s because of “poor performance by local management”!

They have set up Chinese local management to be the fall guy even before they started!

If this thinking were only confined to Internet companies and startups in China, it would be bad, but in the overall economic picture, it wouldn’t be that important.

The problem for the west is that it isn’t.

It has affected the west’s popularity in Africa because China offers aid without strings attached. In the mainstream media in the west, this is depicted as a cynical attempt by the Chinese to curry favor with regimes which behave badly.

But could there be more to it than meets the eye?

Could it be that the Africans don’t like to have someone dictate loan and development terms from Washington DC, London or Paris, and setting performance benchmarks for them without understanding the context of development in their own countries and region?

And could it be that the real reason for the popularity of the Chinese is that for better or for worse, they have gone local, setting up their own businesses and factories in Africa instead of trying to dictate terms from Beijing?

Definitely this is something worth pondering…

One phrase I have heard frequently from well-to-do Chinese business people is 钱无祖国. Roughly translated into English, this means that “capital has no homeland”; it largely goes wherever it can get the best return for its owners.

The flip-side of this statement is that the nation-state, this political entity which has been so important for the past 500 years, is gradually losing power and influence. As technology enables individuals more and more, governments and large organizations lose power, influence and attraction.

How many bright young people have you met who said “I want to work for a large organization?” In the tech sector, the number is small; most prefer to work at startups. I predict that this trend will soon spread to media and other fields. It’s just easier to get things done and you don’t need to share the profits among as many people.

This is what those who criticize the article about sovereign wealth fund stakes in Google and Apple don’t understand. When a corporation’s shares are traded on the open market, a corporation is no longer just a national entity, it is a global entity. Apple and Google are global corporations, not American corporations. Their owners, shareholders and employees are global, not just American. They just happen to have their main domicile in the US and were first incorporated in the US and are subject to US laws, but that’s it. Only if capital restrictions are put in place can you prevent anything like the scenario I have put forward from taking place. If the US were to do that, it would amount to the US government admitting that globalization, a policy that all US administrations have pedaled to the American people for the past 50 years is wrong and is bad for America.

Doug Rediker has an excellent article about the difference between how national banks and investment banks see this trend.

If there is one area where many Americans have fallen woefully short it has to do with educating themselves about the importance of managing your finances in a smart manner. Roger Ehrenberg draws an excellent picture of how the subprime mortgage mess grew, and how most Americans are responsible.

The same rules of economics which apply to individuals also apply to countries and nation-states. Foremost among these is the rule that if you remain a debtor over a prolonged period of time, you lose control of your own destiny, and become subject to the whims of others.

The pendulum has now swung in China’s favor; in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, China was the economic basket case. For the most part, Chinese have learned the importance of savings and not going into debt. Will the next generation of Chinese remember this lesson? Time will tell.

Americans need to face up to this unpleasant reality, and the sooner the better. The first step to recovery is to recognize that one is in trouble and needs to change current behavior.

The old ways just don’t work anymore.

Last night I had dinner with five individuals in Beijing. Except for me, all of them had real hands-on experience in the gaming industry in China. (My experience in gaming is limited to the business side; not programming and production.) All of them were Americans, or had extensive experience in the US.

Long story short: China has become a boomtown for gaming companies doing development. There are several reasons for this:

• A large Chinese gaming population
• Smart programmers and artists
• A large cheap labor pool which is eager to work, and more importantly, learn

Significantly, most of the group had started, or were starting, their own companies in China. The president of one company, Gage Galinger, had been working in stealth mode for three years, quietly hiring and developing its own title for his company, Possibility Space.

Most of them were former Microsoft employees.

Gage was from Texas, and had come to Beijing to start his own game development studio. He is not Chinese, or Chinese-American, but Caucasian. I always admire someone who is not of Chinese extraction, and is willing just to jump on a plane to Beijing or Shanghai, learn, and start a company. More than anything else, that is what starting a business is all about in this age of globalization. This is the mark of a true entrepreneur.

After arriving in Beijing, he started hiring for his own studio where he is lead programmer and president.

I’m sure many of my readers may be wondering how someone who does not know Chinese could possibly function in an environment where many people do not speak a common language. How could he add value?

This is where his background at Microsoft came in handy, and the American style of collaboration for game development really shines. In Chinese gaming companies, the artists and programmers are just worker bees, performing repetitive tasks. They are not asked, and do not offer their opinions about the games they are developing; they are told what to do, and just do it. In his company, employees are required to show their day’s work to everyone else in the company, and others are encouraged to critique the work. Of course, most Chinese are reluctant to say bad things about other peoples’ work, afraid that it will hurt their colleagues’ feelings. For Americans, it is more natural to critique other peoples’ work because Americans are able to separate the work from the person.

Most of the time anyway.

Gage said that the path was not entirely smooth; he had to fire people who did not fit. But all in all, he was encouraged by the experience, and he had a very clear idea about how he added value to his company. He was very optimistic about his experience, and said that for him, living in China was about realizing the American dream of having his own company and making his own title, and launching it worldwide.

The economics of the gaming industry in the US is broken; developments costs are high, and game developers are always in debt and losing their IP to investors. But development costs in China are low, and Gage claims that his developers in China are better than any team he has worked with in the US by an exponential factor, or anywhere else.

He said that he has tried to get other game developers to come to China to partner with him, but while they have expressed interest, none have made the move. He has just opened an office in Austin, Texas.

If America had more entrepreneurs like Gage, who don’t overthink, overplan, have a solid core skill, and just get on a plane to China and start their company, and are humble and willing to learn, the US would be in a much better place.

America used to be a much more entrepreneurial country, now it is overly regulated, overly expensive, overly specialized, overly structured and overly corporate. In order to be competitive again, the entire society and culture will have to make major adjustments. The road will not be a smooth one.

That is why the smart entrepreneurs, like Gage, start their businesses in China.

In this new globalized world, China has become what America used to be.