Bottom line: Reuters decision to put its Chinese-language website on hold is partly a surrender to Beijing, but also acknowledges that new approaches are needed to succeed in the nation’s restrictive media space.
Reuters revamps China consumer strategy
No one else is writing about the latest strategic shift at Reuters’ (NYSE: TRI) Chinese language news site in Beijing, probably because the actual number of headcount reductions is quite small, at less than 10. But the move has huge symbolic significance, since it looks like an admission of defeat to Beijing censors who blocked the site in China more than a year ago. At the same time, the move also represents a certain realism, and the fact that Chinese consumers increasingly get their news via other channels anyhow, most notably social media. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: The latest blockage of Reuters sites in China is probably temporary and related to coverage during the recent National People’s Congress, but still reflects the very real risk of doing business in the tightly controlled media market.
Reuters websites blocked in China
China’s latest crackdown on foreign media has just netted global news giant Reuters (Toronto: RTR), in a potentially worrisome trend that has seen Chinese censors block a growing number of websites operated by big multinationals. Despite longer-term crackdowns on big names like Bloomberg and the New York Times, Reuters had managed to largely steer clear of China’s censors and its websites have remained largely accessible in China for most of the last 2 years.
But I couldn’t access any of Reuters sites in Shanghai starting last Thursday, and later reports confirmed the company’s Chinese- and English-language websites have been blocked throughout the country since then. (English article) Before I go any further, I should disclose that I previously worked at Reuters for a decade, and maintain contact with many of my former colleagues 4 years after leaving the company. Reuters Chinese site also is a regular user of my work, though apparently none of that has been viewable in China for the last few days. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: The US decision to force a sale of gay dating app Grindr by its Chinese owner reflects a new environment where Washington is almost certain to veto China purchases of local firms with access to sensitive user information.
US forces sale of gay dating app Grindr by Chinese owner
A new report on the unhinging of a Chinese purchase of US gay dating app Grindr is shedding some interesting light on how Washington sees such deals, and offers insight into how far Chinese tech firms might be allowed into the country going forward. The picture isn’t exactly too encouraging, though perhaps some might over-interpret things in light of all the recent trade tensions.
The case also sheds some light on the near-hysteria that seems to be growing daily in the US over telecoms giant Huawei, which is rapidly shaping up as the Chinese boogeyman of the 21st century. The central theme in all of this is that Washington believes China is out to steal private information on Americans any way it can, including through the use of private Chinese companies. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: Alibaba’s interest in Metro’s China operations is part of its new retail strategy, while the purchase of a British payments company by its Ant Financial unit could give it a strong toehold in the European payments market.
Alibaba in new shopping spree
After a period of relative quiet, e-commerce giant Alibaba (NYSE: BABA) is suddenly springing into three relatively major headlines simultaneously on the investment front. Two have a European angle, one involving a major potential investment in German retailer Metro and the other in a British financial services provider by its Ant Financial affiliate. The other is a trans-Pacific deal of sorts, and has the company investing in Bilibili (Nasdaq: BILI), a leading U.S.-listed Chinese video streamer.
In all honesty, this particular flurry of deals seems a bit random and it’s almost certainly coincidence that all are in the headlines at the same time. But that said, each does reflect one or more tendencies by this hyperactive company, which I’ve previously said has far more cash than it knows what to do with. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: Tencent and NetEase will become long-term beneficiaries of a cleanup of China’s online game sector, despite their lack of new launches so far following the recent end of a 10-month freeze on approval of new titles.
No new approvals for Tencent, NetEase
China’s 10-month freeze on approval of new online games has official ended, but don’t tell that to industry leaders Tencent(HKEx: 700) and NetEase (Nasdaq: NTES). China’s gaming regulator has officially just published its latest list of newly approved game titles, which is its third since it resumed such approvals in late December. (English article)
As with the first two lists, observers are focusing more on who wasn’t represented rather than who was. And as with the first two lists, both Tencent and NetEase were absent once again. That raises the question of what the regulator may be trying to do, and whether this could have long-term ramifications for China’s two leading online game companies. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: Nio’s shares are likely to debut flat to down slightly in a lackluster New York trading debut, capping an IPO process pockmarked by investor skepticism.
Investors fail to charge Nio IPO
Wall Street investors will get a taste of a new flavor of Chinese company very soon, when homegrown electric vehicle maker Nio makes its trading debut on Wednesday. But based on all the signals so far, this offering for a company that some have likened to China’s answer to Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA) could be a major flop. That would be somewhat appropriate given all of the real Tesla’s current woes, which point to the difficulties of building up a major new car maker from scratch.
Nio’s road to New York has been pockmarked with negative signposts pretty much all of the way. The latest of those has media reporting the company has priced its IPO American depositary shares (ADSs) at the very bottom of their range, at a price of $6.25 apiece, raising a total of $1 billion. (English article) That compares with an initial target of up to $1.8 billion, and I’ve heard that even that figure was trimmed back from initial hopes of more like $2 billion. (English article) Read Full Post…
Bottom line: An internal petition calling on Google to be more transparent about its plans to return to China represents the first major backlash to the move, but is unlikely to dissuade the company from going ahead.
Google employees question China return
When the news first broke a couple of weeks ago that Google(Nasdaq: GOOG) was planning a return to China’s search market, many predicted that western sources would be quick to criticize the plan, even though few voices have actually spoken out so far. Fast forward a couple of weeks, when we are hearing the first sounds of what’s likely to become a sea of protests if and when the company actually makes its China search homecoming.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, the first salvo in the storm of protest that could soon emerge is coming from within Google itself, with word that employees are circulating a petition raising questions about the reported move. (English article) This kind of internal debate could be especially troubling, since the last thing that Google wants is an uprising within its own ranks at such a delicate time. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: China used its traditional silent treatment approach to kill Qualcomm’s bid to buy NXP, quite possibly to show its displeasure with recent US trade tensions, but resulting global pressure could forced it to be more transparent in the future.
China kills Qualcomm-NXP deal with silent treatment
We’ll close out the week with my own quick-and-dirty post mortem of the collapsed deal that would have seen telecoms chip maker Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) purchase Dutch rival NXP (Nasdaq: NXPI) for $44 billion. Put simply, this deal appears to have been killed by China’s classic approach of “kill them with silence.”
But there’s a bit of a postscript this time around, as China’s regulator took the unusual step of actually breaking its silence once the deal was dead. This appears to show that China has learned a lesson from this particular battle, namely that it needs to take a stance on things and explain its decisions, even if people might disagree. That would be quite a break from its old approach of just sticking its head in the sand and pretending like nothing is happening when it makes unpopular decisions. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: A court order barring Micron Technology from China and Donald Trump’s attempts to keep China Mobile out of the US reflect blurring lines between business and politics in heightening US-China trade tensions.
Fujian court bars Micron sales in China
Two new headlines are showing how trade tensions between the US and China are spilling over into the high-tech realm, while also reflecting a certain amount of confusion and twisting of the facts. Leading the somewhat misleading headlines is an item that has U.S. memory chip giant Micron (Nasdaq: MU) suddenly being shut out of China for a number of its products due to a patent dispute. The other headline has Donald Trump saying that leading Chinese telco China Mobile(HKEx: 941; NYSE: CHL) shouldn’t be allowed to offer services in the US due to national security concerns.
The Micron story is being spun by some media as having a US-China trade tensions angle, when really that’s not the case and it’s just a typical patent dispute. The same could be said for the much larger case involving a US ban on telecoms equipment maker ZTE (HKEx: 763; Shenzhen: 000063), which is being spun as part of US-China trade tensions, even though ZTE is being punished for violating much older US sanctions against sales to Iran. China Mobile, on the other hand, is clearly a Trump pet project and does reflect his protectionist tendencies. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: Lenovo’s ejection from the Hang Seng Index caps its long fall from grace over the last four years, and leaves the company in an increasingly deep hole that may be hard to emerge from.
Lenovo ejected from Hang Seng Index
Capping its long fall from grace, PC giant Lenovo (HKEx: 992) has been officially booted from the Hang Seng Index, in a move that looks highly symbolic but also has some very real ramifications for this former high-flyer. It’s probably too early to relegate Lenovo to the history books, but we can certainly say the company is down for the count with this latest blow.
As someone who has followed Lenovo for most of its life as a listed company, I can provide my own view that the company is certainly facing a life-or-death moment in its lifetime that dates back more than three decades, making it one of China’s oldest tech names. I have called repeatedly for the departure of CEO Yang Yuanqing and introduction of some newer, younger blood to the company’s top ranks. But it doesn’t seem that Yang’s boss, Lenovo founder Liu Chuanzhi, cares too much what I think, as he has repeatedly stuck with this right-hand man throughout the company’s decline. Read Full Post…
Bottom line: Two biotech firms’ abandonment of New York IPOs for Hong Kong is part of a broader trend to make Hong Kong and China more competitive for high-growth startups, and could ultimately boost valuations in all three markets.
Pharma startups abandon New York for HK
We’ll take a break from all the trade war talk as we close out the week and instead turn to another major development taking place in Hong Kong, where the local stock exchange has just rolled out some reforms with major implications for high-growth startups. Those reforms have reportedly netted a couple of biotech firms that were originally planning to list in New York, reflecting a potential new rivalry between these two markets.
Before the reforms, Hong Kong’s stock exchange was quite traditional and also strict about a few things, including dual-class partnership structures and profitability. The former British colony refused to allow dual-class partnerships that gave disproportionate power to holders of a special class of preferential shares. At the same time, it also had strict rules saying all companies must show three consecutive years of profitability before listing. Read Full Post…
