chinese

Yahoo’s Battle With China Partner Intensifies

May 14, 2011

By Jennifer Saba and Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK (Reuters) – Yahoo Inc’s battle with Alibaba Group intensified on Friday as they issued contradictory statements over the Chinese company’s transfer of a major Internet asset to its chief executive. Analysts said the handover of Alipay, an online e-commerce payment system similar to eBay Inc’s PayPal, to Alibaba Chief Executive Jack Ma has reduced the value of Yahoo’s 43 percent Alibaba stake. Alibaba also operates China’s largest e-commerce company, Alibaba.com Ltd. Yahoo said it had been blindsided by the deal, while Alibaba countered that Yahoo was aware of the transaction by virtue of having a board seat, now held by former Yahoo Chief Executive Jerry Yang, who is also a Yahoo director. Shares of Yahoo have fallen as much as 14 percent since the company first disclosed the transfer in a regulatory filing after markets closed on Tuesday. The feud underscores the tense relationship between Ma and Carol Bartz, Yahoo’s chief executive since January 2009. Bartz is under pressure to boost revenue and drive more visitors to Yahoo, which is losing ground to rivals including Google Inc and Facebook. The Alibaba stake is considered one of Yahoo’s most valuable assets. Both Bartz and Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock are in the “hot seat,” said Eric Jackson, managing member of the hedge fund Ironfire Capital, which owns Yahoo stock. “At best it makes it look like Yahoo — Jerry Yang especially — has been out of the loop,” he said. “The Yahoo board has to be looking into the mirror and saying: ‘What do we need to change to make this right?’” In afternoon trading, Yahoo shares were down 61 cents, or 3.6 percent, at $16.56, after earlier falling as much as 7 percent to $15.96. They had closed Tuesday at $18.55. BATTLE OVER BASICS Yahoo invested $1 billion in Alibaba in 2005, but Alibaba has made clear it wants to buy out Yahoo’s stake. “I just don’t trust them,” Ma told Forbes magazine in its April 11 edition. Bartz told Reuters in September she has no plans to sell. Some analysts estimate that Yahoo’s Asian assets, including a 35 percent stake in Yahoo Japan Corp, represent at least half the Sunnyvale, California-based company’s market value. Yahoo and Alibaba do not agree on when Alipay was transferred to Ma, or whether Alibaba’s board knew about it. Alibaba said the board was told in July 2009 that the transfer had occurred. Yahoo said the transfer happened in August 2010, giving Ma full ownership of Alipay, and Yahoo did not learn of it until March 31, 2011. Japan’s Softbank Corp also owns a stake in Alibaba. Four directors make up Alibaba’s board, including Yang and Softbank founder Masayoshi Son. “I find it impossible to believe, as a rational matter, that a board member from Yahoo could sit through a proceeding whereby a valuable asset was transferred to the Alibaba CEO, and not object,” said Manning Warren, a corporate law professor at the University of Louisville. In a statement on Friday, Alibaba spokesman John Spelich said directors were “told in a July 2009 board meeting that majority shareholding in Alipay had been transferred into Chinese ownership.” According to Alibaba, the move was necessary to comply with Chinese law, to ensure Alipay could continue operating. Later Friday, Yahoo stood by its earlier statement that the Alipay deal occurred “without the knowledge or approval of the Alibaba Group board of directors or shareholders.” Yahoo said it is in “active and constructive” talks with Alibaba and Softbank “to preserve the integrity” of its stake. “It’s surprising you can have that sort of communication lapse,” said Ken Sena, an Evercore Partners analyst. David Einhorn’s hedge fund Greenlight Capital last week took a “significant” stake in Yahoo, saying its Alibaba interest could ultimately be worth more than Yahoo is now. LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS Warren said Yahoo might try to sue Ma under Delaware law, saying Ma would have to show that his acquisition of a major asset from his own company had been conducted fairly. Meanwhile, if in fact Yahoo had been in position to stop the Alipay transfer, Yahoo itself might be sued, said Mark Rifkin, a partner at Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz. “It could even give rise to a Yahoo shareholder claim against Alibaba,” given the 43 percent stake, he added. Disputes such as this could dampen U.S. investors’ enthusiasm for companies based in China, Ironfire’s Jackson said. “I definitely think it can spook people,” he said. (Additional reporting by Aditi Sharma in Bangalore; editing by John Wallace and Gerald E. McCormick) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Video: Kang Says Cogo Gaining From China’s Technology Growth

May 13, 2011

May 13 (Bloomberg) — Jeffrey Kang, chief executive officer of Cogo Group Inc., discusses Cogo’s growth strategy and opportunities in China’s technology industry. Cogo provides technical and design solutions for small and medium-sized Chinese companies. Kang speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: U.S.-China Summit: If Trade Were Trade…

May 9, 2011

Today the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue begins in Washington. This is the third such meeting, and it’s time for the Obama administration to get it right. China has not been engaging in “trade” with us, they have been engaging in something else entirely. The Washington Post sets the stage, with an editorial, The U.S. must push back against China’s investment controls : … It is still holding the renminbi at about 25 or 30 percent below its probable market value. … Beijing has increasingly used government procurement rules, technical standards and tax laws to force foreign companies to transfer their technology to state-owned Chinese firms in return for access to the Chinese market. … Beijing’s objective is the mercantilist one of building up state-owned “national champion” firms that can then capture global markets from Japanese, European and U.S. competitors. No matter that the state-owned sector already receives massive official support, direct and indirect — while more efficient private-sector job- creators must scramble for resources. Last week’s Let Trade Be Trade , explains: Since China’s admission into the World Trade Organization we have been packing up our factories and sending them over there. We have been buying so many things made in China, but they have not been buying very many things made here, and the resulting “trade deficit” has gotten worse year after year. Everyone is afraid of what China might do with all those trillion$ in U.S. Bonds they have accumulated. … There is a better way to solve the problem: let trade BE trade. Time To Buy From Us There is a simple solution: tell them to start actually trading with us, When the meeting begins Secretaries Clinton (State) and Geithner (Treasury) and Locke (Commerce) should slide a big stack of order forms across the table and say, “Your turn. Let us take your orders now, please.” China has been selling but not buying and it’s time for them to to start buying. That way we might be able use the word “trade” without wincing. It would also help fix our economy, our budget deficit, our unemployment rate and many other pressing problems. China Holds $1.5 Trillion Of Our Debt Trade by definition is a two-way street, buying from and selling to others. But China has accumulated $1.5 trillion by selling to us and not buying from us. This one-sided “trade” relationship has hurt or killed industries, companies, factories and jobs here in the United States, while forcing wages and living standards to drop. It has also placed China in an unhealthy position of power over us. It is understandable that some American interests have benefited from this arrangement, becoming fabulously wealthy while at the same time strengthening their whip-hand by pitting China’s low-wage rights-suppressed workers against American employees who have enjoyed all the protections and benefits of democracy. But it is not clear why our own government has gone along. It is obvious now to all that the one-way arrangement with China has hurt us, closed our factories, devastated our “rust-belt” communities, created vast income disparities and created terrible imbalances in the world’s economy. Placing Orders Here Fixes Both Economies If China were to place orders tomorrow for $1.5 trillion in American-made goods, the effect on our economy, unemployment level, manufacturing base, budget deficit, state budget shortfalls, public-employee pensions, and a host of other problems would be immediate and dramatic. And with our economy and wages restored, our own orders of goods from China would increase, boosting their economy, too. Their trade manipulations are costing them. Workers, facing labor-rights suppression and import restrictions from joining the world’s economy, are increasingly restless. They face inflation and a pending financial crisis. And that huge cash reserve is increasingly at risk from the worldwide imbalances it causes. If China repositioned its policies from mercantilism to trade it would fix so many problems. So why don’t they? If Not Trade, What? If China were using trade to build their economy they would use that $1.5 trillion dollar reserve to place orders here for American-made goods, boosting our economy, and boosting our ability to trade further with them. But they are not. They are sacrificing their own economic position to instead build their power position. China is cleverly using the greed and power of our Chamber of Commerce, huge multinationals, Wall Street, etc, to manipulate our government into letting them to sell China the rope to hang us with. The more China continues these manipulations even at its own expense, the more we should perhaps be understanding these imbalances as a national security problem instead of a trade problem. China isn’t trading , it is seizing the means of production. It is using manipulations of trade to gather wealth and power to itself at the expense of the rest of the world. It is vitally important for U.S. opinion leaders and policymakers to address this. We have been hypnotized by the word “trade” and the result is we are ignoring our national security. We are not minding our business. It is time to tell them to start trading fair or we’ll start minding our business with a big, fat tariff on imports so we can start paying down our deficits and rebuilding our manufacturing and jobs base. This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

World’s New Most Valuable Brand

May 9, 2011

Apple has overtaken Google as the world’s most valuable brand, ending a four-year reign by the Internet search leader, according to a new study by global brands agency Millward Brown. The iPhone and iPad maker’s brand is now worth $153 billion, almost half Apple’s market capitalization, says the annual BrandZ study of the world’s top 100 brands. Apple’s portfolio of coveted consumer goods propelled it past Microsoft to become the world’s most valuable technology company last year. Peter Walshe, global brands director of Millward Brown, says Apple’s meticulous attention to detail, along with an increasing presence of its gadgets in corporate environments, have allowed it to behave differently from other consumer-electronics makers. “Apple is breaking the rules in terms of its pricing model,” he told Reuters by telephone. “It’s doing what luxury brands do, where the higher price the brand is, the more it seems to underpin and reinforce the desire.” “Obviously, it has to be allied to great products and a great experience, and Apple has nurtured that.” Of the top 10 brands in Monday’s report, six were technology and telecoms companies: Google at number two, IBM at number three, Microsoft at number five, AT&T at number seven and China Mobile at number nine. McDonald’s rose two places to number four, as fast food became the fastest-growing category, Coca-Cola slipped one place to number six, Marlboro was also down one to number eight, and General Electric was number 10. Walshe said demand from China was a major factor in the rise of fast-food brands. “The Chinese have been discovering fast food and it’s such a vast market — Starbucks, McDonald’s… and pizza has hit China,” he said. “The way McDonald’s has reinvented itself, adapted its menus, added healthy options, expanding the times of day it can be visited, for example oatmeal for breakfast… that allied with growth in developing markets has really helped that brand.” Nineteen of the top 100 brands came from emerging markets, up from 13 last year. Facebook entered the top 100 at number 35 with a brand valued at $19.1 billion, while Chinese search engine Baidu rose to number 29 from 46. Toyota reclaimed its position as the world’s most valuable car brand, as it recovered from a bungled 2010 product recall. The survey was carried out before the March earthquake that caused massive disruption to Japanese supply chains. The total value of the top 100 brands rose by 17 percent to $2.4 trillion, as the global economy shifted to growth. Millward Brown takes as a starting point the value that companies put on their own main brands as intangibles in their earnings reports. It combines that with the perceptions of more than 2 million consumers in relevant markets around the world whom it surveys over the course of the year, and then applies a multiple derived from the company’s short-term future growth prospects. The full report is at www.millwardbrown.com/brandz. (Editing by David Cowell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Asia Ahead: Chinese data grabs global attention this week

May 8, 2011

Asia Ahead: Chinese data grabs global attention this week

Read the full article →

Jobs Increase In April, But The Employment Picture Isn’t All Bright

May 6, 2011

This story was reported and written in collaboration with our partners at Patch.com . If you’re among the millions of Americans who don’t have a job and want one, you may have drawn some encouragement from a government report that came out this morning. According to the numbers-crunchers at the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US economy added 244,000 jobs last month, making it three straight months in which the national payroll has increased by a monthly average of more than 200,000 positions. If you took a closer look, though, you might not have felt quite so encouraged. Jobs in some of the key higher-wage industries -– the kind that an economy needs to go from recovering to recovered –- are still lagging behind low-wage work. Nearly a quarter of the new jobs were in the retail sector, where the average hourly rate as of last year was $9.03, only a dollar and change above the current minimum wage. A very small and thoroughly unscientific sampling of job-related stories in towns and neighborhoods around the country seemed to confirm that things on the job-creation front are pretty ambiguous — not quite as bleak as they’ve been at times in the recent past, and not quite as bright as the overall job-growth numbers might lead you to expect. In Patchogue, N.Y., Anthony Hubert, a manager of the Roast Coffee and Tea Trading Company, said that the café was looking to hire baristas and had been getting lots of applications. Good news, right? Sure, but it came with a caveat. “Usually applicants are overqualified,” he said. “We’re looking for someone who has experience in cafés, but need someone younger without a college degree.” The problem with college degrees, he said, is that people who have them tend to hang up their aprons when better-paying jobs come calling. Not that the no-grad guideline is written into the company rulebook. The café recently hired a graduate of St. John’s University, Nicole Westfall. She’s making nine dollars an hour, exactly three cents below the 2010 retail-sector average. “You send resumés all over,” she said, “but every employer wants experience that isn’t there.” On the opposite side of the country, in Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., about 200 people filed into a McDonald’s recently for what the company billed as its “National Hiring Day.” Maybe an eighth of them would walk away with jobs; the restaurant said it was looking to hire 25 workers. Jairo Moran, a store manager, said he met a lot of applicants who’d been unemployed since the start of the recession. “At this point, they really had to find a job,” he said. One of the applicants was Ken Bishop, a 30-year-old resident of Long Beach who said he’d already filled out paperwork in four other restaurants by the time he got to the McDonald’s. He planned to apply to three more jobs by the end of the day. Since losing his job as a greeter at Verizon Wireless in early March, Bishop, had filled out 30 to 40 applications. It had been “tough,” he said, but he remained hopeful. Dressed in a suit and tie, he sounded a note of defiant optimism: “My long-term goal is to apply for a position, move up, go back to school and get into human resources. Anything you can use as a starting point to move from point A to B to C to D. Everyone has to start somewhere.” In Morristown, N.J., Melissa Rivardo, a 42-year-old resident, put an even more positive spin on a recent bout of unemployment. After losing a restaurant job in 2008 — a job she’d held for ten years — she looked for a new job in the restaurant industry, she said. But the few owners who were hiring then didn’t give her a chance — it was clear, she said, they wanted someone younger. So she enrolled in a course for massage therapy, her passion. It paid off. She ended up getting a waiter job after all and now works two jobs — massage therapy and waiting tables. When her old restaurant closed, she said, “I felt some anxiety but then I also felt a sense of freedom to pursue what I had been thinking about for a long time.” Sal Canzonieri, a 51-year-old resident of Whippany, N.J., told a similar stor y. In 2008 he lost his job as a technical writer to Alcatel-Lucent, a company that makes telecom equipment. He’d been working there for 25 years when the company outsourced operations to China. But if China took away his old job, it supplied him with a new one, too, in a way. With the threat of bankruptcy and foreclosure looming, Canzonieri thought about how much he’d enjoyed teaching Qigong and Kung Fu to coworkers as part of the company’s employee wellness program. He decided to open his own business; what did he have to lose? He now teaches the Chinese martial arts in ten locations. *** Check out these other bleak/bright job-related dispatches from the Patch network: In Alpharetta, Ga., investments in city infrastructure attract high-tech jobs. (Bright.) In Port Washington, N.Y., a ” war for talent .” (Bright.) In Red Bank, N.J., a job recruiter advises ” Fall in love with the word ‘no .’” (Bleak.) In Ridgefield, Conn., the Chamber of Commerce reports an increase in ” small opportunities .” (Partly sunny?)

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Let Trade BE Trade

May 6, 2011

Since China’s admission into the World Trade Organization we have been packing up our factories and sending them over there. We have been buying so many things made in China, but they have not been buying very many things made here, and the resulting “trade deficit” has gotten worse year after year. Everyone is afraid of what China might do with all those trillion$ in US Bonds they have accumulated. We are told to be afraid, that we need to cut Medicare and Social Security and unemployment benefits and all the other things We, the People do for each other, and learn to be poor. There is a better way to solve the problem: let trade BE trade. Trade Should BE Trade Trade is supposed to be about trading . It is not supposed to just be a scheme to drive wages and living standards down by packing up factories and moving them across borders. It is not supposed to be “take a pay cut and a cut in benefits or we’ll move your job.” It is not supposed to be “well, we have something called globalization now so everyone should expect to be poorer and poorer every year.” Trade is supposed to be we buy what they make and they use the money we pay them to buy things we make. And then we use the money they paid us to buy things made there. And then they use the money we paid them to buy things made here. It is supposed to go on like that, and everyone does better and better. Better and better, not poorer and poorer. Let Me Take Your Order, Please So here is an idea for next week’s US-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue . Last year we “raised issues” and signed various memorandums of understanding but nothing changed. This time we have to stop putting off what has to be done. This time, let’s tell China that from now on trade will be trade. Here is what I mean: When the meeting begins Secretaries Clinton (State) and Geithner (Treasury) and Locke (Commerce) should slide a big stack of order forms across the table and say, “Your turn. Let us take your orders now, please.” That is what China can do with all of those US Bonds they have been accumulating. They can start trading , which means buying things from us . And we should say that those things should be things , not companies or farms or real estate or more factories. Our government should make it clear that it is their turn. It is time for trade to BE trade. And if not, we will put a big tariff on goods made in China until it is. Conditions We need to put a few conditions on the deal. Just like they do. They have not been trading with us, they have been seizing the means of production. There is a long list of schemes and manipulations and conditions China uses to rig the game, and it is time to stop this nonsense. The main unfair tactics China uses to its advantage : 1) Currency manipulation. China “pegs” its currency at a very low, or “weak” rate, so goods from China cost up to 40% less than they otherwise should. 2) Labor-rights suppression, which has lowered manufacturing wages of Chinese workers by 47% to 86%. 3) Massive direct government subsidization of export production in many key industries. 4) Environmental degradation that ends up affecting all of us. 5) Intellectual property theft and piracy, which mean that American products that could be sold are stolen instead. 6) A number of policies that block U.S. firms from market access. It is necessary to bring their currency to market rates, but this is not all that must be done to bring trade into balance. It helps; it doesn’t fix it. Do What They Do In our scenario our administration has handed a stack of order forms to the Chinese delegation, and said, “We’re ready to take your order now.” Tell them the deal for cashing in those bonds — and continuing to sell to us without big tariffs — is that China has to actually trade with us, and spend all of those accumulated bonds on goods made here. (I guess if they can tell Social Security recipients that their bonds have been spent they can set conditions on China cashing in theirs… right?) We don’t make that here anymore, you say? Well, here is a solution to that, too. We can just do what they do . We can say, you have to build a plant here that does that. And you have to “partner” with an American company before you can even do that. And you have to transfer your technology to that company. And after a few years your company goes away and the factory and the technology and the market will be ours. Believe it or not, that is what they say to our companies, and for far too long our government has let them get away with that. So along with the stack of order forms, they can tell China that we are going to start doing what they do. Go down the above list, point by point, and just do what they do. Leave out the labor-suppression and environmental degradation parts. We Can’t Just Go Back To The Old Way There are huge interests here and in China who have done very well because of the “trade” policies of recent years. With the economic crisis heading into the past they are pushing very hard to just go back to the way things were. Of course they are. And they are very, very powerful. The Chamber of Commerce runs hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign ads urging us to just go back to doing the things that brought them so much wealth and power. In China those who accumulated great wealth and power from these schemes are fighting hard to just keep it going. The imbalances have been just great for them, and they use the resulting wealth and power to push for more. But the resulting imbalances have been terrible for everyone else in the world . The imbalances have drained wealth and power from everyone else in the world. Can everyone else in the world overcome this or are we all helpless against the onslaught? Or do we have to wait for the next crisis to completely destroy everything and rebuild from there? This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

The Return Of ‘Made In The USA’

May 5, 2011

NEW YORK (Nick Zieminski) – The “Made in the USA” label may be poised for a comeback, a new study argues. The next few years will bring a wave of reinvestment by U.S. multinational manufacturers in their home base, as rising wages and a strong yuan currency make China a less attractive production center, the paper by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) predicts. The study, published on Thursday, says U.S. reinvestment will accelerate as the United States becomes one of the cheapest locations for manufacturing in the developed world. If it came to fruition, such reinvestment could speed up a delicate economic recovery that has yet to gain much traction. There is evidence the trend has already started: * Caterpillar Inc has repatriated manufacturing of construction excavators, boosting investment in facilities in Texas, Arkansas and Illinois. * NCR Corp brought back production of automatic teller machines to Georgia, creating 870 jobs. * Toymaker Wham-O moved production of Frisbees and Hula-Hoops from China and Mexico to the United States. More such announcements are likely over the next year or two, BCG says, citing conversations with clients. “If you work the math out using today’s numbers. you’d still say it’s a good idea to go to China,” said Hal Sirkin, a senior BCG partner and lead author of the study. “(But) around 2015, you get to a point of indifference between producing in the U.S. and producing in China.” Wages in China are still a fraction of what U.S. workers earn. Direct pay and benefits for production workers in the United States are about $22 per hour, versus only about $2 in China, roughly 9 percent of the U.S. cost. But that difference is expected to narrow, with the Chinese worker earning about 17 percent as much as his or her U.S. counterpart four years from now. Factoring in higher U.S. productivity rates, the weaker U.S. dollar and other factors, such as shipping costs, that difference could narrow further. “MADE IN THE USA” The study predicts China will remain a major global player — just less of an exporter to the United States. China will still export to Europe, whose workers are less able to move for jobs than U.S. workers are. U.S. wage advantages could eventually reach the point that European automakers will export U.S.-made cars to Europe, the study said. The appeal of a shorter supply chain and fewer headaches from issues like intellectual property will also help encourage jobs and production to come back to the United States, BCG said. Policy could also nudge manufacturers to make the move. High unemployment is driving state incentives to attract factories, while unions are becoming more flexible. Still, the study’s thesis is based on assumptions that may not play out. One is that supply and demand of labor in China are increasingly moving out of balance. Another is that demand from a growing Chinese middle class will raise costs, as factories shift to producing for domestic consumption and workers demand more pay to pay for goods that were out of reach before. Also, the yuan’s rally could reverse. Since China first loosened restrictions on trading the yuan, its value has steadily strengthened from more than 8 yuan to the U.S. dollar in 2005 to fewer than 6.5 per dollar now. The expected U.S. reinvestment, meanwhile, will affect some industries more than others. Shoes or clothing are work-intensive and do not require highly skilled labor. But higher-value goods made in lower volumes, such as home appliances and construction equipment, are more likely to bear the “Made in the USA” label in coming years — especially if they are large and expensive to ship. General Electric Co’s example supports the study’s contentions. GE’s appliance unit is in the middle of a four-year, $600 million plan to build up its manufacturing presence in Louisville, Kentucky, adding some 830 new jobs. “The default has been to say: ‘Let’s put the next plant in China,’” Sirkin said. “We’re saying: ‘Sit back and think through your options.’” BCG is a management consulting firm that advises large manufacturers on issues ranging from strategy to operations. (Additional reporting by Scott Malone in Boston, editing by Gerald E. McCormick) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Video: Clendenin Says `Risks Inherent’ in Renren’s Future

May 4, 2011

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Michael Clendenin, managing director at consultants RedTech Advisers in Shanghai, talks about an initial U.S. share sale by Renren Inc. Renren, which leads Chinese social-networking websites by page views, is seeking a valuation more than double that of Facebook Inc. in an initial public offering to raise as much as $743.4 million. Clendenin speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Clendenin Says `Risks Inherent’ in Renren’s Future

May 4, 2011

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Michael Clendenin, managing director at consultants RedTech Advisers in Shanghai, talks about an initial U.S. share sale by Renren Inc. Renren, which leads Chinese social-networking websites by page views, is seeking a valuation more than double that of Facebook Inc. in an initial public offering to raise as much as $743.4 million. Clendenin speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Clendenin Says `Risks Inherent’ in Renren’s Future

May 4, 2011

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Michael Clendenin, managing director at consultants RedTech Advisers in Shanghai, talks about an initial U.S. share sale by Renren Inc. Renren, which leads Chinese social-networking websites by page views, is seeking a valuation more than double that of Facebook Inc. in an initial public offering to raise as much as $743.4 million. Clendenin speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: China: Be Careful What You Wish for

May 2, 2011

The global economy may be a mess, but the world’s central bankers like to congratulate themselves for one thing. Inflation has been tamed. Sorry, bankers, but the low level of price inflation has little if anything to do with skilled central banking. In the short run, the absence of price pressure reflects the prolonged recession. And for the past decade or so, the low inflation is the result of China’s low wages. That’s right. Consumer prices are flat in substantial part because China sends us so much stuff, dirt cheap. This puts downward pressure on prices. The real price is paid both by Chinese workers who are paid a pittance and by American workers who either restrain their own wages or watch jobs move to China. But all that may be changing, and the change will be a mixed blessing. China, long politely criticized by the US government for managing the value of its currency, is now allowing the renminbi gradually to rise in value. Analysts say China wants a stronger currency to fight inflation. China is both contributing to the inflation and suffering from it, by being such a large new buyer of raw materials that it drives up prices. A stronger Chinese currency means that the price impact is buffered — for the Chinese. China has also been criticized for its low wages. But the Beijing regime has also begun allowing wages to rise, as part of its strategy of domestic development. Bottom line, stuff from China won’t be quite as cheap. That, along with the impact of higher worldwide commodities prices, means higher inflation on the horizon for the US. Unlike the Chinese, we are not letting our currency appreciate in value. We are watching it fall. What does all this mean? Economics, infamously, is the science of on-the-one-hand-this, on-the-other-hand-that. On the one hand, it’s about time that China let its currency behave more like others and began paying its workers more than a pittance. A more expensive Chinese currency and better Chinese wages will be marginally good for American exports, and also good for US wages. On the other hand, the free ride on inflation may be ending. If so, we could face pressure to raise interest rates at a time when the economy is still suffering from very slow growth and very high unemployment. That means a worse recession. Professor Charles Kindleberger famously argued in his 1973 book, The World in Depression, that the world economy needs a hegemonic monetary power, to provide a reliable currency, and to be both a lender and a market of last resort. Britain played that role in the 19th century, and the US after World War II. According to Kindleberger, the interwar period was such an economic disaster because no country played that role. China is fast becoming the monetary hegemon of the 21st century. It has done a benign job of buying our bonds at low interest rates. But it has done a terrible job of opening its markets or managing its currency in the world’s interest. On the contrary, its behavior has been entirely mercantilist, in its own self interest. But if China starts behaving more like a normal nation, we could end up paying more to sell our bonds, and having to deal with higher inflation as well. And, increasingly, China will be in the drivers seat. No hegemonic power is entirely benign. But the US in the postwar period wasn’t bad. It’s hard to imagine China bearing its new-found economic power entirely with altruism. Yet it would be comforting, but misleading, to scapegoat the Chinese. Yes, they do poach American jobs by subsidizing industry and paying crappy wages. But for the most part, the current crisis was made in U.S.A. If we had had an industrial policy, we’d have a stronger manufacturing sector. If we hadn’t let banks go nuts, we wouldn’t have a prolonged economic stagnation. And if we hadn’t gutted our tax code to reward the rich, we wouldn’t have a huge deficit that required the Chinese to buy so many bonds. Like it or not, China is now the 800 pound gorilla of the world’s economy. The thing about such beasts is that tend to do what they please. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril .

Read the full article →

China’s Facebook Copycat Attracts Investors Despite Big Risks

May 1, 2011

* Renren to raise about $690 mln in IPO next Tuesday * IPO would value company at $5 bln vs Facebook’s $70 bln * Censorship, patents, accounting among Renren concerns By Melanie Lee and Clare Baldwin SHANGHAI/NEW YORK, April 29 (Reuters) – When Chinese social networking site Renren goes public next week, investors will likely ignore big risks the company faces, and be lured instead by a combination of the words “China” and “social networking.” Hot Chinese tech companies like Internet search engine Baidu Inc (BIDU.O) and online video site Youku.com (YOKU.N) have risen triple-digit percentages since their IPOs, whetting investors’ appetites for such offerings. And this is in a sector that is hot in the U.S. Facebook, the biggest social network company in the world, has a market value of somewhere around $70 billion, based on a share sale currently being contemplated, making it worth more than companies such as Boeing Co.[ID:nN27185713] The demand for Renren shares was clear on Friday when the company raised the expected price range of its IPO by 30 percent to $12 to $14 per share. “Appetite to invest in China right now is so strong that some investors are willing to ignore factors that they wouldn’t in other markets,” said Mark Natkin, managing director of Marbridge Consulting, a Beijing-based company that advises investors on China’s Internet and telecommunications sectors. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Renren revised filing shows slower growth [ID:nN28228501] Insider on Renren valuation link.reuters.com/zyk39r Breakingviews column on Renren [ID:nLDE73H0EF] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> Renren’s IPO filings do raise a handful of very serious questions. For one thing, Renren doesn’t really seem sure how many users it has. According to its April 27 revised IPO filing, the Chinese Facebook clone’s monthly unique log-in user base grew by only 5 million, or 19 percent, in the first quarter of 2011 — not the 7 million, or 29 percent, it reported in its first filing only 12 days earlier.[ID:nN28228501] Some investors and analysts brush off such red flags — after all China is the biggest Internet market in the world and it is growing rapidly. They justify their cavalier attitude by saying that figures reported by Chinese companies should be used for directional information and not as perfect quantitative measurements. Others say the opaque information is a big problem. “If you can’t validate the numbers or the company proves it doesn’t have a good handle on the numbers, then you’ve got to be concerned,” said Gary Rieschel, founder of Qiming Venture Partners, which is an investor in Renren rival Kaixin001. Another possible risk for investors is the broad government oversight that Renren, and other companies operating in China, face. Chinese authorities keep extremely close tabs on Internet companies, arguing that this is necessary to maintain social harmony. This led to a big bust up between Google Inc. (GOOG.O) and the Chinese government last year that ended with Google curtailing its operations in the country. Renren says in the risk factors section of its IPO prospectus that this means a prohibition against posting content that, among other things, “impairs the national dignity of China” or is “superstitious.” The prospectus doesn’t mention the recent Middle Eastern uprisings, which led to a crackdown on the use of certain words on the Internet in China, but it does say Renren may not post content that is “socially destabilizing.” If Renren fails to comply, the company says that its websites could be shut down. Clearly that could put it out of business. Whether a social network page posting is objectionable is determined by the Chinese authorities. Renren is also required to monitor advertisements on its websites, some of which are subject to special government review before they are posted. Renren must even guard against providing services that may lead to its users finding themselves in “emotionally charged situations.” MATERIAL WEAKNESS The company also said in its filings that while it hasn’t conducted a comprehensive review, it found a “material weakness” and a “significant deficiency” in its internal financial controls: Renren doesn’t have enough people with knowledge of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. It also lacks a formal policy for investing surplus cash and managing its treasury functions. That’s not unusual for Chinese IPO companies. Neither is the fact that 87 percent of Renren’s leased floor area did not have the proper title documents. But it all paints a picture of a company that is far from risk free. Still, it isn’t difficult to find people who will give it the benefit of the doubt. “Given the investors it has who have board seats and who work closely with it, you would expect any major issues to have turned up by now,” said Nick Einhorn, an analyst at Connecticut-based IPO research and investment house Renaissance Capital. Renren’s investors include private equity firm General Atlantic and venture capital firm DCM. LAWSUIT Renren may also face some heat over intellectual property questions. When social networking website Kaixin001.com started taking off, Renren founder and CEO Joseph Chen launched a matching site with a similar color scheme and layout under the name Kaixin.com. Kaixin001.com won a lawsuit that ultimately resulted in Chen changing the name of another of his social networking sites to Renren, and merging Kaixin.com into Renren. Sources have told Reuters that Kaixin001 is also planning a U.S. IPO. Renren in its IPO filings also said that its social networking platform may be subject to patent infringement claims, and mentions Facebook as one of the potential claimants. Still, while Renren has posted losses in each of the past two years, it could still be a dream growth stock. Its net revenue grew more than fivefold to $76.54 million in 2010 from $13.78 million in 2008. But there will be some who, after reading the prospectus, may wonder whether the risks outweigh the rewards. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin in New York and Melanie Lee in Shanghai, additional reporting by Alina Selyukh and Richard Lee in New York. Editing by Dan Wilchins, Martin Howell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Dylan Ratigan: How Much Longer for the "Royals"?

April 28, 2011

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. Tomorrow we will see a wedding between a Prince and a soon-to-be Princess. Polling in the US and UK shows that the public itself is largely apathetic, but we in the media can’t seem to get enough of the event. The wedding will cost over $100 million in security and ceremonial costs, and the British government is giving everyone the day off. Ordinary people will use this day ostensibly to celebrate the ceremonies of those born to privilege. But what they will probably do instead is ignore the wedding and spend time with their families. In America, we’re seeing our own version of this. According to the Business Roundtable, the confidence of American CEOs has never been higher . But 70% of the American public thinks that the country is on the wrong track. If you listen closely, you can hear a subtle creaking under the hood of the global economic system, like a car on the road that is slowly breaking down. Every day there’s a new funny noise, something that says it’s just not working right. The basic dynamic is inequality all over the world, in staggering proportions. But the interesting nugget is not the unfairness, but the increasing inability of elites to manage the increasing anger coming from the global losers. Last week, it was in China, a country with even worse inequality than our own. The largest container port in the world — Shanghai — saw a serious strike by Chinese truckers. The strike was muzzled by a combination of a media blackout, police power, and select concessions by the Chinese government to the strikers. So what does that have to do with us? Plenty. China makes what America consumes. Take, for instance, Walmart. Walmart is increasingly a Chinese company these days, orchestrating the shipping of goods made by incredibly poor Chinese workers to increasingly poor American consumers . Apple is another hybrid Chinese company, a middle-man. Steve Jobs makes billions running a design, retail, marketing, and R&D shop in the US known as Apple. His business partner Foxconn CEO Terry Guo makes his billions making iPads, iPods, and iPhones with 800,000 “iSlaves” in China. This is a system, and the strategy behind it is quite explicit. Economists have designed it, and they call it fighting inflation. Since wage gains contribute to inflation, stopping wage gains is the goal of the international trading regime. The natural end result is low wage workers in China selling to high debt consumers in America. You get an unstable system with a deeply immoral core, but hey, at least there’s no inflation. How do I know this is done on purpose? Well, the people in charge of the system say it when they think no one’s paying attention. I’m going to return to this Federal Open Market Committee transcript from 2005, which has received too little attention. Here’s Fed Dallas President Richard Fisher describing his conversations with area CEOs. Everyone I’ve talked to continues to try to figure out ways to exploit globalization. Each of them, from the IT [information technology] guys to the big box retailers to the specialty chemical firms to the service firms, wants to have offshore supply. One of the CEOs said, “We have a long way to go in exploiting China.” We’ve heard that forever. If you read the New York Times article two days ago about Shanghai’s new deep water port, you have to realize that those facilities are being built to ship goods out of China, not so much to ship goods into China… Now, this is good news on the disinflationary front. The bad news is stateside. We don’t have the capacity to absorb it. Long Beach and the Northwest harbors are constrained. Work rules, according to our interlocutors, are very slow to adjust. But there are ways to beat the bottlenecks… Wal- Mart just built a four million square foot warehouse in the Houston port, in order to shift part of the burden from Long Beach. But it is evident that the enemy is us as far as exploiting globalization, and I think that’s a long-term problem that we might want to take note of over time. Get that? Shanghai is increasingly an export-only port. Fisher’s statements were in 2005, when our country couldn’t accept enough goods because of bottlenecks at our ports. But beat the bottleneck we did, by widening the Panama Canal a few years later so China could ship to east coast ports as well. So now the American factory floor is being transferred to China at a faster and faster rate. Which brings me back to the strikes. American CEOs have exported not just our job base, but all the labor unrest that can come with it. China is running out of capacity to make our products, and commodity prices are going up for them as well. So inflation is hitting Chinese workers very hard right now — one of the causes of the trucker strike was a significant hike in fuel prices. The Chinese government quickly made concessions to the strikers, and is broadly attempting to deal with an incredible gap between the rich and the poor. But as Reuters noted , they aren’t doing this because of goodwill. Their worry is political: The Party leadership is especially jumpy about threats to its control following online calls for “Jasmine Revolution” protests inspired by anti-authoritarian uprisings across the Arab world, and has detained dozens of dissidents. Food price hikes sparked strikes in Egypt, which eventually turned into a political revolution. The Chinese government isn’t stupid, but it is trapped. Their strategy is to take American know-how by undercutting us on price, using protectionist measures that we stupidly allow. Our own corporate oligarchs are well-aware of this dynamic as well. They have been preparing for this moment for some time. Walmart (along with GE and even more surprisingly, Google) led the fight in April, 2007 to gut a new labor law proposed for Chinese workers on issues like collective bargaining, severance, etc. The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai is using aggressive tactics to ensure that Chinese wages would remain low. Perhaps there is something ironic about aggressive lobbying tactics by multinationals being used effectively in both communist and capitalist legislatures to suppress worker rights. Or perhaps not. But you cannot suppress reality forever, and the strikes in Shanghai show that top-heavy gains eventually have consequences, even for those who make the rules. It’s not always as dramatic as Mubarak’s fall, but then again, Mubarak’s fall wasn’t the point when those first Egyptians began striking in 2007. It was the rising prices. It’s a very good time to be rich. The global trading system is benefiting those who manage huge capital flows. But unstable systems have a way of collapsing. And you can hear the creaking, even above the media circus of the royal wedding. Catch more from Dylan at DylanRatigan.com .

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: A Tipping Point for the Dollar and the Yuan

April 25, 2011

We are at a tipping point for the advent of a new global currency that will recognize the seeds of the dollar’s fall and the rise of China as the new world economic power. It will take time, but you could grasp it in the multiple examples of changes being floated in the public arena. The amazingly steady climb of gold and silver for 5 straight weeks to new peak prices is the signal that investors recognize the dollar — and therefore dollar securities — are risky. Gold and silver and to a lesser extent oil have become hedges against the dollar’s decline. In China, Xia Bom, an adviser to the People’s Bank of China, China’s central bank, did not rule out this week a one-off revaluation upward of the Chinese currency. Such a move would be highly beneficial to the Chinese economy; it would dampen the worrying high rate of inflation by making it cheaper to buy the natural resources China requires for her 9.7% rate of growth including energy, metals, coal — and even foodstuffs. Controlling inflation is a key priority in China, and a yuan appreciation would be a bold surprise — but may be required if the policy of raising bank interest rates does not work. And it would mean China could continue to buy US Treasury securities at a cheaper price to make up for the declining value of the dollar, which hit a new low for the past several decades today. If the yuan rises as the dollar goes lower, it’s beneficial for the profits of US multinationals like Apple, Proctor & Gamble, and Colgate Palmolive, that sell their products to China. That’s one explanation for the surprising spike in stock prices this week, as earnings reports surprise on the upside. However, a yuan appreciation with a lower dollar might mean a spike in all other Asian currencies as well like the Singapore dollar. Add up the negatives for the dollar. A rating agency that puts the government on notice about its credit rating. The sad spectacle of waiting until the last minute to raise the debt limit. The brutal standoff between Republicans and Democrats over the need to reduce the federal budget deficit — estimated at $1.5 trillion — or over 10% of the budget. Oil at $112 a barrel means a higher trade deficit, and a larger budget deficit. My gold gurus, Frank Giustra and Chris Wood, are skeptical about a meaningful deal on retrenchment in the US, and strongly believe gold as a momentum play has no equal. Wood is so optimistic he is telling US pension funds to have a 40% weighting for gold bullion and gold mining shares. This is 8 times the position just amassed by the University of Texas pension fun

Read the full article →

Jeffrey Rubin: When Will We See Demand Destruction for Oil?

April 21, 2011

How high must oil prices go before they start killing the very demand that feeds them? Everybody from the International Monetary Fund to the International Energy Agency (IEA) are warning of dire economic consequences if today’s triple digit oil prices persist. Curiously though, the IEA , which is warning of a potential global recession due to today’s oil prices, is also predicting an almost 1.5 million barrel a day increase in world demand this year. And judging by their recent track record, this forecast, like the one it made early last year for 2010, will once again be on the light side. Somber warnings from leading world institutions aside, there is no evidence yet of demand destruction in the places that have been pushing world consumption for over the better part of the past decade. Preliminary data on apparent fuel consumption show Chinese oil demand, already closing in on 10 million barrels a day, continued to grow at a double digit rate in March for the sixth consecutive month. That doesn’t sound like demand destruction to me. Of course, that is not to say there won’t be demand destruction in the future as oil prices continue to rise. All past oil shocks have resulted in recessions and falling crude prices, and there is no reason to expect the coming one will be any different. Given how high oil prices will likely rise ($200/barrel?) and the likely lack of fiscal counter measures from deficit ridden governments when the economy does finally keel over, there is potentially even more room for demand destruction than during the last recession. Keep in mind, the last recession was severe enough to register the first annual drop in world oil consumption since 1983. But what is still lacking for demand destruction to happen is the huge round of monetary tightening that always attenuates oil shocks. It’s no doubt coming. Just look how interest rates are already chasing runaway energy and food inflation in the world economy’s new growth areas, China and India. Facing 5.5 percent inflation, the People’s Bank of China has already increased interest rates four times over the past six months, and inflation will soon force other central banks around the world to follow their lead. Just as they did last time, those rate hikes, along with the burden of skyrocketing fuel bills, will eventually knock the economy back into recession. But until then, it is a little too early to focus on demand destruction. In the meantime, a fuel-hungry world economy will push oil prices to new record highs.

Read the full article →

PARTNERS: Nokia, Microsoft Ink Major Deal

April 21, 2011

By Tarmo Virki, European Technology Correspondent (HELSINKI) – Nokia Oyj’s earnings fell less than expected in the first quarter and the company signed a final agreement to start using Microsoft Corp software, sending its shares 3 percent higher. But gains were capped by the company’s forecast for profits to fall in coming quarters, due in part to Japan’s earthquake which hit component supplies across the technology sector. Underlying earnings per share fell to 0.13 euros in the three months through March from 0.14 a year earlier, beating analysts’ average forecast for 0.10. Nokia’s market share fell to 29 percent from 33 percent as nimbler Asian rivals ate into its dominant position in cheaper phones and it continued to lose out in more expensive smartphones to Apple Inc and others. To turn around its smartphone fortunes, Nokia’s new Chief Executive Stephen Elop in February unveiled a deal to start using Microsoft software instead of its own Symbian platform. Nokia said the deal enables it to cut annual costs by around 1 billion euros ($1.5 billion). Labour union officials said they expect Nokia to start lay-off talks next week. “Finalization of the agreement with Microsoft means Nokia can now focus on execution, but margin guidance underlines that difficult times lie ahead as it transitions the portfolio,” said analyst Geoff Blaber at CCS Insight. Nokia’s key phone unit reported an operating profit margin of 9.8 percent for January-March, well ahead of analysts forecast of 8.6 percent, but said for the full year the margin would fall to within a 6 to 9 percent range. Analysts on average expected the margin to drop to 8.5 percent. NIL-NIL Shares in Nokia were 3 percent higher at 6.11 euro by 6:57 a.m. EDT, outperforming 1.3 percent gain in the STOXX Europe 600 Technology Index. The stock remains well down on a record 65 euros seen in 2000. “It’s a bit of a no-score draw really. You’ve got a solid set of numbers but guidance is bad,” said Richard Windsor, global technology specialist at Nomura. “You’ve got a little bit of relief going on today but it probably doesn’t have legs in it.” Nokia forecast second-quarter sales at its phone unit would fall to between 6.1 and 6.6 billion euros, well below analysts’ average forecast of 6.9 billion, partly due to component shortages stemming from the March earthquake in Japan. “We expect these factors and their negative impact on our mobile devices volumes to continue not only during the second quarter 2011 but also through the third quarter 2011 at least,” Nokia said in a statement. Despite its bargaining power analysts say Nokia is likely to be among the phone makers worst hit by the disruption to supplies from last month’s devastating Japanese earthquake. It makes 450 million phones a year, which means quick and big changes in component supply are difficult. Nokia’s smaller rival Sony Ericsson said this week there were shortages of displays, batteries, camera modules and some printed circuit boards. Nokia’s telecom network gear arm Nokia Siemens Networks reported a surprise profit for the quarter and said Chinese regulators had approved its $975 million acquisition of Motorola Solutions’ gear business, clearing the last major hurdle for the deal to go through. The deal, which Nokia Siemens expects to close on April 29, will make the venture the second-largest globally and give it better access to the North American market. (Additional reporting by Terhi Kinnunen in Helsinki, with Georgina Prodhan in London and Mia Shanley and Simon Johnson in Stockholm; Editing by David Holmes) ($1=.6850 Euro) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Eric K. Clemons: The Real and Inevitable Harm From Vertical Integration of Search Engine Providers Into Sales and Distribution

April 20, 2011

This is the second installment in a three-part series on the Department of Justice, Google, and the Consent Decree. Read part one here . A proper discussion of the benefits and limitations of the recent Consent Decree between the Department of Justice and Google, concerning Google’s acquisition of ITA, needs to begin with a discussion of appropriate measures for potential harm to the competitive process and to potential competitors. The Decree attempts to ensure that current users of ITA’s travel industry software will continue to have access to the latest revisions at commercially reasonable prices, and that Google will continue to invest in ITA’s software rather than developing proprietary offerings for itself. Unfortunately, the Decree does not address the greatest danger, which is not that Google will deny competitors like Orbitz and Kayak access to ITA’s software, but rather that Google will deny competitors access to the consumers that they all are seeking to serve. The real danger is that search has become an essential facility, that Google could deny competitors access to this essential facility, and that they could do so in a manner that keeps consumers happy. As we have addressed previously , it is possible to harm the competitive process, to reduce consumer welfare, and to do so in a manner that is not obvious to consumers. What Form Could Harm Take? How can consumers be harmed by search without knowing it immediately? More specifically, how can consumers be harmed by the Consent Decree, which allows Google to integrate into the provision of services, improve consumer convenience, and offers “no-click” rather than one-click solutions? Interestingly, the most offensive examples of potential consumer harm come from Microsoft’s Bing, rather than from Google. Consider the following set of search results. I see four paid search results, still called “sponsored sites” instead of the more accurate and explicit “ads” label now used by Google. I always ignore ads on search, so I go to the first organic result, which is nicely highlighted with a huge basketball. I click on the basketball … and … … I can buy Lakers tickets without even leaving Bing. How convenient is that? Well, yes. And how what chance to competing ticket sellers have to reach customers? Notice that this site actually appears above the Lakers own site; is that the natural organic ranking? Do more customers historically buy Lakers tickets from Microsoft than from the Lakers? Will Microsoft offer this service to the Lakers without charge, now and forever? At its worst, hotels.com was charging hotels a 30% commission. If Bing imposes excessive charges on the Lakers, or on all basketball teams, it can do so in a way that will keep consumers happy; they don’t see need to see these charges anywhere. But a high surcharge on distribution is a form of invisible tax, and it will be passed on to consumers. This is an example of a third-party payer mechanism ; it is expensive, not subject to market discipline, and yet seems to improve consumer welfare because its harmful effects are quite invisible. One click, top organic spot, should direct a great deal of traffic to Bing’s ticketing agency. What faster and more convenient than having Bing’s site come up after a single click? What about having it come up as the only response? The first time I search for flights from Philadelphia to Orlando I am directed to an effectively integrated flight site, much as I was directed to the integrated site for Lakers tickets. But the second time I do the search the only thing that shows up in the search box, even before I finish typing the query, is Bing’s travel site. What if instead of Bing this had been Google, with its 65% of US market share and its 95% of EU market share? What could it do with this integration? Surely, it could keep consumers happy, with convenience, among other things. And surely, it could grow its share. Then, it could use its market power to demand discounts, which it would share with consumers, much as hotels.com did. Ultimately, completing websites would lose importance, and indeed they might fail, further increasing Google’s market power. Then, Google could demand excessive commissions, perhaps as high as the 30% commission once charged by hotels.com. Consumers would not complain; they would be receiving apparent discounts, discounts below hotels and airlines published prices. Indeed, consumers would be happy with the added convenience and lower price. Notice the progression: (1) Consumers are offered increased convenience at no visible cost to themselves and are happy. (2) The competitive process is harmed. (3) Third parties, online travel sites that want to be found, or hotels and other actual travel service providers that want to be found, pay higher fees, although these fees are never directly visible to happy consumers. (4) These higher fees inevitably increase the operating expenses of the entire travel industry, and inevitably increase consumer prices, while remaining invisible to consumers in the third-party payer business model , and while consumers remain content and oblivious to harm. It really would not possible for the hotels’ and airlines’ own direct distribution sites to compete, or for travel integration sites like Kayak or Orbitz to compete, unless consumers were willing to examine and compare the offerings of each URL separately rather than using search at all. Not only is there no limit to what Google could charge travel sites to “not be not found,” which is the problem existed before Google’s move into search; now Google would have a reason to hide some or all of these sites no matter what they are willing to pay. For this reason, we believe that search engines should be forbidden to engage in vertical integration into comparison of goods and services, or into direct sale of goods and services. We feel that this should be blocked irrespective of the mechanism used to create the vertical integration; search engine providers should not be allowed to develop this vertical integration internally nor acquire it through acquisition, regardless of assurances offered to regulators of fair pricing or Chinese walls.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Why Trump Gets Traction From Trade

April 20, 2011

Donald Trump is getting traction. He is talking about trade, jobs, China, manufacturing, China, jobs, China and China — and it is resonating with a public sick of being told to ignore what they can see in front of their faces. “Nobody, other than OPEC, is ripping off the United States like China,” he says. And he climbs in the polls. Why is blowhard Donald Trump getting such traction from talking about trade problems with China? Self-funded, Trump doesn’t require the support of the multi-national corporate/financial elite to be heard. He is able to use his own money to push his way into the conversation. So unlike politicians captured by the cabal that runs our politics, who have to get past the corporate-journalism gatekeepers to raise money and be heard, he is able to give voice to things that are right in front of our faces. Poll After Poll After Poll Shows Public Wants… Trump can read polls and poll after poll after poll shows that Americans are concerned about jobs, and are especially concerned about how our economy is sending the good jobs and factories out of the country. They are asking why they can’t buy things here that are made here. Whether Trump believes what he is saying or not is irrelevant, he understands what the people are thinking, and is giving voice to those sentiments. Polls show the public wants tax increases on the rich, a focus on jobs not deficits, and more investment in infrastructure, education, transportation and alternatives to oil. A recent Alliance for American Manufacturing poll found that “We have lost too many manufacturing jobs” is the top concern among independents and working-class voters. Other highlights from the poll include: A majority believe the U.S. no longer has the world’s strongest economy — a title they want to regain Voters are anxious about the economy — specifically China debt, spending and loss of manufacturing 86 percent of voters want Washington to focus on manufacturing, and 63 percent feel working people who make things are being forgotten while Wall Street and banks get bailouts Two-thirds of voters believe manufacturing is central to our economic strength, and 57 percent believe manufacturing is more central to our economic strength than high-tech, knowledge or financial service sectors Across all demographics, voters’ economic solutions center on trade enforcement, clean energy, tax credits for U.S. manufacturing and replacing aging infrastructure using American materials, a surprising overlap between Tea Party supporters, independents, non-union households and union households. People are sick of their factories being packed up and sent out of the country to places where people and the environment are exploited . They understand this is done to pit them against workers with no right, in order to lower wages, benefits and rights. They want something done about it. Trump is giving voice to these sentiments. He is saying what people are thinking. Trump says, “We tell China, that if you don’t stop manipulating your currency, we’re going to put a 25 percent tax on your products that come into the United States.” But Turn on Your TV And… But turn on your TV or open a newspaper and you get pundit after pundit saying we need to cut taxes on the rich even more, and cut the resulting deficit by cutting back on the things We, the People (government) do for each other and for our economy. The Elite Are Threatened Here is a typical elite-media response to Trump’s message: CNN Money: ” How ‘The Donald’ could incite a trade war ” Donald Trump’s call for a 25% tariff on Chinese goods is winning him a lot of attention as he weighs a presidential run in 2012. “They have manipulated their currency so violently towards this country, it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies,” Trump told CNNMoney in January, during which he laid out plans for his 25% tariff. Trade wars could arise : Imposing a tariff on China would do little more than irritate the world’s second largest economy, economists say. … China could also respond by closing its increasingly important market to U.S. exporters, which would be a major blow to American jobs and manufacturing. China has become the No. 3 market for U.S. exporters, with sales jumping 31% from the previous year. And that doesn’t even count the goods being made in China by U.S. companies. General Motors sells more cars in China today than it does in the United States, for example. “The sad story is we don’t have much leverage,” said Lardy. “But a tariff certainly would not advance our interests.” This response to Trump shows why Trump is resonating. In a piece that appears to be an ad for the Chinese Exporters Assn, CNN worries that responding to China’s manipulations could “irritate” them, which could lead to a trade war, and says there is nothing we can do to get our jobs back so we should just accept anything China does. We have already in a trade war with China for some time and everyone can see that we are losing. But this story takes the pro-China position typical of Wall Street and DC insiders. Filling the Vacuum The media gatekeepers won’t allow the voice of working people, and working people respond when they finally hear a voice speaking up for them. When the corporate/media elites ignore issues like China and trade, you get blowhards like Trump moving up in the polls. The corporate/financial gatekeepers have engineered the information channels to such an extent that blowhards like Trump can gain traction by filling the vacuum and voicing what the polls say the public is thinking. Examples Here are a few more examples of Trump on China and trade: Dire Warning From Donald Trump – China Will Destroy Our Country Conservative News Media on YouTube : “The Obama administration isn’t equipped to negotiate with and handle the Chinese. … Donald Trump said the Chinese are ripping us off and the Chinese can’t deal with it. … Donald Trump says the Chinese aren’t playing fair. … We need to trade with everybody but we need to be sure it is fair.” And, finally, Frank Sobotka: This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Video: Choyleva Says Chinese Economy Is ‘Extremely Overheated’

April 15, 2011

April 15 (Bloomberg) — Diana Choyleva, a director at Lombard Street Research Asia, talks about the outlook for the Chinese economy. She speaks with Mark Barton on Bloomberg Television’s “On The Move.”

Read the full article →

Video: HSBC’s Neumann Expects China Inflation to `Peak’ by July

April 15, 2011

April 15 (Bloomberg) — Frederic Neumann, a Hong Kong-based economist at HSBC Holdings Plc, discusses the Chinese economy which grew a more-than-estimated 9.7 percent in the first quarter while inflation accelerated in March to the fastest pace since 2008. He talks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Global Connection.”

Read the full article →

Oil Pressured by Chinese Rate Hike Fears, Gold May See Support from US CPI

April 15, 2011

Oil Pressured by Chinese Rate Hike Fears, Gold May See Support from US CPI

Read the full article →

Yen rises against major currencies after Chinese data

April 15, 2011

Yen rises against major currencies after Chinese data

Read the full article →

The Chinese Economy recorded unexpected economical growth despite critical inflation rates

April 15, 2011

The Chinese Economy recorded unexpected economical growth despite critical inflation rates

Read the full article →

Motorola Settles Trade Secret Dispute With Chinese Telecom

April 13, 2011

By Paul Thomasch (NEW YORK) – Motorola Solutions Inc and China’s Huawei Technologies Co have settled a legal dispute over trade secrets, clearing the way for Motorola to complete the sale of one of its business units to Nokia Siemens Networks. The settlement puts to rest charges by Huawei that Motorola, one of its long-standing partners, could disclose a variety of its trade secrets in selling a networks business to rival Nokia Siemens Networks. Motorola agreed to pay an unspecified transfer fee to Huawei as part of the settlement, it said on Wednesday. Motorola, in a separate announcement, also said it had lowered the sale price of the networks business to Nokia Siemens to $975 million from $1.2 billion. That should help ensure the deal goes through by April 29, Motorola said. While Motorola and Nokia Siemens can now press ahead with their deal, Huawei will likely use the legal settlement to help improve relations with the U.S. business community and government. Huawei is one of the world’s largest makers of telecommunications equipment but has said its ability to do business in the United States has been hurt by a series of unproven allegations and misperceptions. Legal disputes have not helped its reputation, particularly when they involve a long-term partner such as Motorola. Last summer, Motorola filed suit against Huawei alleging theft of trade secrets via former Motorola employees who gave information to Huawei’s founder. “Huawei hopes the recognition of the value of its intellectual property and withdrawal of claims about it would help put behind rumors of its association with the Chinese government,” said Robert Haslam, an attorney at Covington & Burling, who is representing Huawei. Concerned about its reputation, Huawei recently challenged the United States to launch a formal investigation into its business, It was a highly unusual moved and followed a recent U.S. government foreign investment review that is forcing Huawei to sell assets it bought from 3Leaf, a small U.S. company. Three years ago, Huawei had to pull back from a bigger proposed investment in 3Com, in similar circumstances. Huawei says it has been the victim of misperceptions about its relationship with the Chinese military because its founder, Ren Zhengfei, served in the People’s Liberation Army until 1983. In its case again Motorola, Huawei demanded that the deal with Nokia Siemens be altered to avoid infringing intellectual property rights. It said that Motorola, its partner since 2000, had information including its plans for future products and technical specifications related to product performance and testing. Huawei wanted assurances that none of that would be transferred to Nokia Siemens, a venture of Finland’s Nokia Oyj and Germany’s Siemens AG. Nokia Siemens, or NSN, had grown impatient to close the deal, originally due to occur by the end of last year. For Nokia Siemens, the delayed Motorola deal was intended to strengthen it against Chinese rivals and make it the second-largest mobile telecom gear maker ahead of Huawei. The delay, according to analysts, may also have been holding up plans by the parent companies of Nokia Siemens to sell a minority stake in the venture. Nokia and Siemens said last August they had been approached by private equity firms interested in buying a stake. “This is a good thing for Nokia as they have been able to cut a new deal, which will be closed in the second quarter,” said Swedbank analyst Jari Honko. “This means they can proceed with selling of minority stake in NSN.” Shares of Motorola were up 31 cents at $44.14. (Additional reporting by Tarmo Virki in Helsinki and Kenneth Li in New York; editing by Dave Zimmerman)

Read the full article →

10 Countries With The Most Billionaires

April 12, 2011

No longer dominated by Americans and Europeans, the members of the world’s billionaire club increasingly hail from around the globe, first and third world countries alike. And while some of the mega-rich might may spend more time on yachts than in their home countries, even billionaires have a place they call home. It’s just becoming increasingly difficult to predict where that home is. According to this year’s annual Wealth Report , published by Scorpio Partnership, a wealth management consultancy firm, on behalf of Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank, new billionaires are increasingly likely to come from emerging economies like India and Russia, the latter of which increased its billionaire count by 30 percent last year, according to Forbes . The world’s total number of millionaires has skyrocketed, too, increasing by 22 percent from one year prior, when the global economy witnessed a drastic drop in millionaires. No country’s elite, however, have benefited more from last year’s rebounding economy than China’s, with the country’s tremendous economic growth raising the billionaire count by 140 percent. At this rate, many economists expect China — ranked 35th in Forbes ‘ billionaires list as recently as 2005 — to soon claim the title of most billionaires in the world. “That growth [in China] may be strengthened,” Scorpio Partnership director Stephen Wall wrote in the rport, “by the range of wealth sources driving economic growth.” Of all their thriving industries, the Internet technology sector has perhaps treated China’s elites the best. And no one better represents that industry better than China’s richest man and Baidu search engine founder Robin Li . Still, Chinese billionaires will continue to face stiff competition from the U.S. in the future, as Facebook alone represents six of America’s billionaires , including the youngest billionaire in the world: 26-year-old co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. See below for the list of countries with the most billionaires according to the 2011 Wealth Report:

Read the full article →

China Posts First Quarterly Trade Deficit In Six Years

April 10, 2011

BEIJING — China reported its first quarterly trade deficit since 2004 on Sunday as surging prices for commodities pushed up its import bill. The General Administration of Customs said in an online statement that China posted a trade deficit of $1.02 billion from January to March this year. However, China reported a small trade surplus of $140 million in March, up from a deficit of $7.3 billion the month before, it said. Export growth in the first quarter was strong, it said, increasing 26.5 percent to $399.64 billion compared to a year earlier, but imports soared 32.6 percent during that period, to $400.66 billion. “The value of imports in the first quarter hit a record high for the first time of more than $400 billion,” the administration said. It said China imported more mechanical and electrical equipment, including cars, as well as iron ore and soybeans, than it did a year ago and that the prices of those commodities had all shot up. Analysts expect a Chinese global trade surplus this year of $160 billion-$200 billion but say that should narrow if oil and commodity prices stay high. Last year, China ran a trade surplus of about $16 billion a month. A smaller trade surplus might help to ease trade strains with Washington and other governments that complain Beijing is giving its exporters an unfair advantage with currency controls and other policies. Stronger imports could help economies looking to China’s robust growth to drive demand for their goods. Imports also might benefit from ongoing government efforts to boost consumer spending to reduce reliance on exports and investment. China is a major importer of oil, iron ore and raw materials and runs a deficit with suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Australia. It pays for that by running multibillion-dollar surpluses with the United States and Europe. ___ Online: General Administration of Customs of China (in Chinese): http://www.customs.gov.cn

Read the full article →

Daniel Michaeli: Let’s Negotiate an Investment Treaty with China

April 8, 2011

In recent years, Beijing has asked repeatedly for a treaty that would give U.S. investors in China greater and more enforceable rights. It is high time for the Obama administration to respond seriously — by concluding its open-ended review of bilateral investment treaties and working one out with China. The U.S. and China should work aggressively over the next several weeks to prepare to announce a timeline for negotiations at the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington next month. American firms have nearly $50 billion invested in China, and a recent survey of companies investing in China indicates that most intend to increase their investments substantially this year. The performance of these investments is crucial to the U.S. economy: they enable American companies to access China’s huge domestic market and catalyze American exports — U.S. multinationals send half of their total exports from the United States to their own foreign affiliates. American corporations, when successful overseas, bring jobs and investment back to the United States. Recent data indicates that U.S.-based multinational corporations locate more than half of their employees in the United States, where they have 70 percent of their operations and spend 87 percent of their research and development budget. U.S. companies face serious challenges operating in China. But the good news is that some of their most significant concerns cover areas effectively addressed in bilateral investment treaties, such as intellectual property theft, local content requirements, expectations of technology transfer, and regulatory discrimination. China has already signed 120 investment treaties around the world, including with Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. The most recent ones have clauses providing foreign investors with the option to resort to binding international arbitration for intellectual property disputes, if Chinese local courts cannot resolve such issues satisfactorily (as, indeed, too often they cannot). Language already in China’s existing treaties, promising foreign investors regulatory treatment equal to domestic investors, also provides remedies for foreign companies in China facing biased enforcement of regulations. With $3 billion invested in the United States, Beijing has also sought negotiations on a treaty with Washington for several years, to protect its investments in the United States. It is in the U.S. interest to sign such a treaty. China is now the world’s largest capital-surplus economy. Its annual flows of outward investment more than doubled between 2007 and 2009, and China is expected to become the second-largest source of global foreign direct investment within two years, after the United States. So even as protecting American investments in China is crucial, the U.S. economy would benefit greatly from increased Chinese investment in the United States, subject to proper national security considerations. A bilateral investment treaty would help lay the groundwork. Chinese investment in the U.S. has so far been quite limited. An ongoing $3.6 billion investment of South Korea’s Samsung Electronics in Austin, Texas, is larger than all the active Chinese investments in the United States combined, according to the most recent data. There is much more potential for Chinese investment that would create jobs and opportunities for American entrepreneurs to access China’s massive financial resources. And China is eager to invest; despite the economic pessimism of many Americans, Chinese investors recognize there is still a lot of money to be made in the United States. At an investment forum in Beijing several days ago, a senior official with the China Investment Corporation revealed that the fund earned 40% returns on clever investments in American commercial real estate last year. If U.S. does not begin negotiations now, the European Union, which in December began exploring the prospect of an investment treaty with China, might beat the United States to the punch. A better approach would be to coordinate treaty negotiations between the U.S. and the EU, as China’s largest trading partners. By preparing for an announcement of negotiations at the Strategic & Economic Dialogue, the U.S. can work towards an investment treaty that would respect U.S. national security interests, level the playing field for U.S. firms operating in China, and attract Chinese investment — signed and ratified by the end of 2011. Failing to act quickly could damage the U.S. economic position in China and harm longer-term prospects for the U.S. economic recovery.

Read the full article →

American Support For Capitalism Drops Below China, Brazil

April 7, 2011

Nearly three years after the financial system first came perilously close to collapse, American support for an unregulated free market appears to have cratered. A new report by GlobeScan , an international opinion research consultancy, suggests that the number of Americans who believe in the strength of the free market economy dropped markedly last year. In fact, according to the survey results, both Brazil and China, on a percentage basis, ranked higher than the U.S. in overall support for free market capitalism. The report, released this week and based on 12,884 interviews in 25 countries, asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement that the “free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.” GlobeScan found Americans strongly agreeing or somewhat agreeing dropped to 59 percent from 74 percent, a 15 percent dip from the year prior and the second largest year-over-year drop of any country besides Turkey. An even more dramatic drop (32 percent drop) occurred among those in the U.S. with annual incomes below $20,000, of which only 44 percent agreed that the free market was the ideal system. When GlobeScan first compiled this data in 2002, 80 percent of Americans answered that the free market was the best economic system for the future, then the highest percentage among all surveyed countries. “America is the last place we would have expected to see such a sharp drop in trust in the free enterprise system,” GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller said in a press release. “This is not good news for business.” Immediately after the financial crisis, GlobeScan actually found a slow but steady increase in U.S. support for the free market. Miller, however, attributes that temporary uptick to the country’s “tremendous social cohesion” following sustained shocks such as financial collapse or terrorists attacks. “But after a while, after the hardship is sustained,” he continues, “it has caught up with Americans.” The U.S. drop-off means merging economies like Brazil (68 percent support for free economy) and China (67 percent) now appear to support free enterprise at a much higher rate than Americans. India, with a 58 percent freemarket approval rate, roughly matched the U.S. results. Among participants in all countries, 54 percent said free market capitalism is the best economic system for the future — the same percentage as one year prior. The total percentage of Americans that don’t trust the free market remains unchanged at 26 percent. The below chart maps by year the percentage of Americans and Chinese that strongly agree or somewhat agree that the “free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world”:

Read the full article →

The Chinese economy raises interest rate to 6.31% for a fourth time to cool down inflation  

April 6, 2011

The Chinese economy raises interest rate to 6.31% for a fourth time to cool down inflation

Read the full article →

SEC: Many Foreign Companies In U.S. Are ‘Vessels Of Fraud’

April 4, 2011

WASHINGTON (Sarah N. Lynch) – Federal securities regulators are probing Chinese and other foreign companies with questionable accounting practices that have used backdoor methods to access the U.S. capital markets, a top regulator said on Monday. “In recent years we have seen a spike of private companies merging with public shell companies,” said Luis Aguilar, a commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “While it is Chinese companies that have grabbed recent headlines, the problems coming to the forefront were not necessarily limited to companies based in China,” he said. Aguilar added that while the majority of these may be legitimate businesses, “a growing number” of them are proving to have “significant” accounting issues or are “outright vessels of fraud.” Aguilar spoke before the Council of Institutional Investors on Monday about a growing trend that has caused alarm at the SEC and led to trading suspensions and other enforcement actions. At issue are moves by private foreign companies to merge with U.S. shell public companies to raise capital. Many of these companies have been Chinese. In some cases they have used a procedure known as a reverse merger to bypass the due diligence of an initial public offering. But many of these businesses often have problems with the quality of their accounting and the SEC has been on the prowl for deficiencies and for ensuring the accounting is in line with U.S. standards after some companies hired unknown auditing firms. Last week, the SEC suspended the trading of China Changjiang Mining & New Energy Co Ltd — a Nevada company with headquarters in China — amid questions about the accuracy of its public filings and the resignation of its auditor. In another case, the SEC launched a formal investigation against Chinese printing equipment maker Duoyuan Printing Inc on concerns it filed false documents, failed to maintain adequate financial records and deceived its external auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Since January 2007, Aguilar said there have been 600 backdoor registrations of this nature by foreign companies, 150 of which are based in China. He said there is concern that U.S. accounting firms are signing off on the companies’ statements without performing their own independent work and are relying instead on auditing firms in China. He noted the SEC has launched an internal task force to probe fraud by overseas companies listed on U.S. exchanges. “Our staff is committed to doing everything we can,” he said. “The SEC has already brought cases and will continue to do so.” (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Additional reporting by Dena Aubin in New York; Editing by Maureen Bavdek) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: Buffettgate: Berkshire Hathaway’s Problem at the Top

April 2, 2011

Suppose I took a call from a banker-friend at Citigroup on December 13, 2010, and he informed me that he had just observed other Citi bankers meeting with David Sokol, an executive of Berkshire Hathaway and possible successor to Warren Buffett, the CEO. He discovered Sokol expressed interest in a company called Lubrizol and requested a meeting with the company’s President. Buffett himself made it public that Sokol investigated a Chinese battery and electric car maker, BYD, in which Berkshire made a substantial investment. The shares subsequently soared in value. I would have no way of knowing for certain that Sokol would bring the opportunity to Warren Buffett. I would have no way of knowing for sure whether Berkshire Hathaway would invest in Lubrizol. But if I bought shares in Lubrizol the next day, I would expect that the Citi banker would be investigated by the SEC for passing along insider information, and I would be investigated for trading based on insider information.* Yet David Sokol, who bought shares in Lubrizol the day after his meeting with Citi’s bankers, told CNBC he did nothing inappropriate. His actions were absolutely inappropriate–front-running is an offense for which a banker or investment banker would be fired. “When bankers from Citigroup Inc. met David Sokol late last year to talk about potential transactions, they thought they were dealing with him as a senior executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., according to people familiar with the matter.” “It…came as a shock to the Citigroup bankers when they learned Mr. Sokol bought roughly $240,000 of shares of Lubrizol corp. a day after their meeting, sold them, and then purchased $10 million shares about two months before Berkshire’s $9 billin deal unveiled March 14…[T]he shares are valued at nearly $13 million now.” [It's unclear if Sokol still owns them.] Excerpt from: ” Mixed Signals Marked Sokol Meeting: Bankers Thought Pitch was for Senior Berkshire Executive, Not High-Powered Individual Investor ,” by Gina Chon and Serena Ng, Wall Street Journal , April 2, 2011. Berkshire Hathaway has a bigger problem than Sokol’s actions. Its reputation has revolved around the lip-service paid by Warren Buffett to a high standard of corporate governance. His actions and attitude to this matter raise serious questions for the future of Berkshire Hathaway. The moral tone set at the top is now being publicly questioned as well as his seeming support of Sokol’s actions. “Neither Dave nor I feel his Lubrizol purchases were in any way unlawful. He has told me that they were not a factor in his decision to resign.” Source: Berkshire Hathaway via Business Wire: ” Warren E. Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Announces the Resignation of David L. Sokol ,” March 30, 2011. Why didn’t Buffett ask for Sokol’s resignation? Sokol’s behavior was unethical, and it may even go beyond that. There may be further inquiry to determine the legality of Sokol’s purchases. During an initial meeting with Sokol about Lubrizol, Buffett wrote that Sokol mentioned he owned shares in the company, but Buffett didn’t ask him for further information including details of the timing, price, and number of shares. Warren Buffett says he plays bridge around 12 hours per week. The first thing one does is engage in an auction in an attempt to determine the value and quantity of the cards held by one’s partner. Yet Buffett states he did not inquire further about a senior Berkshire Hathaway officer’s investment in an acquisition candidate. In isolation, investors might be willing to overlook this as misplaced loyalty on Warren Buffett’s part. But a series of issues have surfaced about Berkshire Hathaway’s practices. Most recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission wrestled with Berkshire Hathaway’s CFO to make the company take a fourth quarter write-down: “Despite [the Chief Financial Officer's] objection, the company recorded $938 million in impairment charges in the fourth quarter to reflect declines in shares of Swiss Reinsurance Co., U.S. Bankcorp and pharmaceutical firm Sanofi Aventis S.A.” ” Berkshire Wrote Down Stocks After SEC Query ,” by Erik Holm, Wall Street Journal , March 29, 2011. The SEC and the financial press may not have noticed that Berkshire Hathaway had the last word: “…such losses that are included in earnings are offset by a corresponding credit to other comprehensive income.” Berkshire Hathaway 10K for year-end 2010 (required SEC filing), Footnote p. 74. Berkshire Hathaway is a conglomerate, and the nature of accounting for conglomerates is opaque and messy. Warren Buffett’s reputation has been crucial to Berkshire Hathaway’s perceived value. Investors may now challenge their previous perceptions. * Even if Berkshire Hathaway decided not to invest, and I sold the shares I bought before the general public became aware of the lack of interest, I could avoid a potential loss if the shares went down in value on the news. Martha Stewart allegedly sold shares ahead of bad news after a tip from her stockbroker and avoided a loss of around $50,000. She went to prison for allegedly not coming clean when questioned by authorities. See also: VIDEO: ” Backdoor Dealings ,” First Business Morning News , April 1, 2011. ” Warren Buffett, Stop Using My Credit Card! ” – TSF – November 23, 2009 ” Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger: Winning the Class War ,” Huffington Post , September 21, 2010. Disclosure: I currently hold no position, long or short, in Berkshire Hathaway.

Read the full article →

Video: Gang Says ECB Rate Rise Would Make China Increase Easier

April 1, 2011

April 1 (Bloomberg) — Fan Gang, a former Chinese central bank adviser, talks about the outlook for the Chinese economy and interest rates. He speaks with Ryan Chilcote in Cernobbio, Italy, on Bloomberg Television’s “On The Move.”

Read the full article →

VIDEO: David Sokol Says He Didn’t Want Warren Buffett’s Job

March 31, 2011

By Ben Berkowitz and Jonathan Stempel – Former Berkshire Hathaway executive David Sokol on Thursday said he has invested in companies he then recommended for acquisition in the past, a day after Berkshire disclosed Sokol pushed Lubrizol Corp to Warren Buffett after investing in it. But Sokol said on CNBC if he had it all to do again, he would have invested in Lubrizol for himself and not passed the recommendation on to Buffett. He said he did not expect Buffett to want to buy the company and was surprised at how quickly the “Oracle of Omaha” moved to make a deal. Sokol was seen by many investors as the most likely successor to Berkshire Hathaway’s iconic CEO, though he made clear in the interview he did not aspire to the job and wanted to build his own “mini-Berkshire” instead. Buffett released a letter on Wednesday disclosing that Sokol bought a substantial stake in Lubrizol before urging Buffett to acquire the company, which Buffett did for $9 billion this month. Sokol appeared to have made a profit of at least $2.98 million on his investment. In a half-hour interview, Sokol insisted he never had any inside information on Lubrizol and that he bought the shares solely as a good investment for his family. “I’d like to invest my own money, control a significant piece of it, and control my own schedule,” Sokol said, later adding “I didn’t know anything others don’t know.” Sokol also said he has on past occasions invested in companies that he suggested Buffett buy, noting one example of a bank that Buffett did not ultimately acquire. He also said other Berkshire executives have in the past held stock in companies they then identified for investment or acquisition, citing the example of Berkshire Vice Chairman Charlie Munger owning a stake in Chinese car maker BYD before suggesting it for an investment. Nonetheless, the chairman of Berkshire units MidAmerican Energy and NetJets told CNBC’s anchors he understood how the sequence of events looked, even if he did nothing wrong. “I can understand the appearance of an issue … That’s why we made it public,” he said. Sokol resigned March 28. He said Buffett did not try to talk him out of resigning. Buffett’s letter included an excerpt of Sokol’s letter, but the full Sokol letter was not made public. Berkshire’s Class B shares, which are more heavily traded than its Class A stock, opened 1.6 percent lower at $84.06. Watch the full CNBC video here: (Reporting by Ben Berkowitz and Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Derek Caney, Lisa Von Ahn, Dave Zimmerman) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: Turning Dirty Coal in China Into Clean Natural Gas

March 31, 2011

The future of a technology that converts dirty cheap coal into clean natural gas for transportation fuel was underscored last night by a Chinese investment in Synthesis Energy Systems (SYMX,NASDAQ), a small Houston company that holds a valuable license for this transforming technology. The transaction is significant because it comes to fruition in the wake of crisis over nuclear energy signified by damage to the Japanese nuclear plant sending radioactive particles to China, and at a time of political unrest in the Middle East, when crude oil is priced well above $100 a barrel. And it underscores the crucial need to utilize an abundance of dirty coal in China and Mongolia as a clean energy source for the fastest growing economy in the world. The investment by China Energy and its investment arm Zhongjinuan Investment Management, a private company in Beijing, can be leveraged into $3.0 billion capital investments in new gasification plants with financing from some later-to-be identified state-owned companies, according to Robert Rigdon, SYMX chief executive officer, calling from Beijing last night. “The current energy landscape supports the use of low quality coal,” Rigdon emphasized last night. The $83.5 million is being raised from private Chinese investors, in a transaction that is unique for the manner in which Chinese investors will now be on the way to controlling a technology in gasification of coal that was originated in the US. The deal for 43.5% of SYMX at $2.25 a share can be increased to 60% in 8 years, giving the Chinese ultimate control of the U.S. company and a valuable hold on a technology that is held by the Gas Technological Institute. SYMX stock has been trading at a volume multiple its usual activity the last several days. The transaction will undoubtedly be seen as a model for other such strategies that could help the Chinese slow down their plans to build dozens of new nuclear power plants. SES(SYMX) has a 10 year exclusive license to the technology, which can be extended further. It already has a plant producing methanol in China and has plans to produce both methanol and and glycol in another facility. Methanol and glycol are used as blending agents for gasoline fuel, according to Rigdon.

Read the full article →

China: Google-Linked Firms Broke Tax Rules

March 31, 2011

By Chris Buckley BEIJING | Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:29am EDT (Reuters) – Chinese authorities found three companies linked to Google Inc broke tax rules and are investigating possible tax avoidance, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Thursday, raising the risk of fresh pressure on the Internet search giant. Google, the world’s largest Internet search company, confirmed the three companies were units, but denied the tax violations alleged in the Chinese-language Economic Daily. “We believe we are, and always have been, in full compliance with Chinese tax law,” Google said in a statement responding to Reuters’ questions. Even if the report is unfounded or embellished, it could bring fresh headaches in China for Google, which has gone through difficult times there since early last year when it quarreled with the one-party government over Internet censorship and hacking attacks. China generates a small percentage of Google’s revenues, but is the world’s largest Internet market with more than 450 million users. The country’s search market, dominated by homegrown Baidu Inc, was worth 11 billion yuan ($1.7 billion) in 2010 and is likely to grow by about 50 percent each year for the next four years, according to iResearch. The Economic Daily said that the three companies investigated and punished were “Google enterprises in China”. “The taxation authorities have already investigated and punished the three companies according to the law,” said the report on its front page. The companies were accused of presenting false and unjustified claims to the total value of 40 million yuan ($6 million), said the report. It did not say when the claimed violations are alleged to have happened. “It is understood by this reporter that the taxation authorities are further investigating Google businesses in China on suspicion of tax avoidance,” said the brief story, which was also later reported by China’s official Xinhua news agency. A Google spokesperson said the three accused companies — Google Information Technology (China) Co, Ltd; Google Advertising (Shanghai) Co, Ltd, and Google Information Technology (Shanghai) Co, Ltd — were its sub-units. Their activities span research and development, advertising and customer support. “Most foreign companies in China, especially high-profile companies with a global reputation at stake, are pretty careful to make sure they are in full compliance with the relevant tax laws,” said Mark Natkin, managing director of Marbridge Consulting, a Beijing-based company that advises investors about China’s Internet and telecommunications sectors. China’s Foreign Ministry would not comment directly about the report. “Generally speaking, any companies operating abroad should obey the laws and regulations of the host country,” said the ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. RUN-INS CONTINUE The report appeared after Google again clashed with the Chinese government over Internet censorship. Earlier this month, Google said any difficulty that users in China may have faced opening its email service were likely the result of government blocks. China’s ruling Communist Party has intensified censorship in recent months, fearing that calls for protests inspired by anti-authoritarian uprisings across the Middle East and north Africa could gather momentum. Google’s serious run-ins with the Chinese government began in January 2010, when the company said it was no longer willing to censor search results in the country. Previously, the company included a disclaimer on its China service that searches may not be complete because of local laws. Searches for terms deemed sensitive by Chinese censors are routinely blocked. Chinese search engines such as that offered by Baidu already voluntarily filter searches. Google also said it had uncovered sophisticated China-based attacks on human rights activists using its Gmail service around the world. The censorship and hacking dispute became a diplomatic sore point in Sino-U.S. relations. After months of quiet wrangling with Beijing, Google altered its main Chinese-language search page so that inquiries are redirected to a site in Hong Kong. That means Google searches from within China are still censored by the government’s “Great Wall” of Internet filters, but the company no longer plays a direct role in that censorship. (Additional reporting by Sally Huang, Sabrina Mao and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING and Melanie Lee in SHANGHAI; Editing by Lincoln Feast) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: More on Private vs. Public

March 28, 2011

Felix Salmon has been continuing his discussion of companies avoiding public listings to stay private. I posted on this when he first wrote about the trend in The New York Times last month, and he has since picked up a variety of fellow kibitzers, including here and here ; some of his commenters also have a few interesting things to say. The issue has now broadened into related issues, notably the decline in initial public offerings, particularly of startups, something Treasury’s Timothy Geithner publicly started worrying about recently . Although it’s very clear that a fall-off in IPOs does translate into more startups remaining private or getting gobbled up by strategic buyers, I’m not convinced that, despite the kerfuffle over Facebook remaining private, the underlying issues are the same. A big part of the IPO problem seems to stem from a reduced appetite by U.S. venture capital investors for traditional tech startups after the dot-com bust, a shift toward mezzanine investments in more established companies and a move to place VC money overseas, particularly in Asia. That may speak more to a) the long recovery of venture investing from the dot-com bubble; b) better opportunities overseas; or c) a maturity in large tech markets, of the sort Tyler Cowan wrote about in ” The Great Stagnation .” The decline of IPOs is worrisome, but not for the reasons Salmon talks about: that the great mass of investing Americans will lack investment opportunities, particularly compared with plutocrats tapping hedge funds and buyout shops. It’s a concern because a lack of IPOs will result in a shift toward a larger, more concentrated, less nimble corporate economy. Salmon brings a variety of assumptions to the table. First, there are historical assumptions about a sort of glorious age when most Americans had defined-benefit plans and played in bountiful stock markets. “In America,” Salmon writes, “for pretty much all of the 20th Century, and in the rest of the world today, public markets have shown themselves to be a very good thing when it comes to value creation.” There’s a lot there that’s arguable. Salmon particularly seems to be reading back into history the bull market in stocks that began building after World War II (and that relatively few Americans took advantage of until the ’80s), then continued along, with a few interruptions (some considerable, like the ’70s) until the 21st century, which so far has been generally lousy. Lots of Americans reaped stock market value in the ’20s, lost it in the ’30s, then had to wait until the ’50s to begin to catch up. Through the ’50s and ’60s, most shareholding was individual, but it came from a very narrow slice of upper crust society — and it was mediated by brokers who took, by current standards, huge fixed commissions. Institutions, including pension funds, only began to buy stocks in the late ’50s. The “value creation” of stocks might have existed, based on the rise of the market, but relatively few Americans got rich off it and, relative to today, there were a lot fewer public stocks to play. As for the rest of the world, well, Salmon sees a different world than I do. Most of the world’s population has probably never heard of a listed stock. There are relatively few economies that have broad and sophisticated equity cultures that are open to the great mass of people. Even Europe has only developed one in the past few decades, and given its social welfare system, participation in share ownership remains relatively small. For decades the Japanese invested regularly in postal savings accounts, not a stock market that was viewed, with good reason, as dangerously volatile and perhaps crooked. Are ordinary Russians investing in the stock market? Are the great mass of Chinese? Are Indonesians and Indians? Many of these countries have the same relationship to the stock market that America had when it was emerging: It’s a kind of game for those with large amounts of disposable income. The rest of the population mostly lacks the savings, the skills and the risk profile to participate. Now it may be true that the Chinese would all like to invest regularly in the stock market because they are optimistic about the future. (A broad ownership society, in which millions own stock, does generate political repercussions that might make authoritarian governments wary: a sense of ownership, to be sure, but an increasing need to be sensitive to the personal financial needs of a mass rentier class.) But that doesn’t mean investing in equities is a widespread practice. Salmon intones the venerable mantra that stocks over the long term will outpace bonds. That is certainly true; we’ve all consulted our Ibbotson. But as everyone also painfully knows by now, particularly if you’re approaching retirement, value creation is relative to the time frame of the individual. Stocks may be swell over the long term, but they’re risky over the short term. Every 30 years or so, we seem to submerge into decade-long torpor — or worse. And stock markets, particularly when they fall, easily get charged with being a rigged game. Often, that’s actually true, particularly in markets around the world with thin floats and spotty regulation. As we know, even mature systems suffer from regulatory woes. This leads to a second and related assumption, which is that the underlying problem of this swing toward private ownership is inequality: The rich folks get the good stuff, leaving the rest of us the dregs. This seems to me, at best, overstated, at worst, wrong. The overstated part stems from the numbers Salmon seems to believe are hiding out in the private sphere and are thus inaccessible to ordinary investors. It’s true. There is a large and vigorous private equity industry out there. But it’s also true that most of what occurs in private equity happens not among the biggest public companies — that was a phenomenon of 2005 to 2007, now over — but in the middle market. A healthy percentage of LBOs in the middle market are buyouts of already private companies. Some of these companies will eventually be acquired by large public companies, a traditional exit. Some will be sold off to other buyout shops. Others will be taken public. Indeed, the IPO market would really be moribund if not for the large numbers of PE-owned companies re-entering the public markets, including giants like HCA. One way or the other, most of these take-privates will end up as at least part of a public equity. Again, I think there’s confusion here between the dearth of tech IPOs and the growth of private equity. Their dynamics are different. A startup that gets no funding will probably never go public. A company that’s LBO’d is taken out of the public ranks, but eventually will return, acquired by either a strategic buyer, undoubtedly public, or by public investors. Arguing that private equity is removing good opportunities out of the public markets is like decrying M&A for reducing the number of companies. The real problem here is not M&A or PE; it’s the deficient creation and financing of new companies. It is true that the allure of a public listing isn’t what it used to be. You can blame Sarbanes-Oxley, although I think that’s exaggerated; and eliminating it to grease the skids may have little effect. I would argue two other considerations come into play, particularly in a situation where there’s plenty of equity capital to go around (raising the possibility that both inequality and the private economy are somehow linked to increasing affluence). They’re related. First, it’s corporate governance, particularly the difficulty of aligning shareholder and managerial interests and the ineffectiveness of shareholder monitoring. In short, the promise of shareholder democracy has not been fulfilled, creating, if anything, dysfunction and distraction. Second, it’s compensation. Managers can make more in private situations in which shareholders are compact and aligned. Pay is almost never an issue on the private side. To link all this to inequality also raises difficult questions. The roots of inequality are complex and much debated. The rise of private equity, not to say hedge funds and big finance, may well have contributed to that inequality. But blaming inequality on too many companies staying private — and thus offering opportunities only for plutocrats — is like saying the financial crisis was caused by too much compensation. The fact is there are a dozen explanations, from rapid technological change to the passing of the industrial age to an inequitable tax structure to technological maturity that may explain deepening inequality. Conversely, to tackle inequality by focusing strictly on preserving public markets to some optimal, perhaps mythical level is useless. Again, in the golden age of American equality — the ’50s — there was little involvement, active or passive (meaning through pension funds), in the stock market for the great mass of Americans. Finance was much smaller, and while opportunities in the market were “public,” they were strictly limited by income. Perhaps this is what Salmon anticipates by supporting a market transaction tax, to reduce turnover and encourage longer-term investment. The trouble here is that a smaller finance, a simpler finance, would generate less liquidity and less opportunity for everyone – and whether that would produce a more equitable society is possible, if not certain. The kind of tech creation that Salmon favors might well be diminished; innovation, which perches on the riskier end of the spectrum, might well be among the first to go. It’s unfortunately easier to create equality by leveling down than by leveling up.

Read the full article →

Robert Kuttner: An American Industrial Renaissance?

March 27, 2011

In the sorting out of the wreckage after Japan’s earthquake and tsunami, many Americans have begun paying more attention to a phrase they had barely known — “supply chains.” American manufacturing companies no longer make most of the parts that they use in production. Rather, both U.S. companies and foreign ones that produce for the U.S. market have long and complex chains of suppliers the world over, many of them in Japan. Now, a lot of that production is temporarily idle, while Japan digs out. The outsourcing of so much production through extensive foreign supply chains, combined with lean and supposedly more efficient “just in time” inventories, leaves companies ranging from Apple to GM vulnerable to supply disruptions half a world away. A few writers such as Barry Lynn and Eamonn Fingleton have been warning about risks of supply-chain fragility for more than a decade, but were paid little attention. Now, however, we not only have the wake-up call in the form of Japan’s earthquake. Economists such as David Levy of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center, and some dissenting corporate executives such as John Surna of US Steel, point out that it makes less and less economic sense to keep outsourcing production because labor represents a dwindling share of manufacturing costs. As industry becomes more automated, it takes fewer human workers to manufacture a product. So even if a Chinese worker is paid just one-twentieth the wage of his or her US counterpart, there is only so much that can be saved by moving production abroad. Almost four decades ago, the Nobel laureate in economics Vassily Leontieff famously imagined a time when machines would be so productive that there would be only one production worker, and her job would be to flip the switch. We are not there yet, but labor cost savings no longer justify the epidemic of outsourcing, given all of the vulnerabilities that it entails. Meanwhile, as labor costs become less important in manufacturing, energy costs keep increasing. In short, does it really make sense for China to import coal and iron ore from Australia, so that it can fabricate giant wind turbines and send them by ship to the United States? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the US to build more of what we consume? Even in the case of miniature electronics which are less costly to ship, Apple, which designs mostly in the US but out-sources most component production to Asia, could be encouraging more production at home. As energy and the cost of shipping become expensive, and production becomes more automated, the logic of production shifts back in favor of more domestic manufacturing. However, absent some kind of industrial policy, that will not be sufficient to bring back manufacturing jobs. Why? Because labor and transportation costs are not the only factors weighing in the decisions of executives of multinational corporations to move production offshore. Higher environmental and labor standards in the US also make it attractive for multinational companies to outsource production to nations where workers not only have lower wages but no rights, and companies are freer to pollute. US companies also locate production offshore to take advantage of foreign government subsidies. These subsidies are illegal, in principle, under the World Trade Organization. But China’s entire industrial system depends on subsidies intended to attract western companies to shift production to China. In addition, producing worldwide makes it easier to book profits in such a way that avoids national tax liability. It was recently reported that GE, with worldwide profits of $14.2 billion in 2010, paid no US taxes . In fact, the US ended up owing GE $3.2 billion. In January, President Obama named GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt to chair a new presidential council on jobs and competitiveness. But based on GE’s record of outsourcing and creative tax avoidance, Immelt should be the poster child for how corporate America ought not to behave. There is a whole other approach to bringing back manufacturing to the US. Events in Japan and shifting relative prices of labor and energy costs give that approach new compelling logic. Manufacturing is increasingly hollowed out in the US, but still accounts for upwards of 14 million jobs. It’s hard to keep innovating in the US if we lose what’s left of our manufacturing industry. Manufacturing and energy together account for most of our trade deficit, now upwards of $46 billion a month. As events in Japan remind us, doing more production at home is only prudent. It also makes increasing economic sense. What’s missing is more political leadership to put the pieces together. Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His latest book is A Presidency in Peril .

Read the full article →

U.S. Firms Growing Impatient With Chinese Bureaucracy, Survey Says

March 22, 2011

By Koh Gui Qing BEIJING (Reuters) – U.S. firms are increasingly vexed over growing Chinese red tape that prevents them from expanding quickly in China’s vast market, a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce showed on Tuesday. Road blocks faced by firms in getting business licenses have multiplied to the extent that companies are now more worried about bureaucratic hurdles than by nebulous laws and regulation or corruption, AmCham’s annual survey on China’s business climate showed. “The number-one challenge that our members listed this year is bureaucracy,” Ted Dean, AmCham’s chairman in China, told reporters at a briefing. “Members are saying that licensing procedures have become more difficult.” The survey took pains to stress that U.S. firms want to stay in China, but criticisms were also thinly veiled, making plain the alternating love and hate that executives feel when it comes to doing business in a tightly controlled environment in the world’s fastest-growing major economy. “As China enters the tenth year in the World Trade Organization, the goal of a fair and transparent regulatory environment has not yet been achieved,” Dean said. Dean said U.S. firms believe they are discriminated against when they apply for licenses as they face delays and a lack of transparency, and at times are unable to get the licenses that their Chinese peers have received. Nearly 435 firms took part in the AmCham survey. A total of 31 percent of 338 respondents said bureaucratic processing was their biggest challenge, compared with 23 percent last year. To a question on what permit was most difficult to get, 42 percent of 220 respondents said it was a new business license. This is frustrating U.S. firms at a time they want to court the Chinese consumer. “This is just the moment when companies are looking to benefit from domestic demand in the market and looking to sell into the domestic market,” Dean said. Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman Yao Jian said, however, that China was committed to treating foreign companies well and to opening its market. “We will continue to further promote the opening up of the domestic market,” he told a regular news conference. “We will give equal treatment to foreign investors and Chinese companies alike.” FIRMS STILL EXPANDING Though China has made significant progress in welcoming foreign firms since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, companies want China to move even faster. Occasional setbacks, as with Google Inc’s (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) accusation on Monday that the Chinese government is foiling its Gmail service, are also unhelpful. China’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday dismissed Google’s accusation as “unacceptable.” The AmCham survey outlined a laundry list of concerns that foreign firms usually have when operating in China — difficulties in hiring managers, unclear laws and regulations, inconsistent interpretation of regulations as well as infringement of intellectual property rights. Preferential treatment that Chinese firms get when it comes to bidding for contracts from China’s government was also a growing concern among foreign firms. Forty percent of firms polled said they believe China’s policy of favoring “indigenous innovation” would soon start to hurt their profits. But for now, almost 70 percent said they have yet to feel an impact. Still, firms are not slowing their China expansion plans. Nearly 10 percent of 281 respondents said they plan to expand their business by more than 50 percent this year, with 33 percent planning to grow operations by between one-tenth and one-fifth. (Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Richard Borsuk) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Read the full article →

Fred Teng: Why China Won’t Be the Next Egypt

March 21, 2011

The recent eruption of protests and violence in Egypt and the resignation of its president, Hosni Mubarak, lead some pundits to predict that the same movement will happen in China. However, China’s circumstances are entirely different and a similar outcome is unlikely. Along with India and Greece, Egypt and China are two of the oldest civilizations in the world. However, both the Arab Republic of Egypt and the People’s Republic of China only established their current governments about 60 years ago. How did these two governments conduct their affairs? Why are the events that caused the collapse of the Mubarak regime not likely to happen in China? The main issues that surrounded the downfall of the Mubarak regime appear to be the leadership and the economy. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak served as the only President of Egypt for over 30 years; yet in China, since Deng Xiaoping’s launch of the Open and Reform Policy in 1978, China has made orderly transitions through three generations of leaders. Starting with Deng Xiaoping leading the second generation from 1976 to 1992; then Jiang Zemin leading the third generation from 1992 to 2003; and from 2003 the fourth generation with Hu Jintao as the core figure (General Secretary), along with prominent leaders including Wu Bangguo, Wen Jiabao, Jia Qinglin, Zeng Qinghong and Li Changchun. By 2012, the fifth generation of leaders will emerge, and the sixth generation of leaders is already being prepared. In Egypt, the last three presidents — Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak — all came from military backgrounds. By contrast, Chinese leaders are mostly from civilian backgrounds, and many of them are in fact engineers. While many historical great leaders have come from military backgrounds, civilian leaders tend to seek non-military solutions, and they also have a broader vision for science, business, and society as a whole. One of the rumors was that President Mubarak was plotting to let his son inherit his presidency, which upset a lot of people in Egypt, including the military council, and resulted in a forced resignation. When we look at the history of the People’s Republic of China, no leader has ever been succeeded by their offspring. The orderly transition of leadership, a well-planned succession, and a merit based leadership selection process has resulted in maintaining China’s stability and progress. On the economy, both Egypt and China face a daunting task to deal with a vast number of people that need education and employment. In the last 30 years, the Egyptian government has reformed the highly centralized economy it inherited from President Nasser. The pace of structural reforms, including fiscal and monetary policies, privatization and new business legislations, helped Egypt to move towards a more market-oriented economy and prompted increased foreign investment. The reforms and policies have strengthened macroeconomic annual growth results which averaged 5% annually, but the government largely failed to curb the growing problem of unemployment and underemployment among youth under the age of 30 years. In this period China has followed its own socialist market economy and become the world’s fastest-growing developing country, with average growth rates of 10% for the past 30 years. China has lifted 300 million people, about four times the size of Egypt’s entire population, out of poverty. Certainly, China still has a lot of work to do, but its amazing accomplishment is clear. China’s success is largely due to its long-term planning strategy — the Five Year Plans . Moreover, China is committed to stay on the course of its Five Year Plans and not by piecemeal legislation. One of the example is China’s overall economic construction objectives were clearly stated in the Three Step Strategy set out in 1978: Step One — double the 1980 GNP and to ensure that the people have enough food and clothing. This was attained by the end of the 1980s; Step Two — quadruple the 1980 GNP by the end of the 20th century. This was achieved in 1995 ahead of schedule; Step Three — increase per-capita GNP to the level of medium-developed countries by 2050, at which point the Chinese people will be fairly well-off and modernization will be basically realized. The 12th Five Year Plan that was adopted in March 2011. Those who are interested in having a deeper understanding of China’s future direction should study the plan and watch the events unfold. China will stick to its plan. In most democracies, the citizen’s trust and satisfaction with their own government is critical to the success of the nation, and China is no exception. Let us take a look at how most Chinese people view their government. According to 2010 Pew Survey: China is clearly the most self-satisfied country. Nearly nine-in-ten Chinese are happy with the direction of their country (87%), feel good about the current state of their economy (91%) and are optimistic about China’s economic future (87%). Moreover, 64% of Chinese have a very favorable view of their own country, a self regard that exceeds that among Americans (48%), Russians (43%), Germans (12%) and Brazilians (31%). Citizen confidence leads to productivity, investments and stability. When the citizens are satisfied, the government can conduct its functions; business can produce goods and services, and people can work and provide for their family. While there might be some similarities between Egypt and China in their long civilization, and the moving from a centralized economy to a market economy in the last 30 years, the difference is that China has maintained an orderly transition of leadership, and an economic planning process that is producing results. Most importantly, China’s people are satisfied with their own government. This article was originally published in CHINA US Focus (www.chinausfocus.com)

Read the full article →

Oman Cement, Chinese CNBM sign USD37.57 upgrades deal

March 21, 2011

Oman Cement, Chinese CNBM sign USD37.57 upgrades deal

Read the full article →

Otaviano Canuto: Whither the U.S. Dollar

March 16, 2011

Is the U.S. dollar really doomed? If it were for some headlines, you would certainly think so. Because of the “Made in the U.S.A” financial crisis, growing budget deficits and debt, increasing dissatisfaction with the international monetary system, and the emerging power of countries such as China, many voices are now proclaiming the eventual demise of the dollar. Not so fast, some discerning minds warn. One of them is Barry Eichengreen, Professor of Economics and Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of the recently released book, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System . He came to present his new book to the World Bank this week, sparking a fascinating debate not only about the future of the dollar, but about global politics. “I’m not predicting its demise, but that it [the dollar] will share the stage,” Eichengreen concluded. But to get here, the professor first debunked four prevailing myths: Widespread international use of a currency confers on its issuer geopolitical and strategic leverage. Incumbency is an overwhelming advantage in the competition for reserve currency status. The dollar is now doomed to lose its international currency status. There is room for only one international currency. As Exorbitant Privilege makes clear, it’s a country’s position as a great power that results in the international status of its currency, not the other way around. Regarding the incumbency “myth,” the British pound, for instance, remained the dominant international currency until after World War II, even after the U.S. had overtaken Britain as the leading economy. And what about the “menacing” euro, the emerging Chinese reminbi, and the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) from the International Monetary Fund? Professor Eichengreen makes clear that despite their growing importance, they cannot yet compete with the currency of the U.S., still the largest economy in the world with the largest and deepest financial markets of any country. But all of the above doesn’t mean that the dollar will remain untouched. In fact, there is room for more than one international currency. “There is no reason that only one country can have financial markets deep and broad enough to make international use of its currency attractive,” writes Eichengreen. For him, the emerging world is one in which several international currencies coexist: dollar, euro, and reminbi. “We are definitely moving into a world with emerging currencies, and multipolar monetary and financial systems,” he explained at the World Bank. Will this be a better international system than what we have now? Only time will tell, but for now many like Professor Eichengreen and I believe such a system will better reflect the reality of our multipolar world, and therefore, make it more stable. This blog was originally posted on the World Bank Institute Growth and Crisis website.

Read the full article →

Al Norman: Wal-Mart: Unions Love Us

March 13, 2011

Last month Wal-Mart commissioned a poll which purported to show that 75% of union members in New York City were “all for” a Wal-Mart in the city. The New York Post ran a story which began, “New York City’s union workers love Wal-Mart.” The improbable results of this “poll” are part of organized effort by Wal-Mart which dates back to 2005, when the giant retailer began to use “push-polls” to counter-attack its critics. On his way out the door in 2009, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott told Fortune Magazine that one of the mistakes he made during his tenure was being far too slow in responding to public criticism of his company. According to Fortune , Scott admitted “he didn’t take its concerns as seriously as he should have, believing instead that the negative feedback was coming from blue-state elites who didn’t shop at Wal-Mart and therefore didn’t understand the money the company saved consumers.” But in 2005, Wal-Mart started to push back at the ‘blue state elites,’ and behave more like a candidate running for public office than a retailer. Scott hired the Democratic PR firm Edelman in 2005, and created a “war room” of operatives in its Bentonville headquarters. A prime weapon was the push-poll. In 2005, Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and V. Lance Tarrance, Jr., a Republican, doing business as RT Strategies, produced a poll commissioned by Working Families For Wal-Mart, which concluded that: • 54% of union households believe union leaders should make protecting union jobs a higher priority than attacking Wal-Mart • 42% of union households believe the campaign against Wal-Mart makes labor union leaders less relevant to solving the economic challenges facing working families today. • 44% of union households agree that the campaign against Wal-Mart is not a good use of union dues Working Families For Wal-Mart issued the following statement with their poll: “The data clearly show that Americans in union households — as well as those not in union households — are skeptical about the goals and priorities of the anti-Wal-Mart campaign being waged by union leaders at a time when U.S. manufacturers are eliminating tens of thousands of union jobs…This poll shows that union families also support Wal-Mart.” In fact, the 2005 poll indicated that 56% of union households agreed that fighting Wal-Mart was a good use of union dues. In 2009, Wal-Mart produced a political push-poll in Chicago in which residents were asked the following leading question: Mayor Daley says that a Wal-Mart at 83rd & Stewart would bring 400+ jobs to the city and make fresh food available to the neighborhood; others believe jobs are not enough. Press 1 if you believe a Wal-Mart should be allowed to be built or Press 2 if you believe it should not. More recently, Wal-Mart commissioned two polls in New York City designed to bolster its wooing of the City Council. In December of 2010, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle ran a story which began : “A recent poll commissioned by Wal-Mart reveals that 76% of Brooklyn residents say they favor Wal-Mart coming to the city.” The newspaper added: “Based on these facts, it appears Brooklyn could soon have a Wal-Mart.” The pollster hired by Wal-Mart was Douglas E. Schoen, whose website describes him as “one of the most influential Democratic campaign consultants for over thirty years.” According to Crain’s New York Business , Schoen was hired by Wal-Mart “to counter those who would argue that a Wal-Mart poll would be biased.” The Schoen poll showed that 37% of respondents did not favor locating a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood, and 30% did not agree that New York City should have a Wal-Mart. These are remarkably high negative numbers for a retail store. As one Wal-Mart executive pointed out years ago, “Why all the fuss? We’re not a nuclear waste dump.” While on Wal-Mart’s payroll, Schoen also produced another poll of 400 small businesses in New York, which concluded that 62% of businesses with 50 workers or less wanted Wal-Mart to come to New York. But Schoen’s poll also showed that among small retailers — the only businesses surveyed who actually compete with Wal-Mart — 45% refused to say they favored Wal-Mart coming to New York City. In Manhattan and Brooklyn, 42% of small businesses did not say they were favorable to Wal-Mart, and in the Bronx, 56% of small business did not say they favored a Wal-Mart. Schoen apparently did not want the public to see his survey questions, because neither of his Wal-Mart surveys are posted on his website, nor are they mentioned on Wal-Mart’s websites. But Schoen was part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s inner circle, and Bloomberg’s former campaign manager, Bradley Tusk, was running Wal-Mart’s campaign in New York City. Lee Scott may have thought that Wal-Mart was slow to respond to its critics, but the company is working overtime now producing a wall of polling data to make it appear that everyone in urban America — including Democrats and union members — want a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood. No retailer in American history has ever had to divert so far from its corporate mission to do damage control on its image. Rather than focus on mass marketing cheap Chinese anythings, Wal-Mart has been forced to spend millions of dollars to sell itself instead. If its polling numbers were better, the company wouldn’t have to keep producing more polls. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters. His book “Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart” is a classic in community organizing strategy. Sprawl-Busters can be found on Facebook.

Read the full article →

Don McNay: Are You Working Towards Your Dream?

March 13, 2011

“And she never had dreams, so they never came true” -J. Giles Band As a structured settlement consultant, I go to meditations and settlement conferences with people who anticipate receiving large sums of money. I ask every person the same question. “Forget about what is going on today. If you won the lottery, what would you spend the money on?” The initial answers are usually vague, like “invest” or “put money in the bank.” Then, I tell them that when I become a billionaire, I am going to buy the Cincinnati Reds. When I tell them about my lifelong desire to own the Reds, they start talking about the things that interest them. From a planning standpoint, the lottery question is a great one. Everyone has dreams and desires but usually keep them hidden, back in the recesses of their minds. The lottery question gets those dreams and desires out in the open, on the front burner. Some of them have expensive aspirations (owning a NASCAR team comes up frequently). But, usually, they want things like sending their children to a nice college, buying a particular piece of property or helping their church. Once we start the conversation, the list gets longer and longer. My goal is to get people to think long-term. They need to clear their thinking of the rat race of every day life. The lottery question makes that happen. You don’t find many Americans who really think long-term. Many people go through life never developing real goals or good habits. We need a lottery question to help guide the people in Washington and Wall Street. Those of us on Main Street need it, too. Someone once said that American business people think quarter to quarter, Japanese business people think decade to decade and Chinese business people think century to century. We’ve watched short-term myopia destroy Wall Street. We need to take a lesson from our friends in the Far East. My father always said, “If you tell me who your friends are, I’ll tell you who you are.” You want to be hanging out with dreamers. And you want to be a dreamer yourself. A college friend introduced me to the J Giles song, “Angel in Blue,” and its sad lyric struck me even then. My friend was a person who never seemed to have any dreams or goals. I’ve always had bunches of them and I couldn’t understand a person who didn’t. I think everyone has some kind of dream or goal, but it gets buried by the overwhelming burdens of everyday life. Maybe that is why the lottery question is so effective. It takes people away the realities of their current situations and puts them in fantasy world, where they can start clean. If people take the time to ask themselves both the lottery question, it will allow them to focus on their goals and objectives. Once they get focused on their dreams, they may actually come true. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond, Kentucky, is an award-winning columnist, structured settlement consultant and Huffington Post Contributor. He is the author of the book, Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win the Lottery. He has appeared on the CBS Evening News With Katie Couric along with numerous other television and radio programs. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com . McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Hall of Distinguished Alumni of Eastern Kentucky University. McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

3,001 Arrested For Product Piracy In China’s Latest Crackdown

March 13, 2011

BEIJING — Chinese authorities have arrested 3,001 people in their latest crackdown on rampant product piracy and seized fake or counterfeit medicines, liquor, mobile phones and other goods, officials said Sunday. The campaign launched in October comes as Beijing faces pressure from the United States and other trading partners to stamp out product copying. China is a leading soure of fake goods despite repeated crackdowns, but Chinese officials have promised the latest enforcement will produce lasting results. Communist leaders have given the new crackdown special prominence, publicly linking it to efforts to transform China from a low-cost factory to a creator of profitable technology by nurturing companies in software and other fields. China’s fledgling software, music and other creative companies have been devastated by unlicensed copying. “Intellectual property protection is essential for building an innovation-oriented country and achieving a shift from `China manufactured’ to `China innovated,’” Li Chenggang, deputy director of the Commerce Ministry’s law department, said at a news conference. He was joined by officials of China’s commerce, intellectual property and other agencies. Trade groups say illegal Chinese copying of music, designer clothing and other goods costs legitimate producers billions of dollars a year in lost potential sales. The American Chamber of Commerce in China says 70 percent of its member companies consider Beijing’s enforcement of patents, trademarks and copyrights ineffective. Businesspeople have expressed optimism about the latest effort because a rising Communist Party star, Vice Premier Wang Qishan, has been put in charge and an enforcement office set up in the Commerce Ministry. A report distributed at Sunday’s news conference said that goods seized in the latest crackdown include 26,000 mobile phones, some with phony Nokia and Apple labels, copies of Louis Vuitton bags and Rolex watches, automotive components, DVDs and clothing. It said authorities shut down 292 websites selling counterfeit and fake goods. Also Sunday, the official Xinhua News Agency said 23 people accused of producing fake medicine were detained in the central city of Jingzhou in Hubei province. It said they made more than 100 million capsules filled with sawdust and wheat flour and sold under the brand names of 201 different types of medication. Xinhua said the medicines were sold by mail and over the Internet but gave no details of whether anyone was injured or which brand names were counterfeited. Piracy is especially sensitive at a time when Washington and other Western governments are trying to create jobs by boosting exports. In 2009, the World Trade Organization upheld a U.S. complaint that Beijing was violating trade commitments by failing to root out the problem. Rampant copying also has hampered Beijing’s efforts to attract technology industries because businesspeople say companies are reluctant to do high-level research in China or bring in advanced designs for fear of theft.

Read the full article →

Tom Doctoroff: Consumers vs. Corporations: China’s Great Digital Divide

March 12, 2011

China’s technologically liberated consumers are ready for a digital commercial revolution. But manufacturers and their communications partners — advertising agencies, both digital and traditional, as well as media companies — are letting them down by not approaching the sector strategically. Liberation for Everyman It is difficult to overstate the impact China’s launch into cyberspace has made for Middle Kingdom’s Everyman. Today, the country boasts 500 million netizens, 150 million of whom have access to high-speed Internet; 200 million bloggers; 100 million micro-bloggers (Chinese “Twitterers”) and 800 million mobile phone users. Digital technology has been secularized. No longer used only by young urbanized hipsters, the sea change epic. Shielded by on-line anonymity, free wheeling surfers broadcast accomplishments, weigh in on current events, download porn, hook up for sex, release rage through violent video games, criticize the government (gingerly), and plug into virtual communities. True, China’s Great Digital Firewall extinguishes hints of collective protest. But Westerners overestimate the constrictive effect of 50,000 net nannies. Denizens of the People’s Republic have more opportunities to explore the world and are freer to express views than any time in history. None of this would have been possible without the Internet. For bargain-crazy consumers, the rise of e-tailers presages an era of commercial Nirvana. According to the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), in 2010, 40 million Chinese booked hotel rooms, airline tickets and holiday tours on travel websites such as C-trip. On-line activity accounted for only an 2% of total 2009 retail spending, up from 1% in 2008; however, rates in coastal cities are already much higher. Alipay, e-commerce behemoth Alibaba’s version of PayPal, has made skittish, reassurance-driven consumers more at ease conducting digital transactions. (China has historically been a “cash is king” society. But consumers are increasingly comfortable spending on-line as long as they can inspect merchandise before transactions are completed.) On-line emporiums such as Taobao have emboldened shoppers to ruthlessly compare prices, realigning the balance of power between buyer and seller. Brand Conventionality For most brands , unfortunately, the digital revolution has not been harnessed. Few have exploited on-line tools to lift profit margins. Virtual consumerism is even more commoditized than in the bricks and mortar world. (Few smart phone users are willing to actually pay money for apps.) As a rule, cyberspace has been carpet bombed with promotional cheap fixes, with zero message consistency or insight into the emotional drivers of netizens. Yes, there are exceptions. PepsiCo’s “Get on the Can” Challenge provided ego-driven youth a platform to shine, literally, by emblazoning faces on cola packages. In the process, the campaign generated 600 million hits. Ford’s “21 Day Excitement” competition employed on-line canvassing to select ten “everyday superstars” to morph from “bland to bold,” dramatizing its “Make Every Day Exciting” proposition. To promote the N-series range, Nokia’s “Bruce Lee Reborn” viral and Ovi app campaign connected surfers to an icon of Chinese masculinity. Most of the time, however, China’s digital landscape resembles a real world bazaar: noisy and clanging, promotion-happy, discount-driven, with the vast majority of on-line advertising slapped onto highly trafficked portals (e.g., Sina, Baidu, QQ) as banner ads. Required: A New Brand Building Vision The communications industry must lift its game to harness the energy released by China’s digital big bang. To do that, we need a North Star. The Brand Idea: Still Sacred. Without the unifying power of the Brand Idea, conceptual chaos erupts. For decades, advertisers’ responsibility has been to forge brand ideas that evolve, but do not fundamentally change, over time. They are rooted in insight, the fundamental motivations of consumers. Through sports shoes, we buck against societal convention to Just Do It on the basketball court. Through engagement rings, we demonstrate enduring passion because “A (DeBeers) Diamond is Forever.” Brand engagement occurs over the airwaves, in the supermarket aisle via blue tooth, through the latest iPhone app, or an on-line loyalty program. And the brand idea, the long-term relationship between consumer and product, is at the center of it all. Apple’s “Think Different,” Kit Kat’s “Have a Break,” Axe’s “Chick Magnet,” Rejoice shampoo’s “Confidence from Softness,” or Pepsi’s “New Generation Choice” is the unifying core, order’s gravitational force. The industry must acknowledge new technological experiences are never, in and of themselves, ideas. Instead, they allow consumers to engage with ideas in new ways. True, marketers are often digitally “clever.” Headlines such as “P&G turns virtual makeover app into Max Factor contest,” “Budlime launch ties into Tudou’s first drama series” and “Unilever links hot steam with warm wishes in Lipton contest” are common. But they rarely reinforce an enduring brand idea. New media titillation has led to digital promiscuity. From Passive Consumption to Active Participation. The fundamental role of the brand will not change as a result of China’s digital liberation. Indeed, as brand options multiply and media costs skyrocket, the need to minimize consumer disorientation is more urgent than ever. However, the one-to-one nature of digital expression provides opportunities to deepen and broaden involvement. “Creative ideas” can become “engagement ideas,” transforming passive exposure into active participation. Advertising agencies should no longer produce work that “interrupts.” Instead, we should “make things” – content -people want to spent time with. DeBeers “Love World,” a microsite where young men express commitment by creating a virtual world of “omnipresent” love, is the shape of things to come. So is Nike Plus, a hi-tech manifestation of the “Just Do It” spirit that enables runners to compete with athletes anytime and anywhere on the planet. Axe’s “sexy wake up call,” an app that brings the product’s “masculine irresistibility” into the bedroom, demonstrates technology’s power to reinforce a core brand proposition. Consumption of communications via digital devices – mobile phones, tablets, computers, etc. – is revolutionary because manufacturers no longer “broadcast” messages. Through a bewildering array of channels, engagement is one-to-one, between marketer and users or between users themselves. “Content” is played with, commented on, expanded upon, competed with and exchanged within “brand communities.” Corporations need to accept their ability to “control” messaging – how a product is positioned, how brands are commented on publicly – will never be the same. (A caveat: broadcast media will never be eclipsed as the primary means of defining propositions. China, a country in which consumers have relatively limited inexperience in digesting brands, requires simplicity. The 30-second television commercial, passively received, is an irreplaceable, albeit expensive, weapon in forging conceptual order. This is why international agencies and media companies operating in the PRC still earn almost all revenue from “traditional” advertising.) The Communications Industry: Change Required The digital engagement imperative presents four fundamental, and interrelated, challenges. Real Time Measurement. First, our industry must hone its ability to measure the effectiveness of digital engagement ideas. Advertising agencies will forfeit legitimacy unless we are able to track, in real time, effectiveness. Broadcast media efficiency is a question of reach and frequency; digital creative, on the other hand, is measured via “stickiness,” “virality,” “click through rates,” “conversion to purchase,” and return on investment (ROI). Any strategic planning department worth its salt must maintain a robust analytics practice. Continuous Engagement. Second, creative agencies must move away from only executing “campaigns” – discrete television and print “bursts” that announce product news – towards “continuous engagement planning.” In an era of technological liberation, there are infinite ways to connect consumers with brands and brand communities. We need to restructure operations to facilitate rapid creative response to real and virtual world developments. We must recruit “story managers” to produce “idea amplifiers,” “or “bite-sized idea sustainers” that maximize the buzz of a given engagement idea. Agencies should operate as “newsrooms,” focused on the big story but flexible enough to cut and thrust as consumer react to creative stimulus. As engagement ideas are manifested in ever-expanding forms, we must plug into a broader array of talent. From bloggers to videographers and on-line performance artists to app developers, we have no choice but to fling open windows and connect with cutting-edge creators. We will never have a monopoly on talent. Employees must survey the Brave New World and forge strategic partnerships with innovators. We must reach into the market for new alliances. We need to embrace expertise wherever it exists, lest we fade to irrelevance. Digital Mainstreaming. Third, it is time to “mainstream” digital creative. Digital is not a “department” or “specialization,” and not a discrete profit center. It is a new media, incredibly potent, just as television was in the 1950s. And creativity remains at the center of the digital ecosystem. Global agencies must integrate digital savvy – genuine technological experimentation — into each account and creative group. Yes, in the interest of a healthy bottom line, certain disciplines – e.g., analytics, technology optimization, digital production, and project management – must reside within a centralized “experience” department. But digital adventurism must permeate the entire organization. Organizational structure must reflect a commitment to media neutrality. Media Innovation. Finally, the “revenue war” between media companies and advertising agencies must end. Media shops will always excel in negotiating low rates with vendors based on volume. They also boast the administrative prowess to plan media across time and geography. But let’s call a spade a spade: the process-driven culture of traditional media companies is incompatible with idea-centric creativity. As the digital universe expands, “ideas” must increasingly “live through” media. In the post-broadcast era, ideas and how consumers experience them are inseparable. If this truth is ignored, investment will evaporate as binary clutter. Advertising agencies need the freedom to establish partnerships with, and derive revenue from, digital media owners. Development of innovative digital solutions must be a strategic imperative of all communications experts, including creative shops. Chinese Enterprises: Vast Opportunity, Structural Limitations The PRC, brand-obsessed and Internet-crazy, is ripe for a digital Great Leap Forward. The Chinese are passionate about social media, highly- developed technology platforms most brands have barely begun to exploit. Through on-line car clubs, digital baby-care communities and a hundred million micro-blogs, Middle Kingdom denizens have embraced social networks on a scale Westerns find difficult to fathom. But these burgeoning on-line communities only tangentially intersect with brands. By leveraging brand ideas, manufacturers can enlist the support of on-line opinion leaders. China is reassurance-driven market in which the importance of personal recommendations is difficult to overstate. It is time to: a) establish common cause with digital influencers to transform on-line communities into virtual brand villages, b) translate SNS affiliation into sustained dialog with individuals, c) monetize one-on-one interaction via on-line loyalty and customer relationship management (CRM) programs and d) elevate the long-term profit contribution of discrete customers. Yes, the opportunity is vast. But the road to digital Utopia will be long and winding. Digital development in the PRC is constipated. Primitive Suppliers. Suppliers are, by and large, unsophisticated. The only large “digital agencies” in China are on-line media agents; the majority place low-end banner ads and television commercials on “mass reach” websites or portals. These companies, many corrupted by rampant kickbacks, treat creative as an add-on “design service.” Revenue is based page views, not click-through. “Depth of engagement” – e.g., time spent with a digital idea – is still an abstruse concept. While investment in analytic tools has grown, few are sophisticated enough to measure or track ROI. Limited Talent. Digital conceptual craftsmanship – the expression of brand ideas through digital media – is undeveloped. Most creative leaders remain tethered to the safety of “traditional” broadcast advertising. Senior digital talent is largely “imported” from abroad. The challenge of inculcating a passion for new technology while remaining faithful to brand building fundamentals is immense. This is particularly true in conservative China, a country that prizes concrete predictability and shies away from the untested – i.e., anything that does not guarantee fixed return. Chronic Short-Termism. Even more critically, Chinese enterprises, like their agency brethren, are not structured to embrace the potential of digital brand building. Digital spending accounts for only 7% of total media activity. Television is still king. To boot, e-commerce is immature given the prevalence of on-line shopping. According to a recent study by Aquarius Asia, approximately one-third, or 142 million, of Chinese Internet users shop on-line. But most companies do not cater to the on-line market. Indeed, per Aquarius’ report, “The top 100 manufacturers of consumer goods are giving away a large share of their online potential. Three out of four major companies do not efficiently use sustainable tools like SEM (search engine marketing) or SEO (search engine optimization) to reach their target groups.” China is a market that reveres scale and volume. Its largest companies are structured, and managed, to drive low-margin sales. Some enterprises, particularly within “strategic” industries, have made progress climbing up value ladders. But few have embraced “brand equity” as the lynchpin of sustainable price premiums. Shoddy corporate governance precludes CEOs from maximizing long-term shareholder return. Panicky marketing executives defer to omnipotent sales barons who enforce short-term promotional pushes; only the most enlightened leaders reject the belief that low price is a competitive weapon. The reign of independent fiefdoms – departmental warlordism – militates against trans-category collaboration for data collection, data base management and cross selling. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – i.e., maximizing individual customer profit contribution over time – is still an alien concept. The Middle Kingdom’s business culture, therefore, remains antithetical to bold experimentation across digital domains. …… In conclusion, Chinese consumers outpace Chinese corporations and agencies in exploring the new digital ecosystem. There are fundamental structural and cultural barriers that impede idea-centric, media-neutral advertising. Given the potential for digital engagement to redefine the relationship between consumers and brands, new media will transform the commercial and communications landscape. But, as always, progress will be agonizingly incremental.

Read the full article →

Heba el Habashy and Charles LaCalle: The Burberry Revolution

March 9, 2011

Rain poured from mechanical spouts above the podium, splashing the bloggers, the editors, and the celebrities in the front row of the Burberry Prorsum show. Transparent rain slickers protected the model’s matching Burberry trenches. Perhaps this was Christopher Bailey’s allegory for Burberry’s unique ability to weather the global financial crisis that left veterans Lacroix and Yohji Yamamoto in financial ruin. Yet, financial meltdowns sometimes provide unique opportunities for reinvention. In the early stages of the crisis in November 2008, Burberry’s stock price was £175. By January 2010, the share price had risen to £1,116. Is it Emma Watson, a la Hermoine Granger, bewitching consumers through her advertising campaign? Probably not. The real reasons for Burberry’s success are complicated but can serve as a guide for both luxury brands and young designers trying to survive in the competitive retail sector. Step 1: Rejuvenation of the Brand Image From 2000 to 2004, Burberry’s image was hijacked by what the financial times called a “sub-culture prone to drinking and anti-social behavior.” Slate called them a group of “tough guys, skanks, soccer hooligans, lower-class unsophicates, and cheesy celebrities”. The Chavs, as they are known in England, began wearing Burberry plaid as a sort of Droog uniform to signify their status. Given their reputation, it was not long before they became victims of sartorial profiling. The denouement of the Chav takeover came when Daniella Westbrook, one of the high priestesses of the Chav religion, was photographed in a tartan ensemble complete with a tartan baby stroller (or “pram” since we’re talking about the Brits). Needless to say, Burberry became the classic example of prole-drift, a term coined by Paul Fussell to describe when products of culture become associated with the working class or sub-culture of a society. This proved financially expedient in the short term as sales for products with the tartan design flew off the shelves, but it could not be sustained as the print became too closely associated with the subculture. In 2004 the brand responded by scaling back the tartan on the outside of apparel, while still allowing the iconic print to mark the lining. Then in 2005, the Buberry Prorsum collection saw an abrupt shift. The previous season was inspired by the singer and drug addict Marianne Faithfull and by Christopher Bailey’s home in Yorkshire. In 2005 , the collection seemed closer to weekend attire for Balmoral than for Yorkshire. In the years since, Christopher Bailey has continued to produce heritage with an edge for the historic house. Step 2: Supply Chain In 2006, Angela Ahrendts joined Burberry as CEO and began transforming the business as drastically as Bailey was changing the image. Currently, Burberry may be more poised than any other brand to compete with fast fashion retailers. Their secret weapon lies in their responsive supply chain. For a luxury brand like Burberry, a streamlined infrastructure is vital for sourcing raw materials and finished goods, maintaining wholesale accounts, and merchandising Burberry distribution outlets. In 2006, Burberry began a full-scale makeover of its supply chain management systems, the fruits of which investors are just now able to see. The costs associated with such a system were extremely high because of the complexity of the Burberry supply chain. Burberry spent £21.6 million in 2009 on the installation of the system. As of now, approximately 90% of Burberry’s stores are converted to the new SAP systems. In 2009, Burberry deployed its new SAP system in the United States. A retailer’s dream is to decrease inventory levels, and Burberry was able to do so by an astonishing 36% as a result of this new system. The company could now monitor and predict what items to merchandise. Imram Ahmed notes that this system allows Burberry “to react rapidly to sales trends and capitalize on bestsellers.” Step 3: China Burberry has taken big risks by opening stores in emerging luxury markets like Serbia, Egypt, and Israel, but the most rewarding market has not surprisingly been China. Burberry added 13 new stores in China last year, making a total of 50 in the mainland. Burberry has operated in the country since the early 1990s through a partnership with franchiser Kwok Hang Holdings. In 2010, the brand bought back the license from its business partner for 70 million pounds in order to create a consistent global brand image. The China strategy was the last major effort to rein in the global Burberry licenses. Shareholders overwhelmingly approval of the China strategy, which put Burberry in a position to take hold of the rapidly expanding Chinese luxury market. A Mintel report recently stated, “despite unemployment and extreme poverty, China’s young, affluent consumers have enjoyed a fast rate of growth over the past five years, making it the fourth largest [luxury market] in the world.” Burberry’s rival Prada saw a 75% increase in turnover in China in 2010 alone. By many accounts, China is set to become the largest luxury market in the next few years, and Burberry is now in a position to easily take advantage of this. Step 4: Retail Burberry is relying less than ever before on its wholesale accounts by shifting to a retail-led growth model and utilizing creative retail schemes. Burberry chose to buck the trend of showcasing specific collections in certain stores, instead featuring all lines in each of its retail locations. Additionally, the existing stores in its portfolio have been upgraded and remodeled to achieve consistency across locations. While most luxury houses were reluctant to imperil their brand image by moving online, Burberry focused heavily on e-commerce development. This strategy has proven extremely successful. Online sales for Burberry rose 60% last year and are likely to continue increasing as more consumers shop online. Even in the brick and mortar locations, shoppers have access to tablets to purchase clothes to be delivered later. For the spring 2011 collection, the brand partnered with Verizon Communications to create a retail theater in its stores. Shoppers in 25 outlets worldwide were able to order items straight off the runway as the show was being broadcast live during London fashion week. Items were delivered within seven weeks. While many luxury companies rely on one ‘it bag’ to make up the bulk of revenue, Burberry offers an array of popular items and also recently introduced a cosmetics line. Because of this variety, the company has not had to resort to a diffusion line like many other luxury companies. While companies are fighting fast fashion by going down market, Burberry has had massive success with the Prorsum line. Established in 1998, this line was meant to bring a youthful flair to the historic brand while maintaining luxury prices and quality. Burberry’s bottom line has also been bolstered as one of the fastest growing segments in retail in part due to its focus on menswear. Men’s clothing is an afterthought for most brands, but Burberry places equal emphasis on both men’s and women’s ready to wear. Burberry’s grip on e-commerce, strong product lines, and focus on menswear will surely amount to huge profits in the coming years. Step 5: Social Media Just last year, Tom Ford created a frenzy when he closed off his fashion show to only the most select coterie of editors. Burberry is doing the exact opposite as it strives towards “democratic luxury positioning”. For its Fall 2011 show, the brand live streamed the event on the iconic Piccadilly Circus mega-screen as well as to 150 countries around the world. Burberry is the brand that is most “liked” on Facebook with over 2 million fans. Burberry’s “Art of the Trench website capitalizes on the craze for street fashion by portraying highly stylized ways common Burberry consumers wear their trenches. This site inspired rival Hermes to create a similar site focusing on their iconic scarves. The focus on the consumer does not stop there. Burberry recently introduced a bespoke line for the classic trench. Now customers can choose the detailing of their coat and make it as edgy or as classic as they want. This emphasis on “customer knows best” is in line with Buberry’s focus on “democratizing luxury”. Instead of forcing styles on consumers, Burberry is giving them the power to reinvent the classic trench. This shows a huge confidence in the sophistication and awareness of the luxury customer. Consumers no longer buy idly as they are given reign make crucial design decisions. For those who want a one of a kind piece, the bespoke line offers unique pieces that others do not have access to. For those who want to share their design with friends, the bespoke line creates a new sales force of consumers-cum-designers. Despite Burberry’s historic roots, the brand refuses to be tied down by the heavy burdens that tradition can sometimes impose. Burberry has evolved even faster than many other younger brands and as a result has maintained a loyal customer base as well as growth in the double digits. Burberry’s embrace of the Internet goes farther than e-commerce. The real value that the company has gained from the Internet is a close connection with its customer as social media has allowed the brand to reach millions of followers. Instantaneous feedback from these followers allows the brand to outpace its competition in crafting strategy. It’s not immediately apparent how to draw the lines between a major brand like Burberry and emerging fashion designers. Up and comers don’t have massive supply chains and they definitely do not have enough volume for their image to be hijacked by a subculture. Nevertheless, connecting with consumers, expanding into new emerging markets, and brand consistency are important for designers at any stage of development.

Read the full article →

China Promises Sweeping Economic Change

March 7, 2011

BEIJING — China’s government is promising an economic overhaul that would raise the status of consumers and entrepreneurs but has given no sign how it will tackle its politically volatile reforms. Beijing wants to nurture self-sustaining growth driven by consumption and develop service and high-tech industries, Premier Wen Jiabao said in a weekend speech outlining goals for 2011. That will require reining in elite state industry and other changes that might trigger a backlash within the party – hurdles Wen avoided mentioning. “It looks great on the surface but it isn’t clear whether they have the political capital or will to push through those changes,” said Alistair Thornton, China analyst for IHS Global Insight. Changes outlined by Wen could drive the evolution of the world’s second-largest economy from low-cost factory into major consumer market. That might help to narrow a yawning wealth gap between China’s elite and its poor majority and ease tensions over its trade surplus by boosting consumer demand for imports. But to achieve its goals, Beijing has to cut subsidies and low-cost bank loans to state companies, real estate developers and other vested interests that have allies in the Communist Party and might fight back. Wen promised unspecified “interest rate reforms” – a suggestion Beijing might give entrepreneurs a more level playing field by allowing the market to set interest rates – but he gave no timeline. The government has announced similar changes in past years but done little toward carrying them out. The government also will have to clamp down on growth driven by investment, which might alienate local leaders whose development plans call for more spending on new factories and public works. The plan is in line with goals approved by communist leaders in a five-year development plan in October. It calls for shifting from the investment- and export-led growth of China’s three-decade-old boom to promote efficiency and household spending. Wen said Beijing will encourage consumer spending, including giving subsidies to the rural poor to buy home appliances. “We will focus on the establishment of a long-term mechanism to boost domestic demand,” Zhang Ping, the chairman of the Cabinet’s planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, told a news conference Sunday. “In the past five-year plan period, we focused on growth. In the next five-year plan period, we will focus on improving people’s livelihood,” Zhang said. Wen promised to promote technology industries from software and new energy vehicles to environmental protection. That could create higher-paid jobs but also might fuel strains with Washington and other governments that complain Beijing is hampering access to its markets in its efforts to promote Chinese technology companies. To narrow the wealth gap, Wen promised more social spending, a higher minimum wage and taxes on real estate. New social spending could be financed by requiring major state companies to hand over more of their profits to the government, a step a Cabinet official said last month Beijing plans to take. But that, combined with changes in access to credit and resources, could conflict with Beijing’s campaign to create “national champions” in a range of industries from banking to oil to airlines. Regulators who oversee China’s top companies say they are less competitive than their foreign counterparts, raising questions about how they will function without continued government support. A Chinese think tank, the Unirule Institute of Economics, said in a report this month that major state companies are so inefficient that if subsidies are factored out, their return on equity – a measure of profitability – was an annual loss of 6 percent from 2001 to 2008. “It’s a question of stopping that,” said Thornton. “A lot of it is economic – changes in interest rates, cheap land and so on. But a lot of it is political and tackling those vested interests.”

Read the full article →

L. Randall Wray: Deficit Impasse: What Should We Cut?

March 3, 2011

It looks like Washington will grant a two week reprieve, allowing Congress and the president time to identify spending areas where it can cut to “rein in” its “runaway” budget deficits. Let us take a look at budget realities. First, it is useful to examine current spending by the federal government. Social Security spending is about 20% of the budget; Medicare and Medicaid total 23%; interest is 6%; other “mandated” spending is 12%; and “discretionary spending” amounts to 19%. These percentages are all predicated on a narrow definition of “defense” spending, limited to Department of Defense outlays that total 20% of the budget. Using a broader definition that would eat into some of the areas enumerated above (including discretionary spending), defense is really 28% to 38% of the budget. By official classification, something over 60% of the budget is nondiscretionary (defense is included as discretionary for these purposes). If we leave to the side defense, it is clear that cuts to discretionary spending, alone, will not make much of a difference so far as budget cutting goes. That is why there is so much focus on “entitlements” like medical care and Social Security. Yesterday Michael Tanner — from the CATO institute — and I were invited to discuss on Public Radio the impact of the “big three” (medical care, Social Security, and defense) on the federal budget, and the desirability of cuts in these programs to reduce the deficit and growth of the federal government’s debt. (See here for the audio tape.) (I will leave to the side the irony of the fact that CATO was invited to expound its views on publicly-supported radio, particularly after Congress has followed the free marketeer’s desire to eliminate public funding to the main alternative to Fox news. Presumably, Fox and the rest of the mainstream for-profit media already allocates ample time to CATO, so it is interesting that CATO would not “put its money where its mouth is” — so to speak — by staying off government-funded radio.) I began by noting that “money” and “funding” cannot be an issue for our federal government, which is the issuer of our sovereign currency. It spends through “keystrokes” — by crediting bank accounts — and hence could never “run out of money”. I am not alone in this argument. In March 2005, in response to a question by Rep. Paul Ryan (“Do you believe that personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system [Social Security] and make those future retiree benefits more secure?”), Chairman Greenspan said: “Well I wouldn’t say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase.” This statement is particularly important, given that Alan Greenspan had headed the commission under President Reagan that transformed Social Security from “pay-as-you-go” to “advance funding” — from a system in which tax revenues were set to just match benefit payments to one in which tax revenues were one-third larger than benefits in order to build up trillions of dollars in a “Trust Fund” to be used later. Greenspan admitted in 2005 that trust funds are not at all necessary to secure the benefit payments, because government can always “create money” to meet benefit payments. In other words, the change to the program that he had pushed back in 1983 was totally unnecessary. All it did was to reduce worker’s take-home paychecks for the past three decades. Much later, in a 60 Minutes interview by Scott Pelley, Chairman Bernanke said much the same thing. When asked about the Fed’s bailout of Wall Street, Pelley asked “Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?”, Bernanke (correctly) responded: “It’s not tax money. The banks have — accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.” That is true, and it applies equally well to Fed purchases of assets (Fed “lending” is really just the purchase of a bank’s IOU; the Fed can — and does — also buy toxic waste mortgage backed securities from banks by crediting their reserve accounts.) In truth, both Bernanke and Greenspan have accurately described the way both the Fed and the Treasury spend — they credit bank accounts. And as Thatcher said: TINA (there is no alternative)! The sovereign government only spends that way. All it needs is Congressional authorization to credit the accounts. With that preface, we turn the debate to the “real economy”. There is no question about government ability to spend, about government “solvency” or “sustainability” of budget deficits or of the possibility of sovereign government “bankruptcy”. Sovereign government is not like a firm or household. It can buy anything for sale in its own currency. It can never run out of its own “money” — its own IOUs — and can always create more by crediting bank accounts. It can never be forced to default on its commitments, and it can never be forced into bankruptcy court. So what matters is not the “impact on the budget” but rather the impact on the economy of spending on the “big three” categories: medical care, Social Security, and defense. Let us look at each in turn. 1. Medical care. US medical care spending is equal to nearly 18% of US GDP, or well over $8,000 per person per year. In the UK the relevant figure is 8%; it is around 10% in Canada and Germany. Clearly, the US is unusually high. I have looked at this in some detail in previous work. Our high spending has (mostly) to do with two main factors: our population is less healthy (a euphemism for more likely to be obese) and we send a much higher percent of every healthcare dollar to insurance companies. Focusing only on Medicare and Medicaid spending is a huge mistake — the total federal government share of health care spending is 27%; Medicare spending is about a fifth and Medicaid is about 15%. Private health insurance is a third; and out-of-pocket expenditure is 12%. The total household share is 28%, the private business share is 21%, and the state and local government share is 16%. I provide these details only to indicate that rising health care costs (again, largely due to obesity of the population as well as to the greed of Wall Street’s insurance industry) are a burden on every sector of our economy. The right wing is right: the situation is unsustainable, with health care costs growing at a 6%-9% annual rate (depending on sector) — much faster than GDP. Simple math shows that health care will amount to 100% of GDP before long at that pace. Reform is necessary and inevitable. But it is not just the government’s programs that must be reformed. Both households and firms will be bankrupted by health care costs long before health care spending reaches 100% of GDP. We need sensible reform. What makes the most sense is to get the insurance industry out of health care, and to deal with obesity and all of its associated health care problems directly. Dare I say it? Yes. We need a national single payer system. 2. Social Security. It now absorbs just under 4.5% of GDP, and it amounts to a fifth of the federal budget. There are currently 50 million recipients and 154 million workers subject to payroll taxes. That ratio will get “worse” as we age. Still, the total demand on our nation’s output will peak at somewhere just north of 6% of GDP, and will settle down to just under that ratio for the infinite future. Hence, as we age as a society we will need to shift somewhere between 1% and 1.5% more of GDP toward Social Security to provide a decent safety net to tomorrow’s retirees. Note that we have achieved a much bigger shift than that over the past two generations — without financial Armageddon, and without excessive burdens on the working population. Indeed, when one looks at the real world projections, one wonders what all the hysteria is about. Can our nation “afford” to shift a measly one percent more of GDP toward the elderly over the next two generations? Of course it can. Note that workers in 1965 supported more dependents (young+old) than any generation will ever support again. Were they miserable? It was the golden age of US capitalism, an era of rapidly rising living standards. Yes, I do agree that it is much more exciting to support lots of young people than it will be to support a nation of old geezers. (I can say that because I was both — I was one of those protesting and revolting teens of the 1960s, and I’ll be one of the toothless geezers that workers of 2030 will have to support with titanium hips — but I’m not so sure that the excitement of the 1960s should be preferred to the quiescent 2030s when the babyboomers are mostly wheel-chair bound or safely planted in their permanent places of rest.) 3. Defense accounts for either 5% of GDP or 10%, depending on the classification of spending. The smaller figure counts only Department of Defense spending; the broader classification includes estimates of (somewhat hidden) spending outside DOD. Between 2000 and 2009 that has been growing at a 9% annual pace — much above GDP. It accounts for half of all discretionary spending, hence, is a natural target for cuts. US defense spending amounts to 40% of global spending on military, and is six times Chinese spending. Again, the question is not “can the US government afford to continue to spend somewhere between $1 trillion and $1.35 trillion per year on defense”? Of course it can. It buys bombs of mass destruction in exactly the same way it buys financial instruments of mass destruction (toxic MBSs): by crediting bank accounts. It cannot “run out of money”. So the real question is this: do we really want to devote perhaps a tenth of our nation’s output to the military? Moreover, the defense sector tends to be the most high-tech, utilizing the most advanced plant and equipment and the most highly skilled workers. It competes with other areas that are critical to US development — sophisticated production like the bullet trains and the solar energy plants the US will need. As President Obama argued in his State of the Union address, the US will need to invest much more in our high tech sectors to keep up with China. So the real question is whether it makes more sense for the US to devote 10% of its GDP to produce bombs and jet fighters that are sent off to war in Afghanistan, or would it be better to shift real resources to projects that would move our economy into the 21st century? In all these three areas, single-minded focus on the budget deficit and growth of the government’s debt is not only a diversion, but is completely counterproductive. It does not let us move toward a solution to the real problems that are posed by a growing problem of obesity (and an associated explosion of diabetes), by an aging population, and by allocation of too many of our nation’s resources to the military.

Read the full article →

Michael Pento: Taps for the Dollar

March 2, 2011

It now appears that the United States has finally succeeded in its efforts to destroy confidence in the U.S. dollar. Given the currency’s reserve status, its ubiquity in financial markets, and the economic power and political position of the United States, this was no easy task. However, to get the job done Washington chose the right man: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Thanks to Bernanke’s herculean efforts, investors across the globe have now been fully weaned from their infantile belief that the U.S. dollar will remain the ultimate safe haven currency. The proof of Ben’s success can be seen in comparing how the foreign exchange markets reacted to the recent crisis in the Middle East with how they reacted to the financial crisis of 2008. Back then, investors looking for safety abandoned their foreign currency positions and piled into the U.S. dollar (the market for U.S. Treasury Bonds in particular). As a result of these fund flows, the U.S. dollar surged 20% from August to November 2008. However, during this latest round of global destabilization the dollar experienced no such rally. In fact, the greenback shed about 5% of its value since the Tunisia revolution began in December of 2010. The reason should be clear; the Fed has placed international investors on notice that it will unleash even greater doses of dollar debasement at the first whiff of additional economic weakness, deflation threat, or dollar appreciation. Just this week, Bernanke once again made clear that despite what he considers to be a better growth outlook at home and abroad, and spreading global inflation, the United States will not pull back from monetary accommodation, even as other nations conspicuously do so. The architect of U.S. monetary policy has stated explicitly that dollar debasement will continue for the indefinite future. Knowing this, why would any international investor seeking a “safe haven” choose to park assets in U.S. sovereign debt? If Bernanke is to be believed, continued economic weakness in the U.S. will cause low-yielding Treasuries to lose value due to inflation while the weakening dollar erodes the underlying value of the bond in real terms. This is a one-two punch that sane investors will seek to avoid. It is no coincidence that a record percentage of U.S. Treasury auctions are now being bought by central banks, for whom sanity is a lowly consideration. But in reality, the Fed has about as much influence over the dollar’s value as do central bankers in Beijing. There is little disagreement among economists that without Chinese support, the dollar would be a dead duck. But for the last twenty years or so the monetary arrangement that pegged the yuan against the dollar served the interests of both countries. The U.S. enjoyed a flood of cheap imports, the benefits of ultra-low interest rates, and a strong currency. The Chinese received a booming export economy, which accounted for about a third of the country’s GDP, and the ownership of a significant portion of the future of the United States. To maintain this peg, the People’s Bank of China had to print trillions of yuan and perpetually hold more than $1 trillion U.S. dollars in reserve. But recently, having led to rampant money supply growth and inflation in China, the peg has become more trouble than it’s worth, particularly from the Chinese perspective. The latest reading on YOY money supply growth has China’s M2 increasing by 17.2%; which has helped send their reported CPI up 4.9% YOY. Inflation in China is pushing up the prices of its exports. According to the latest survey released February 14th from Global Sources (a primary facilitator of trade with Greater China), export prices of various China products are likely to increase in the months ahead, especially if the cost of major materials and components continues to soar. The survey of 232 Chinese exporters revealed that 74% of respondents said they boosted export prices in 2010. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in early January that its China import price index rose 0.9% in the fourth quarter after holding steady for the previous 18 months. And Guangdong, the biggest exporting province, said recently that it would increase minimum wages by around 19% this March. But here is the rub; China maintains its peg in order to keep export prices from rising in dollar terms. But the peg is now causing export prices to rise anyway. As a result, the policy is a dead letter. The simple fact is that the threat to China’s exports will exist whether they let their currency appreciate or not. But a strong currency offers the benefit of greater domestic consumption, while a weaker currency offers nothing. The Chinese government will take the path that preserves and balances their economy while enriching their entire population, rather than go down the road to never ending inflation. For China the realistic hope is that the greater purchasing power of a strong currency will enable their growing middle class to supplant U.S. consumers as the end market for China’s own manufacturing efforts. However, for the U.S. the challenge will be to develop a diversified manufacturing base in an expeditious manner before surging interest rates, a plummeting dollar and soaring inflation overwhelm the economy. The dollar’s recent reaction to the turmoil in the Middle East and China’s inflation problem illustrate that we have come to a watershed moment in American history. The decade beginning in 2010 should prove to be the decade in which the U.S. dollar loses its status as the world’s reserve currency. As bad as that blow may be, the loss may provide the shock needed to get our economy back on a sustainable path. The real danger lies in refusing to adapt to the changing environment. Our current economic stewards are acting as if the dollar’s status is written in stone, when in fact it’s hanging by a thread. Michael Pento is the Senior Economist for Euro Pacific Capital

Read the full article →