What Happens To E-Commerce When Credit Cards Don’t Work?

October 9th, 2008

During the past several years in China, I have spent a good deal of my time explaining to Americans that e-commerce solutions do not have to depend on credit cards. In many parts of the world, such as Germany and Japan, and in China, e-commerce is about building payment gateways to different banks using debit cards or other devices which connect directly to bank accounts.

This was how Paypal started in the US. It is also how Alipay, Yeepay and other solutions work in China. Tencent, a company with a market cap of US$80B, based in Shenzhen uses a subscription payment system which also deducts payments directly from users’ accounts.

As the global Ponzi scheme which started as the subprime credit crisis continues to unwind, defaults on credit cards in the US will shoot up.

In the near future, credit will be given out much more sparingly. American society will very quickly change from a credit-based society to a cash-based society for most transactions. But there will be plenty of honest people who will need to buy, and sometimes they will want to buy online. If they don’t have access to credit and credit cards, how will they buy?

When you think about it in these terms, many of the payment solutions developed in China look more interesting, not just for China, but adapted to suit the needs of Americans who no longer have credit. Most likely these won’t be Chinese companies, but American e-commerce firms who want to develop something suited for Americans and the American market.

So which American company would come out with a non-credit card based payment solution? My guess is that it would be the leading e-commerce company, Amazon. I’d bet they are working on it right now.

The New Investment Rules For China

October 5th, 2008

Following on the global credit crisis, many have come to me to ask how these changes will affect China. As I have said earlier, China and the US are two sides to the same coin, and it pays to look at them as one economy, as this Newsweek article does. It goes without saying that this crisis will have a profound effect on China, and I’m not optimistic about the capability of the Chinese central government in Beijing to deal with it as quickly as it should. Michael Pettis, who lives and teaches in Beijing, has been a persistent advocate of stimulating more domestic spending from Chinese consumers, and continues to advocate that position. I agree that this is necessary; I don’t think that this will happen quickly or on an even basis. There is a simple reason for this: stimulating consumer spending depends, to a large extent, on the rollout of a national healthcare system; this is something which Beijing has tried to do since the early 90s, all without success. When it comes to the lack of a national healthcare system, the US and China are in the same boat, and the national governments are equally ineffective.

So what are some investment rules you can use? Let me list seven below:

  • Avoid Shanghai and Beijing. Both have excellent universities, and Beijing has central government ministries while Shanghai is the commercial capital of China. In IT, companies have preferred to hire from Tsinghua for smart technology people. But there are major problems with both cities. First of all, staff turnover is too high, and costs are too high. In the past few years, staff have routinely asked for 20-30% raises just to stay in the same company! And with all the western companies constantly going into those cities, there has been a bidding war for staff. We are in tough times now, so do you really want to get involved in bidding wars over your local staff and deal with staff turnover issues? I don’t think so. And when it comes to Internet/IT, I say that the Internet already has become a platform and there is plenty of talent around. Do you really need expensive people from the very best universities in China who may prove a pain to manage? If you don’t, second-tier people who are reliable and don’t ask for huge pay raises are good enough, and maybe even better. When hiring local talent, look for tortoises, not hares. We are heading for much tougher times, and you need a good stable team. Beijing and Shanghai have too many hares. Your most loyal people will be the ones you hired and trained on the job. They will also be the ones who understand local market and conditions and connections.Another major issue about Beijing and Shanghai is that they are geared for exports, especially to the US. Do I need to tell you what happened to that export market?
  • Instead of going to Beijing and Shanghai, look at the 20 major city markets in China if you are thinking of selling to Chinese consumers. Now is a good time to get into services for Chinese consumers. Think of cities like Dalian, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Nanchang, Chongqing, Chengdu, Fuzhou, Kunming, Nanning, Nanjing, etc. If you want to get into China under the radar (in my opinion, always a wise strategy), these are places to look at very seriously. If you need knowledge workers, as in programming or game production or pharmaceuticals, pay special attention to the local universities, and partnering with them to hire their graduating students. If you show the cash and commitment, and can guarantee jobs for their students, you will get multiple offers of good deals.
  • Guangdong and Zhejiang are the two largest manufacturing provinces in China. Guangdong’s factories depend on a huge pool of unskilled immigrant laborers, mostly young women, from Sichuan and other provinces. These factories and workers are going to be hit hard because of their dependency on the US market. There is too much overcapacity, too little value-added, and too little profit for most of these factories to move up the value chain. Unemployment in Guangdong and Sichuan will become a major issue. Zhejiang’s factories are mostly family-owned, and it has less reliance on immigrant workers. Because of Zhejiang’s strong private sector and private wealth, they will be able to make the adjustment in market demand from exports to domestic Chinese consumption more quickly.
  • If you are a private equity or hedge fund investor, you need to think about investment horizons. In order to make up for the dropoff in exports, Beijing and provincial governments would naturally think of investing more in infrastructure. So far, most of this money has gone into infrastructure, manufacturing and real estate. The problem is that these areas are already built up and have over-capacity. They are really at a loss about what to do. If you can help and offer investments which create jobs and upgrade the skill force, you are in a good position. Be sure to get your money and profit back within 15 years (by 2023). That is because if you are selling to Chinese consumers, you are selling to the current group who are in their 20s – 40s. By 2023, China’s demographics will fall off a cliff because of the one-child policy, and they will be in savings mode instead of spending mode.
  • When it comes to modernization, China is crossing a 30-foot chasm with a 20-foot rope, with each foot representing one year. China’s hardware development and infrastructure are very impressive and are the most modern in the world, as the Beijing Olympics showed. The hardest part to modernize is peoples’ mentality as the tainted milk scandal has shown. China’s aging demographics do not give it enough time to cross the chasm, so Chinese will get old before they get modern. When that happens, China will look like a bigger version of Japan, and will have all the problems Japan has today. Just hope that China has a national healthcare system in place by then.
  • The wealth gap will become wider over the next 10 years between the cities and the countryside, then stabilize for five years, then shrink as the city worker bees retire in 15 years. Rural infrastructure is less developed, and so far, the Chinese government has made all the wrong moves in rural development by not supporting the development of rural collectives for the farmers. There is an excellent article (in Chinese, h/t to Stan C) about the failure of China’s rural development, and how Chinese rural development will look like the Philippines with large food processing companies employing poor farmers. This organization is partly responsible for the Sanlu tainted milk scandal, and is copied from the US. But the US has a surplus of land and shortage of farmers, while China has a shortage of land and excess of farmers! If you are interested in macroeconomic issues, this is worth more study. Its view converges very well with the view of Yasheng Huang in his new book Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, which I have also mentioned in my previous article.
  • The dumb money has already been made in China. It’s time to rebalance your portfolio to make smart money. It can be done, but it won’t be easy. Think smart, work smart, and invest for 15 years. By that time, you should be able to retire.

      • If you need more information specific to your fund/company/situation, you can contact me from the About page.

News Galore!

September 19th, 2008

Just in case you had any doubts that the world was going to hell in a handbasket, and that the inmates were running the asylum, you just might have had some of those doubts removed in the past week. And those doubts were removed in a very dramatic fashion, as in frontal lobotomy fashion.

“George Carlin, why did you have to die so soon, just before all the fireworks started? Did you actually think that the world was becoming so ludicrous that you couldn’t take it anymore, or think that you would run out of material?”

Let’s look at some of the fun things which happened this week:

  • Sanlu’s dairy products were found to have killed three babies, and caused injury to several thousand others (at least)
  • Baidu was accused of offering to help cover up the scandal by not showing the scope of the scandal in its search results. I wonder what genius came up with the idea that they could cover up a scandal of such immense proportions for a miserable 3M yuan? And who was the genius on the management side who approved such a deal? This would have taken at least two people who had frontal lobotomies. Most of the time, people who come up with dumb ideas like this are only employed in government (Most notably the US government, where they usually run smear campaigns for politicians during elections.) As for Baidu/Alibaba, now Baidu is threatening to sue Alibaba for spreading the Sanlu story. (Isn’t China becoming more like the US every day? At this rate China will be run by lawyers in five years. A sure sign of national dementia.) Are these initial signs that the Americans’ efforts to package and sell stupidity to the Chinese are showing signs of success?
  • Lehman Bros., a US investment bank, declared bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America for $50B. I have the utmost admiration for John Thain: Imagine taking a company which was rapidly going down the tubes, whose assets were unclear, and whose non-performing CDOs were increasing by the hour, and he SOLD it for $50B, finding a buyer in BA? Wow, that’s neat! How’d he do that? These bankers are amazing. None of that piddly million here, million there kindergarten dotcom stuff for these guys, we’re talking real money here (even though it’s US dollars).
  • Is it just me, or am I thinking that Imagethief‘s time has come in China? I keep on fantasizing what his first lessons for new official clients might be like. How about this:

    “First of all, let’s get it clear that lies, coverups and people getting poisoned are a necessary part of any nation’s path to greatness. There is no need to deny or cover it up; we must celebrate each event as achieving yet another milestone to greatness! Let’s celebrate it! Let’s roll in it! And let’s become more and more like America with each passing moment! Look at how the Americans don’t discriminate against the mentally handicapped anymore; instead they make them their leaders! If America can do that, then why can’t China! Our goal must be to pollute the global financial system on an even greater scale than the Americans have: this will show the world China’s power!”

    • Hmmm, on second thought…
    UPDATE: Once upon a time, jokes were about comical situations which had a tenuous relationship with reality. Now, the jokes ARE reality.
    DISCLAIMERThe above story is pure satire. Don’t take it as anything else.

American Astroturfing vs. Chinese Astroturfing

July 13th, 2008

The definition of astroturfing, according to Wikipedia is:

a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing one’s own personal agenda through to highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations.

As a business and marketing consultant who spends considerable time in China, I get upset when I see marketing and PR terms not used the right way. One thing which is done very frequently in China, but whose terminology is not used correctly, is astroturfing. As a matter of fact, I have not even heard of a Chinese term for astroturfing, even though I have seen it in many forms all the time. In fact, a good deal of what the Internet is used for in China in the BBSes in China, is astroturfing in different forms.

I was upset when I saw the term astroturfing mixed up with censorship in this video interview with reference to censorship in China. My definition of censorship is when I have to use a VPN tunnel to get to content I cannot view in China, or because I cannot get my Feedburner RSS feeds because they are blocked by the GFW, or as Jeremy Goldkorn, publisher of Danwei chooses to call it, the Net Nanny.

The biggest difference between astroturfing and censorship: astroturfing is a PR term and censorship is a political term. Astroturfing is a PR tactic which can be used for either political or commercial ends; censorship is always used for political ends. Using censorship with reference to China is a politically charged term because many critics of Chinese government policy like to use it to satisfy their own political agendas. Other people are entitled to their own political views re Chinese government policy, just as I’m entitled to mine. Everybody has a right to their own opinions. What I do criticize is abuse of terminology in order to score political points when in fact what is being used is a PR tactic.

Paying bloggers and users of Twitter to shape public opinion about China is an astroturfing tactic. Let’s call it astroturfing and not call it censorship. Admittedly, the Chinese government has used astroturfing in a very clumsy fashion by paying bloggers directly for their blog posts and tweets. Rule No. 1 of astroturfing is “Don’t get caught doing it”. This means you should set up front organizations to do the work so that the important guys/government have plausible deniability. These front organizations have to be run by eloquent, expensive and intelligent opinion leaders who know what they are doing and what the whole objective is. The people they work with, and contract with, do not have to know.

Sure, it adds to your costs, but some things are more important than costs. That’s why this whole payoff of bloggers and tweets is so silly and let’s say it, downright stupid.

The real masters at the right way to do astroturfing are the Americans and American PR and lobbying firms. They set up enough “independent” organizations so that the astroturfing movements cannot be traced back to the government, the original sponsor. After all, that is the whole point of it. Government ministries, organizations and parties should never be directly involved in it.

These “independent” organizations, usually think tanks, then contract with the PR firms and coordinate very complex and expensive PR campaigns which are, well, astroturfing. The whole objective is to make it look independent for most people. These people are the audience, the people whose opinion you want to shape.

Astroturfing was used extensively in the aftermath of the revelations of torture re Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in the US. Many Americans were sincerely shocked that the US military would use such interrogation techniques. In order to shape US public opinion, the Pentagon provided leading US media companies hired retired generals as “consultants” to talk on TV about the situation, and mitigate the political damage to the Bush administration. These consultants were paid for by the Pentagon. How it was done was revealed in an article on the New York Times.

If the Chinese government wants to be truly effective at winning the PR war with the western media, it has to allow different voices to speak up about China, and get past the very worn-out charges of “interfering in China’s internal affairs” or “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people”, which may have some appeal to not very bright people, but really turn off intelligent people. Part of the price of being considered a developed nation is to allow different discourse and opinions on an intelligent level. Moreover, this gives the Chinese leadership a better selection of policies to choose from. After all, that’s whole point of the exercise.

So let’s stop paying off bloggers and tweeters 50 Chinese yuancents or fen to shape public opinion. That’s the cheap and dumb way.

The Chinese government needs to stop thinking small and start thinking big in how it shapes not just Chinese public opinion, but western public opinion. Spend money and do it the right way with the right people.

Anything else is just an embarrassment.

Why Western Employers Are More Attractive To Many Chinese

June 26th, 2008

China is a nation of entrepreneurs, and according to statistics, has 85 million businesses compared to the US’s 25 million. Considering that China has about four times the population of the US, the proportion is about right. These numbers reveal that China is in fact, not a socialist nation, but is instead one which has a very capitalist heart. Or as the Chinese government would say, has “market characteristics”.

There are many Chinese university graduates who when choosing a job, prefer to go to a western company over a Chinese company. For many, American companies are the most preferred. Why is this?

For many of them, it is because that they will get good training, learn management, and work within large organizations about how to get a job done. They get a chance to work with people from many different cultures and countries.

These are significant advantages which most Chinese companies, which have not yet gone global, are not yet able to offer. But I believe that there is another perhaps more important reason.

That is, they know that they will be judged more on performance and merit than on personal relationships with the founder and/or CEO. When it comes to relationships, Chinese founders and CEOs are still very reluctant to trust people outside their own inner circle, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone outside to make it into this inner circle, no matter how good they are. I’m convinced that this attitude has put a natural ceiling or limit on how successful Chinese companies will be in globalizing. When people discover that no matter how smart they are or how hard they work, that they will not make it into the inner circle, they will either move to a company where they know that they are respected, or they will start their own company.

In contrast, Americans and American companies have a different approach. They put value on developing management talent, especially local management talent in a major market like China. They identify rising stars and put them on a management training track soon. Most importantly, they promote them without regard to who they know or are related to.

Most Chinese companies do not do this. This gives American companies human talent scaleability when going global which Chinese companies do not have. Successful American and western companies which have gone global tend to be meritocracies, while Chinese companies are still stuck at the plutocracy stage.

In his book Managing the Dragon, Jack Perkowski stresses how his company ASIMCO is a Chinese company. Technically and legally it is. The important thing is that he was pragmatic about bringing in the best people in their fields as senior and executive management, without regard to who they were related to. This is a very American characteristic, and in China, it works. Ironically, if there is an outsider advantage in China, this is it.

The Chinese government and the management of most Chinese companies have figured this out, but have not been able to apply this lesson to their own organizations yet. This is one of those things which cannot be solved by a government order or administrative guidelines, which the Chinese government likes to use to solve complex problems.

If Chinese companies successfully resolve this problem, there will be no limit to their growth.

Why China Is Really Annoyed At US Policies

June 19th, 2008

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.

Interfering In Another Country’s Internal Affairs

June 19th, 2008

“Interfering in another country’s internal affairs” is a routine mantra often used by Chinese government spokespersons, and is used most often when pointed at the US and US critics, especially with regard to human rights policies.

On the surface, this makes a lot of sense, especially with regards to generally ignorant US politicians, movie stars and others, who would have a hard time finding places like Tibet and Darfur on a map, but are moved by some of the images they see on television. For them, China and Chinese policies are a very convenient whipping boy, even though they have very little context and understanding of the real underlying issues.

This naturally puts the Chinese government on the defensive and more recently, some Chinese have become angry at the overseas criticism.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? Those who argue against interfering in another country’s internal affairs, or those who say it’s OK to do so?

The fact is that if a country is big and has a strong economy, whatever it does has an effect on other country’s economies, and on the global economy. Even though only American citizens’ can vote in their elections, the gross stupidity and ineptitude of American economic and trade policies in recent years do not end at America’s borders.

They go far beyond it.

And the Chinese government has started complaining about it. After all, they hold huge amounts of US dollar-denominated treasuries which are losing their value daily as the US dollar loses value, and their sovereign wealth funds are blocked from making investments in Europe and the US, mainly on political and not economic grounds.

So aren’t Chinese government officials interfering in US internal affairs? Yes, but the two countries’ economies are so tightly intertwined, the US policies are having an effect on the Chinese economy. When they are so tightly bound together by trade and economics, there is no borderline. It’s as silly as the right arm complaining about the left arm.

The fact is that the US and China are like two handicapped people: one is blind and the other is deaf. They need each other in order to survive.

The sooner politicians, officials and miserably deficient media on both sides recognize that, the better. If they don’t, ordinary people will continue to get caught in the middle and distracted by bad policies and ignorant offline and online media pundits getting them to chase red herrings while the real problems get worse.

Getting The Dragon Right

June 12th, 2008

On June 11, I attended an event in Beijing where Jack Perkowski, author of the book Managing the Dragon talked about his experiences doing business in China and on the Chinese economy. He also keeps a blog where he talks about China-related topics. In March, I had read the book and wrote an online review which you can read here.

During the dinner talk, Mr. Perkowski talked in greater depth about some of the issues he talked about in the book. Most of the audience of 20+ people were people who had considerable experience living and working in China.

He talked about how he saw China as having two different economies, which he calls the “local foreign economy” and the “local local economy”. He sees the local foreign economy as being made up of 400M people who have average annual income of US7500. The other 900M people have an annual average income of US2500. Right now, these are almost separate economies in the same country. The existence of the local local economy, which is very cost- and price-sensitive, means that there is a large part of the economy which needs modern things, but cannot afford western prices. Many Chinese companies are looking for new ways to reach this audience. This means that manufacturers are always looking for new ways to constantly cut their costs to reach them, which in turn leads to a very high rate of innovation.

An example he mentioned were piston rings. There are six global piston rings makers in the world, but there are 400 in China. The reason for the China discrepancy is because there is demand for cheaper solutions from the local local market, who are always looking for cheaper and more competitive components. While they have the same need for transport as the foreign local market, they cannot afford the expensive brand components.

In contrast, the foreign local economy accepts a higher level of costs, and is less sensitive to pricing pressure. These are mainly export manufacturers which have come to China from the US or Europe and come to manufacture auto parts first for their home markets and then later, other markets. Mr. Perkowski believes that in order to survive, it’s essential to reach down into the local local market. Unfortunately, many American car makers were unaware of this market, and wanted to sell only into the foreign local market. In the meantime, the toughest Chinese makers which have prospered and survived, claw their way into the local foreign market, where they are much leaner, meaner and smarter than the major US makers.

It made me think that in reality, China has a domestic market and an export market. The domestic market can be thought of as the local local market, and the export market is the local foreign market. Eventually, the two markets will merge, but it will take some time before that happens.

Mr Perkowski mentioned that the US “makes” 16M vehicles annually, of which 5M are imported from other countries. This means that in reality, the US makes some 11M vehicles annually. According to him, American makers are not able to make money on small cars, only on larger vehicles such as SUVs, which Americans are no longer buying because of high gasoline prices. The Chinese auto makers, in comparison, are able to manufacture small cars profitably. This year, Chinese makers will make some 10M+ vehicles, putting Chinese manufacturing capacity on a par with US makers. He believes that China will overtake the US economy in size, and Americans will have to get used to the idea of having the second largest economy in the world. (My note: Of course, it will take some time for India to take the world’s second largest economy position away from the US.)

He believes that the place where the US will continue to be dominant will be in efficient capital markets. This is a place where America will continue to be the world’s leader.

Mr. Perkowski does not speak Chinese, but his good common sense about doing business in China showed that he had a good deal more knowledge about China than many of those who speak the language. In his case, common sense and a good attitude have more than compensated.

Poverty Numbers As A Chinese Social Stability Indicator

June 9th, 2008

China Poverty Numbers

Seeking Alpha has an interesting article The Power of the Market: 600 Million People Lifted Out of Poverty Since 1981. The article comes with two graphs, one of which is above.

This shows that there has been a gradual fall in numbers of poor since 1981, but there was a bump in the years from about 1988 to 1994, when the numbers of poor stubbornly resisted to fall. This was a time of high inflation in China.

Do I need to tell you what happened in China in 1989?

This graph gives a rough indication that as long as the Chinese government is able to show a descending line that poverty numbers are going down in absolute terms, then the government’s position is safe. If inflation should pick up and the number of poor goes up, then they have something to worry about.

So far, developments on the economic front have been going well in China, with the noted exception of high inflation in China, much of which is due to higher commodity costs (food and energy costs) and capital inflows. Much of the capital inflow into China is due to investors who want to get out of the US dollar, and see China as the most attractive growth market for their money.

Rising inflation is usually an early indicator of other economic and social problems to come.

A few years ago, investment money coming into China was welcomed with open arms, but now times have changed, and the government doesn’t see them nearly as favorably as they did just one year ago. Capital inflows which are liquid can come into China, and also leave it very quickly, leaving the country’s economy and society in a lurch, just as it did during the Asian financial crisis of 1997 for the countries of Southeast Asia.

With the US economy heading for the dumpster, and Europe showing signs of weakness due to rising energy prices, that is not something the Chinese government wants. It is more than likely that the Chinese government will do anything to keep those poverty numbers going down in China, regardless of what it means for the rest of the global economy.

The need for social stability in China trumps everything else. Including commitments to globalization and the WTO.

Fasten your seat belts.

China’s Telecom Shakeup And What It Means

May 28th, 2008

Several days ago, a different kind of earthquake happened in China in the telecoms field. Unlike the Sichuan earthquake which took so many lives and caused so much damage, this shakeup was not unexpected. It’s ramifications will be large, if not huge, and it’s worth going into some depth to get a deeper understanding of how this change will affect the development of mobile usage of the Internet in China.

Before leaving the Sichuan earthquake as a subject, I would like to point you to this excellent slideshow by CIC Data (h/t to Tangos Chan) which shows how China’s grassroots social media has helped in the disaster rescue and recovery process.

China’s New Telecom Landscape

The main points of the new joint interagency government announcement by the MII (Ministry of Information Industry), NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission) and Ministry of Finance (MOF) are phrased as an opinion and encouragement. (Note: When you get two government ministries and one super-ministry “encouraging” you this way, you do what you are encouraged to do, even if you are China Mobile and have the largest single-country number of subscribers in the world. After all, this is China, not the US, where big corporations tell Congress and the executive through lobbyists and lawyers what they want and are willing to do, and then sell it to the American people through the media as “being in the best interests of the people”.)

The main points are:

  • China Telecom is “encouraged” to acquire the CDMA business of China Unicom
  • China Unicom and China Netcom are encouraged to merge
  • The basic telecom service of China Satellite should be merged into China Telecom
  • China Tietong (part of the railways infrastructure and the third fixed line operator after China Unicom and China Netcom) is to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of China Mobile

All six operators (China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom, China Netcom, China Satellite and China Tietong) have been asked to separately submit their implementation plans to the relevant ministries where they will be encouraged (again) to reconcile their different plans and agree on a schedule. Once this is completed, the Chinese government will then announce the granting of the three 3G licenses and which operators they will go to.

Following the reorganization, there will be three companies left, which meshes perfectly with the number of 3G licenses to be granted by the government. There will be one license granted for each of the new 3G technologies: TD-SCDMA (China’s natively-developed standard), CDMA2000 and WCDMA. Current opinion is that China Mobile will get the TD-SCDMA license, with China Unicom and China Telecom getting the other two foreign technology licenses.

Reaction

The immediate reaction on the HKSE, where China Mobile, China Unicom, China Netcom and China Telecom are listed was unfavorable to China Mobile, the giant in the mobile sector in China. Goldman Sachs issued a sell rating on China Mobile.

You can bet that the six companies will be burning the midnight oil to complete and submit their implementation plans so that they can get the 3G licenses as soon as possible, which should be sometime within the next 3-6 months. Most likely it will not happen before the Beijing Olympics, even though the network infrastructure is there, simply because there is a lot of training and testing to be done.

My Take

This change marks the end of the first stage of the rollout of mobile phone services in China. While China has the largest single-country number of mobile subscribers, most people use mobile overwhelmingly only for voice and SMS services. From a business standpoint, China’s telecom industry has been in a wait-and-see mode for the past two years.

This second generation, or next stage of mobile services will be about a renewed rollout and introduction of more data services, and the more important metric for the operators will be ARPU (average revenue per user) instead of number of subscribers. So please, let’s stop talking about number of subscribers, and let’s talk about ARPU instead from now on.

ARPU will be the real metric to measure the performance of the three operators. I say “It’s about time!”

This change opens crack and opportunities for investment and new players, and gives more choices to Chinese consumers. China Mobile, the industry leader in mobile services, has continued to expand the number of subscribers, having the world’s largest number of subscribers in one country, with more than 500M. China Unicom has been playing catchup because it started as a CDMA service provider (as opposed to China Mobile’s GSM) and although it also later entered the GSM field. The small independent mobile operators such as Tom.com, Linktone and KongZhong have all languished because China Mobile was seen as the dominant player which wanted to completely dominate the platform and application-level services. While it would be a real challenge for those companies to claw their way back to health, venture capital and private equity firms can now look more favorably at the next generation of mobile services, which will no longer be as dependent on a single mobile provider, since there are now three choices available, and they will differentiate on the basis of how they cooperate with service providers and services they offer to Chinese consumers.

In order for Chinese startups to survive and prosper, they will increasingly differentiate themselves on their business and execution skills instead of just technology. Good management will be key.

It goes without saying that Apple’s iPhone will be the most high-profile beneficiary of the change, since it will have two other mobile operators to talk to besides just China Mobile. Instead of just having a loyal base of hacked iPhone users in China, Apple will have a chance to test its vision of the mobile Internet with Chinese users.

The major handset makers such as Nokia, Sony-Ericsson and Samsung will also want to test their application services among Chinese users, and will have greater chance of reaching them.

There are many opportunities in search and display advertising, and subscription-based services. Most of these opportunities are not infrastructure-related, but service- and tool-related. I will talk about some of these opportunities in the future.

While this is a short-term setback for China Mobile, it will ultimately help the company because instead of becoming a lazy monopolist offering bad services, it will have to compete on service. This will make the company more competitive when China starts planning seriously for 4G.

I give the plan an enthusiastic “thumbs-up”!

This is a good example of central planning working to help competitiveness, and in favor of consumers.

It would be nice if, ahem, other countries with large consumer markets, took a closer look at this move and how it helps competitiveness.