US technology sector faces triple threat

Uncertainty over the future of US-China economic relations has derailed the once high-flying global equity market, which rose almost 15 per cent in the January-April period.

Clive McDonnell, head of Equity Strategy at Standard Chartered Bank, looks at the causes behind the decline.

The technology sector, now facing challenges on a number of fronts, is supposedly the main cause behind the decline.

While President Trump’s policies get blamed for a lot of events impacting global equity markets, he is probably less responsible for the upset in the technology sector than many would have you think.

There are three primary challenges facing the US technology sector:

      1. The sector’s high overseas revenue share: over 60% of total revenue comes from abroad.

      2. The threat of regulation on accessing and using personal data.

      3. Monopoly powers and the risk of an antitrust investigation.

Let’s consider each factor. US economic growth appears resilient in the face of weaker growth prospects in the euro zone and emerging markets.

However, since US technology companies generate more than 60% of their revenue from overseas, they are acutely sensitive to slower growth prospects outside the US. In the past, they have been able to offset slower growth in the euro zone with robust growth in emerging markets led by China.

The next downturn may witness slower growth in both regions, which would leave US technology companies exposed relative to US banks and utilities which have the lowest overseas revenue exposure amongst US companies.

Additionally, there is a risk that China responds in kind to the US President’s targeting of Chinese technology companies. There is also a risk that US dollar strength creates a negative effect on US technology sector earnings once overseas revenue is converted into US dollars.

The threat of regulation on accessing and use of personal data looms large for technology companies, particularly those in the social media space. Europe has been at the forefront of regulating use of personal data via the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

These regulations changed the balance of power between individuals and companies over the use of personal data. The rules give EU citizens more control over their personal data held by companies and the right to have their data removed from databases, the so-called “right to be forgotten” law.

The challenge for US companies is these rules cover their processing of personal data in Europe, regardless of the residential location of the individual generating the data.  

The rules give EU citizens more control over their personal data held by companies and the right to have their data removed from databases.

Similar to the long arm of US financial regulators – which impact banks regardless of where they are incorporated once they engage in US dollar transactions – European rules on personal data are impacting US technology companies in ways that are not covered by domestic laws.

The central business challenge for US technology companies, in particular those in the social media sector, is their business models are built on free access to consumer data in exchange for free use of their software, including search, email and productivity tools, such as those available on Google Drive.

If these companies lose unfettered access to personal data, they would likely start charging consumers for use of the same software.

This, in turn, will have a significant impact on their advertising revenues, as the precision they have been able to offer companies targeting customers would decline. No doubt their business models would evolve, but this could be at the cost of lower net margins relative to the near-20% margins they currently enjoy.

Finally, the perceived monopoly power of some of the sector’s leaders and the resultant risk US technology companies face from antitrust investigations is probably the biggest risk to the sector.

The definition of monopoly power in the US, focusing on the short-term price impact on consumers from company actions, has been unchanged for over 40 years.

Specifically, if company actions lead to higher prices, it could be designated as a monopoly (and importantly, the reverse also applies). This is relevant for technology companies as many have helped to lower prices for consumers.

The definition of monopoly power is changing. This is led by Lina Khan, a Legal Fellow at the Federal Trade Commission and an academic Fellow at Columbia Law School.

In a paper, entitled “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox (1)”, she challenged the current interpretation of antitrust law which is designed to curb monopolistic power. She proposed that lower prices were not necessarily good for consumers if prices were used as a tool to choke off competition and eventually restrict consumer choice.

The primary tool available to technology companies to manipulate consumer choices (and some would say restrict competition) is their search algorithm.

Whenever a social media or e-commerce company implements a change to their search algorithm, the ensuing uproar amongst its users and customers is a measure of the importance this tool has to drive sales and choices for consumers.

The search algorithm assumes unique power once a platform becomes dominant in an industry and consumers no longer look at other platforms as they believe that their chosen one offers them all the choice they need.

The risk is: their choices are being determined by companies who pay more to appear higher up the search results than those which pay less, even though the latter companies may offer lower prices.

If regulators’ definition of monopoly power evolves, as Lina Khan suggests, there is a risk of antitrust investigations against US technology sector leaders, with penalties ranging from fines to reversal of prior acquisitions.

The challenges facing the US technology sector have converged at a time when valuations are elevated and earnings growth has weakened.

They are shining a light on their business model, which can undoubtedly evolve, but may require changes that the market is not currently anticipating.

Clive McDonnell is Head of Equity Strategy at Standard Chartered Private Bank.

The views expresssed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Read more:

US block spurs tech independence drive by Chinese companies

The latest US blacklisting of the Chinese supercomputing companies will not reduce domestic technology companies' resolve to pursue innovation and research and development (R&D) as they strive to make up for shortcomings in certain segments to pursue further growth despite “irrational assaults” by Washington, industry insiders said.

Innovation is a driving force within China's economy today. Yet behind that innovation, what's the role of research and development?

https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI
https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI?t=199

A destiny tied to China - Tackling it the British way

Impractical move: China is generally aware that the Hong Kong people cannot sustain any form of protest because rent and bills need to be paid and protests don’t gain a voice, neither by yellow shirts nor umbrellas. — AFP

The future of the Hong Kong people lies with China but the challenge for Beijing is to make Hong Kongers feel that they are a fundamental part of the Middle Kingdom.
- If there is a history lesson that the Chinese can learn from British Malaya in handling the Hong Kong protests, it's that the British administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.

YOU’VE got to hand it to the British because they are really the masters at the game. Anyone who has studied basic Malayan history would know that officials during colonial times merely identified themselves as advisers.

They were British civil servants, but they called the shots.

Adding insult to injury, the Malay Rulers – as the Sultans were called then – were “led” to believe they still ran the states.

Under British Malaya – a set of states on the Malay peninsula and Singapore under British rule between the 18th and 20th centuries – British colonial officials had the last say on almost everything except religion and customary matters, which they cleverly left to the palaces.

So, in theory, the Rulers held their positions, kept their perks and all royal protocols befitting royalty, but their wings were clipped.

These were the federated states, but in the case of Straits Settlement states, British governors were appointed.

So, the famous Malacca Sultanate, with its rich lineage of Sultans, found itself having a governor, a Caucasian, as did Penang and Singapore.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it aptly when he said last week in his speech in Britain that “Malaysia is a member of the Commonwealth, but there is nothing much in common with the wealth dominated by certain countries”.

“The British acknowledged the Malay Sultans as Rulers, but the Sultans never ruled. Therefore, when they criticised us as dictators, I don’t think they really meant it,” he said.

There was more. Under British rule in the 20th century, the British introduced repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), used against communist insurgents.

Under the ISA, a person could be held for 60 days in solitary confinement and up to two years’ extension without trial.

Despite this, the British told the world, with a straight face, that they taught us, the natives, principles of justice, democracy and fairness, and that we all cried when they abandoned us when the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, and when we gained independence in 1957.

Our first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, kept the law when the Union Jack was lowered in 1957, which marked our independence.

Not many Malaysians are aware that the British imposed the ISA. Of course, during that era, only the radical left-wingers, with communist tendencies, were detained.

One ISA detainee, who was imprisoned under the British and then under the Malaysian government, said: “With the British guards, they would cheerily come every morning and wished the detainees a good day.” That was the difference.

Fast forward to 2019 and the massive turnout in Hong Kong against the controversial extradition Bill, with proposed amendments allowing for criminal suspects to be sent to China, has made international news.

It has prompted concern in Hong Kong and elsewhere that anyone from the city’s residents to foreign and Chinese nationals living or travelling through the international financial hub could be at risk if they were wanted by Beijing.

Basically, Hong Kong residents would rather face HK courts than be deported to mainland China.

Many have no faith in China’s judicial system compared to the British-style HK courts, which inherited the British legal system, and where most of the judges and lawyers are also British-trained.

The HK people can’t be blamed for their anger and suspicion since the international community has read of Chinese nationals being short-changed, or even neglected by the courts in the pursuit of justice.

And we can even read of income tax defaulters, under investigation, being hauled off to undisclosed locations, while dissidents have been taken away, and disappeared without a trace.

This bad press, verified or otherwise, would have scared many people, even though one wonders how many of these HK protesters believe, in their hearts of hearts, that they would ever get arrested and sent to China.

But the irony is that under British rule in HK, like many governments, the British widely used the law as a tool to consolidate control of Hong Kong in the hands of a privileged minority.

Legal expert Richard Daniel Klien wrote that “the British enacted legislation which in some respects instituted two sets of laws – one for the Europeans and another for the Chinese. Laws were passed to ensure no Chinese would live in the most desirable parts of Hong Kong, which the British wished to preserve as their exclusive enclaves.

“In a land in which ninety-eight per cent of the population were Chinese, English was the official language.

“The Chinese language was not permitted to be used in government offices.

“Laws regulating conduct were written exclusively in English, a language which the vast majority of the population could not understand.

“The astonishing truth of the failure of the Hong Kong Chinese to develop a significant pro-democracy or pro-independence movement, while other British colonies obtained independence long ago, testifies to the success of the British laws in accomplishing the goal of continued colonial rule over this land of six million inhabitants.”

MK Chan wrote in a law review report that “to most people in Hong Kong, the preservation of the existing legal system is of crucial importance to the high degree of autonomy the post-colonial Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is supposed to enjoy under Chinese sovereignty according to the “One Country, Two Systems” formula.

“However, this widely shared perception is flawed for one simple reason: the legal system in Hong Kong today has its own serious defects. It is not only alien in origin,” and “markedly different from the legal system in the People’s Republic of China but also defective and inadequate”.

No protest has gained voice, neither through yellow shirts nor umbrellas. And no protests were staged because the British didn’t allow elections during the colonial rule from over a century and a half.

The 1995 Hong Kong Legislative Council election for members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was only finally held that year – it was the first and last fully elected legislative election in the colonial period before the nation was returned to China two years later. So much for democracy and freedom.

No HK resident protested that only the white men could hold top posts in government bodies, places where there were many qualified HK civil servants who could speak and write in English better than their superiors.

To put it bluntly, there was not even a squeak – and we know how corrupt the HK police were in the 1970s – about the force being headed by Britons.

To be fair, the British transformed HK from a barren island to an international hub, with a working administration system that has won the confidence of the international community.

However, the responsibility of the British ended in 1997 when HK was handed over to the Chinese. It has lost its right to tell the Chinese what to do.

But what has brought this resentment towards China, from HK Chinese people, and perhaps, even a yearning, for British rule?

Not long ago, it was reported that some localists had taken to thumbing their nose at “China’s heavy-handed meddling” by waving the British flag at football matches, booing the Chinese anthem and chanting “We are Hong Kong! Hong Kong is not China!” in English.

Reports have also surfaced about a small Hong Kong-United Kingdom Reunification Campaign, which angled for a return to British rule but ultimately dismissed as quirky.

Then there are HK people who talk about the “good times” under British rule.

If there is a history lesson which the Chinese can learn from British Malaya, it’s that the Brits administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even as they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.

Reports of Beijing’s transgressions in the territory, such as the kidnapping by mainland agents of local booksellers, or the National People’s Congress purportedly stepping into local judicial cases, won’t win the hearts of the HK people.

Beijing must put on a softer face and display plenty of patience in dealing with HK. There is really no rush for China, especially with risking an international black eye at a time when it can ill afford to do so.

Yes, China is concerned about how its billion people will react if they see these hot-headed HK protesters abusing policemen.

The lessons from the breakup of the Soviet Union – and the wounded pride and dignity that follows – are always etched in the minds of Chinese leaders.

When CNN and BBC reporters talk about individual rights, they have no idea what Beijing or even the Chinese diaspora think.

But the people of HK must also accept the harsh reality – HK is now China’s sovereignty, and more and more of its independence, or even importance, will slowly fade away.

China doesn’t need HK as much as it used to as a strategic financial hub, because Chinese cities, including Beijing and Shanghai, have even eclipsed the former island nation. No matter how big or how long these protests run for, China knows the HK people don’t have the stamina, because rent and bills need to be paid, and protest sittings on streets don’t last anyway.

And the other blow is the British government’s refusal to grant citizenship to the 3.5 million Hongkongers born there under the British flag.

China needs to work harder on winning hearts and minds, and to make the HK people feel they are a fundamental part of China, and Chinese culture and pride.

HK people have always been independent because they were brought up differently and under different sets of political and legal systems, and that must be understood. There is no need to ramp through any laws, indicating that the HK people are unhappy.

The destiny of the HK people lies with China, and not Britain, but the challenge for Beijing is to make the people of HK feel those sentiments and be proud of it.

And speaking of extradition, let’s not forget that the US is also seeking to get WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extradited from the UK for alleged crimes under the Espionage Act 1917, of which remains unclear.

He is the first journalist to have the book thrown at him for whistleblowing.

That’s not all. The US wants Huawei chief financial office Sabrina Meng Wanzhou to be extradited from Canada over charges which smell suspiciously like trumped up accusations. - by wong chun wai

Source link 


Read more:  

Young guns taking charge - Asean+

Wong Chun Wai gets honorary doctorate

‘Neighbour from hell’ torture

 

Chapter One: The Malaysian Mule

Can these parents prove their drug mule daughter's innocence?

https://youtu.be/Q45QDMmLNDs

Huawei: A Coffee With Ren; Innovation is a driving force within China's economy today

https://youtu.be/XEkGcbYGi88

Huawei Founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei hosted “A Coffee With Ren” discussion at the company’s headquarters, where he invited two distinguished guests to join him. Futurist, author and venture capitalist, George Gilder and Co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, Nicholas Negroponte, participated in this live streaming where the gentlemen shared their thoughts on Huawei’s contribution to science & technology, commitment to partners all over the world, the US sanctions and many more.

For more details, watch the full discussion.

Category: Science & Technology

 

Huawei CEO Ren: We have a globalized economy

https://youtu.be/f6y6ka32-qs

"To me, the fundamental problem is the necessity of cooperation," said Ren Zhengfei, founder and CEO of the world's largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer Huawei, in a discussion with two U.S. technology gurus George Gilder and Nicholas Negroponte in Shenzhen, China on Monday. #China #Huawei #Technology

Innovation is a driving force within China's economy today. Yet behind that innovation, what's the role of research and development?

https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI
https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI?t=199

Related posts:

Minds without borders: A coffee with Huawei Ren: We will be reborn by 2021

https://youtu.be/7_kKAiHjJyY They say a good conversation could be just like drinking a cup of black coffee and as stimulating as it is..

 

N. Korean Glorious welcome for Predident Xi, China to support security, development concerns

https://youtu.be/f8TewXsQYvA

https://youtu.be/5cOCsVVc8Sg https://youtu.be/XzzUWwnRzOU

Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un held talks in Pyongyang Thursday where Xi received an unprecedented welcome. The talks touched on the China-North Korea relationship and the Korean Peninsula issue.

Xi, also general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), kicked off his two-day state visit to the neighboring country at the invitation of Kim, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) and chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Xi said during the talks that the international community expects the DPRK and the US to keep pushing negotiations forward to reach a result, and China is willing to provide assistance to the DPRK in its "reasonable concerns on security and development."

China is willing to cooperate with the DPRK and other parties involved in the issue to push the political solution, Xi noted.

Kim responded that the DPRK highly appreciated China's contributions in pushing forward the peace process of the peninsula issue.

His country has made positive efforts to avoid tensions in the past year, but "relevant parties" haven't offered any positive response, and this is not what the DPRK wants to see, Kim said. But North Korea is patient to keep communicating with "relevant parties" to find a solution that could be accepted by all parties, Kim noted.

Zheng Jiyong, director of the Center for Korean Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, said a key reason why the bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the US can't move on is that Washington doesn't want to offer a positive response to Pyongyang's security concerns. Pyongyang feels insecure and so it is reluctant and suspicious to make more concessions, he noted.

"China is capable of making North Korea feel secure and protecting it from unreasonable bullying and threats," Zheng said.

Lü Chao, a research fellow at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences in Shenyang, said that although the US prefers a bilateral mechanism, it still needs a third party to guarantee the implementation of denuclearization once it reaches an agreement with North Korea.

A third party or a new international cooperation mechanism is needed at this moment, Chinese experts noted, as the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan will take place at the end of the month, and five parties - China, the US, Russia, Japan and South Korea - of the Six-Party Talks, except North Korea, will gather in Japan, offering a good opportunity for them to discuss such an issue.

China is showcasing its unique influence over the peninsula issue to the US before the G20, Chinese experts noted.

At the invitation of Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and Chinese president, Kim Jong-un, chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) and chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), paid an unofficial visit to China from March 25 to 28. During the visit, Xi held talks with Kim at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Xi held a welcoming ceremony for Kim before their talks. Photo: Xinhua

Unprecedented ceremony

From the welcome ceremony at Pyongyang International Airport to the unprecedented salutation at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, Xi received the highest-level reception in the capital of North Korea that shows North Korea attaches great importance to the China-North Korea relationship with firm traditional friendship, Chinese experts noted.

About 10,000 people participated in the ceremony at the airport to welcome Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Pyongyang citizens formed a long welcoming line alongside the highway from the airport all the way to the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun. There were national flags and banners with slogans about friendship, unity and welcome everywhere in Pyongyang on Thursday.

This is the first time that a visiting foreign top leader received a salutation from the North Korean people at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, a magnificent building near the northeast corner of Pyongyang that serves as the mausoleum for Kim Il-sung, founder of the DPRK, and for his son and North Korean former leader, Kim Jong-il, who were both posthumously designated eternal leaders of North Korea, Xinhua reported.

Special relationship

"This is like three generations of North Korean leaders are witnessing a new milestone in the bilateral traditional friendship being forged by Xi's visit," Lü said.

After the ceremony, Xi and Peng moved into the Guesthouse of Kumsusan. Zheng said that the Kumsusan has unusual meaning in North Korea as it belongs exclusively to the Kim family. Kim was trying to emphasize his close and unique relationship with Xi.

"The ceremony is just like welcoming a family member and this also means the two parties and the two countries have a special relationship," Zheng said.

Rodong Sinmun, the WPK's flagship newspaper, said in an editorial Thursday that Xi's visit to "the DPRK despite the urgent and important tasks due to the complicated international relations vividly shows that the Chinese party and government are placing great importance on the DPRK-China friendship."

The history of the DPRK-China relations vividly records the comradely friendship between the leaders of the elder generation who closely cooperated with each other hand in hand on the road to accomplishing the cause of anti-imperialist independence, peace and socialism, the editorial said.

Xi said during the talks with Kim that the China-DPRK friendship is a strategic choice made by the two sides with a long-term and overall perspective and will not waver due to changes in the international situation.

It is a steadfast policy of the CPC and the Chinese government to maintain, consolidate and develop China-DPRK relations, he stressed.

The top leaders of China and the DPRK agreed during their talks to work together to create a bright future of inter-party and inter-state relations at a new starting point in history, Xinhua reported.

Source link 

RELATED ARTICLES:

• Xi’s North Korea visit set to cement traditional friendship
• President Xi to pay state visit to North Korea
• World looks with hope at Xi’s North Korea visit

US hypocritical in accusing China of tech theft

Photo: IC

https://youtu.be/tGD072hQGP8

 

The US has no lack of a “criminal record” in terms of technology theft.

 The US has repeatedly ignored China's innovative breakthroughs through self-reliance and hard work but accuses China of "stealing" US technology and intellectual property rights. These arguments do not hold water.

These absurd accusations imply that the US must be the absolute leader in technological innovation - only the US is qualified to make major breakthroughs while others should merely follow its lead and import its technology, otherwise they are "stealing." Such logic is ridiculous.

A country's technological innovation capability is closely related to its scientific research resources, such as talents, capital, and scientific experimental devices. Leading scientific research resources have determined the US leading position in various science and technology fields. Nonetheless, economies including the EU, China, Japan, Russia and India have also mastered considerable scientific research resources and developed technological innovation capabilities with their own characteristics and advantages.

It is due to such relatively scattered distribution of global research resources that the US can never be an "all-round champion" of technological innovation. It is natural that other countries will catch up with the US in certain fields.

Historically, the US made a great fortune during WWII, and out-competed the Soviet Union in terms of comprehensive national strength during the Cold War. Even so, the US failed to gain absolute dominance over the Soviet Union in technological innovation.

As a major technological innovator keeping pace with the US, the Soviet Union set multiple world records in its golden age. The world's first nuclear power plant, artificial earth satellite, manned spacecraft, space station and intercontinental missiles were all built by the Soviet Union. As far as weapons and equipment are concerned, both the Soviet Union and the US had something in which they excelled. Even now, Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union, surpasses the US in some respects.

The US made its first nuclear power plant, artificial satellite, manned spacecraft, and intercontinental missiles after the Soviet Union's success. Based on its current logic, should these US cutting-edge technologies be regarded as something stolen from the Soviet Union?

There are more examples. China led the US in the processing power of supercomputers for many years. In June 2018, the US retook the world's lead thanks to its machine "Summit" which could process 200,000 trillion calculations per second. By following US logic, should we say the US surpassed China by stealing China's supercomputing technology?

Some have already noted that the US is actually the guilty party that files the suit first. The country has no lack of a "criminal record" in terms of technology theft. In the first decades after its founding, the US tried hard to "steal" advanced industrial technology from the UK to develop its own industries.

During WWII, prior to Germany's surrender, the US established the Alsos Mission. The team was sent to Germany not to fight, but to capture top German scientists and their technologies ahead of the Soviet Union. It is said that Wernher von Braun, one of the founders of the US space program, was a leading figure in Nazi Germany's rocket development program.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US took the opportunity to obtain advanced military technology that the Soviet Union had accumulated for years and to lure away many top technical talents.

After that, plenty of US weapons benefited from the Soviet Union's technology to varying degrees, which saved the US time and money. The US technology theft from the Soviet Union has produced generous returns.

However, the US is not ashamed of such records. Many Hollywood blockbusters have molded American spies conducting such theft into the embodiment of justice, and molded theft into a just act. Perhaps it is precisely because of this that the US is now judging others by itself.

In recent years, China has continued to increase investment in science and technology. In 2018, the country's research and development funds amounted to nearly 2 trillion yuan ($290 billion), second only to the US. The efforts will naturally pay off.

Nevertheless, the US deliberately turned a blind eye to China's efforts to promote independent innovation and contain China's development. The past actions and current absurd logic of the US are being seen through.

Source link 

Innovation is a driving force within China's economy today. Yet behind that innovation, what's the role of research and development?

https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI
https://youtu.be/xo_OLlL7XqI?t=199

RELATED ARTICLES:

• China-US technology decoupling unlikely: analysts
• China will create a national technology safety management mechanism: Xinhua
• Unreliable entity list to focus on US technology firms

Related posts:

China takes moral high ground in face of US power play

The Sino-US trade dispute is not only a game between representatives of the two countries at the negotiating table, but also a cont...

Minds without borders: A coffee with Huawei Ren: We will be reborn by 2021

https://youtu.be/7_kKAiHjJyY They say a good conversation could be just like drinking a cup of black coffee and as stimulating as it is...