Monday, February 23, 2009

The Dao of Strategic Assessment (3): Same Information, Different Assessment, Different Outcome


(An article that was sitting in our archives)
Some businesses secure the same slice of strategic intelligence as everyone else. Whether they have the skill to assess the intelligence, that is a different story.

Occasionally, someone secured that special piece of intelligence that no one has seen and assesses that information properly and timely. Then, they position themselves with proper planning and preparation. Through timely implementation and persistence, that business gets the right break and moves ahead of the competition.

Good Assessment => Good Planning => Great Implementation => Great Success

The challenge is to transform the assessed data into a Tangible Vision.


# October 12, 2008
Amid the Gloom, an E-Commerce War

By BRAD STONE

WHEN the e-commerce giant eBay emerged from the last recession seven years ago with an aura of invincibility, its chief executive, Meg Whitman, boasted that eBay is to some extent recession-proof.


As the online auctioneer’s revenues and stock price kept climbing, one of its primary rivals, Amazon.com, just limped along. How times have changed. Ms. Whitman, now co-chair of Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, retired from eBay earlier this year as the company struggled with stagnation. Amazon, meanwhile, has emerged as one of the most vibrant and reliable retailers in the country. And in an unmistakable sign that Internet companies are indeed exposed to the gathering economic storm stemming from the credit crisis, Ms. Whitman’s successor, John J. Donahoe, laid off 10 percent of eBay’s 16,000 employees last Monday. Mr. Donahoe noted that eBay was already feeling the effects of the downturn.

This looks like it is going to be a more typical economic cycle that impacts consumer spending, he said. We are not immune.
That the economic crisis is washing up on Silicon Valley’s shores shouldn’t, perhaps, come as a surprise. Most tech companies are defenseless against waning advertising, business spending and consumer interest in big-ticket items like computers.

Over the last three months, investors have punished tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Apple, extracting a fifth to a half of their market value.
E-commerce, though, was once thought to be a refuge from economic storms. People who stay away from the mall might actually be more tempted to shop online and hunt for deals, or so the thinking went. But analysts are now revisiting that assumption.

Many consumers, citing an uncertain economy, say they will clutch their wallets tightly this holiday season regardless of where they shop: 48 percent surveyed recently by eBillme, an online payment service, said they planned to delay purchases.
Traditional, brick-and-mortar stores had wrenching, double-digit declines in September sales and are bracing for a bleak holiday season. No one is certain to what degree online retailers will feel that same pain, because digital vendors have never endured a deep, protracted economic slump before. We still feel pretty good about this year, but I worry about next year and beyond, said Brian J. Pitz, an analyst at Banc of America Securities. Are people going to spend when they can’t get home equity lines of credit, a student loan or a car loan? For eBay and Amazon, the twin giants of e-commerce, the financial meltdown has arrived at a particularly crucial time.

After years of claiming that their businesses were complementary, not competitive, the companies are now on a collision course.
Amazon has accelerated its courtship of small online vendors, allowing them to sell on its site becoming more like eBay.

And eBay, desperate to revive itself, has decided to emphasize traditional, fixed-price sales of both new and old merchandise becoming more like Amazon.
AT stake is more than e-commerce bragging rights.

On the Internet, size matters. Larger companies can collect more information about consumers, negotiate better deals with partners and use that leverage to expand their dominance (for example, Google versus Yahoo in search).


This is a pivotal holiday season for eBay, said Jeffrey Lindsay, a senior analyst at Bernstein Research who has covered the Internet for a decade. What people fear is that Amazon is basically building a bigger sales base than eBay and will use that knowledge to sell people more and more of the things they want to buy online. Indeed, the balance of power in e-commerce seems to be shifting faster than anyone expected.

Just three years ago, eBay had 30 percent more traffic than Amazon. Today, its total of 84.5 million active users is barely ahead of the 81 million active customer accounts that Amazon reported in June.
Amazon has exceeded eBay in other measures as well.

EBay’s market capitalization was three times Amazon’s in 2005, back when Wall Street loved the fact that it carried no inventory and generated huge profits
. This year, eBay’s stock has lost over half its value and, in July, Amazon’s valuation surpassed eBay’s for the first time.
In a series of interviews, Mr. Donahoe acknowledged that eBay, based in San Jose, Calif., didn’t adapt fast enough to shifting e-commerce winds. He now embraces a turnaround mind-set and is refocusing its Web marketplace toward shoppers who don’t want to waste time in online auctions.

There are times when I wish we can close this store and just open a new store, but we can’t, he said. We need to make bolder, more aggressive changes to the eBay ecosystem even if they are unpopular. Up in Seattle, meanwhile, Amazon’s chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, says that after years of failed experimentation, third-party vendors the foundation on which eBay was built now account for about 29 percent of sales on Amazon. The company has endured and outlasted critics who long complained about its high fixed costs.

Last year, it impressed investors with accelerating growth, and its stock price revisited the highs of the dot-com boom, before waning euphoria and market pessimism erased more than half of those gains this year.

Mr. Bezos credits Amazon’s tolerance for risky, expensive bets like the Kindle electronic reading device.
Our willingness to be misunderstood, our long-term orientation and our willingness to repeatedly fail are the three parts of our culture that make doing this kind of thing possible, he said. EBay’s recent problems have made Mr. Bezos and his team look like shrewd and patient stewards of the Amazon franchise. And Amazon’s second wind is making eBay look as if it has missed one of the greatest opportunities in the Internet’s short history.

EBay could have closed the door to Amazon back when Amazon was mostly just a platform to sell books and music, said Scott Devitt, an analyst at Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, the investment bank. But what eBay did in those days was to take a very hands-off approach and let the marketplace control itself. And that ended up being the downfall of the business relative to others that have succeeded.

OVER the summer of 2004, at the annual executive retreat that eBay insiders call Telluride, a product strategy team argued that eBay needed to break into the promising world of digital media. Pointing to the popularity of services like Napster and the new iTunes music store from Apple, the group predicted that media like books, music and movies would inevitably be distributed digitally, over the Web. EBay, they argued, needed to ride that wave. That insight which did catch on at Amazon and is now responsible for high-profile efforts like the Kindle and Amazon’s MP3 store and video-on-demand service went nowhere at eBay. Nobody really shut it down. The process shut it down, says a former eBay executive who was on the product strategy team but requested anonymity to avoid alienating former colleagues. The company was obsessed with making quarterly numbers. Whether passing on digital media was a mistake at eBay is still an open question. But the anecdote illustrates larger problems.

More than a dozen current and former eBay executives, from all levels of management, say eBay routinely failed to reorient its core business.
They say eBay avoided fiddling with its auction model because it was wary of disrupting a long-profitable equilibrium between buyers and sellers.

EBay has known for years that some Web buyers were looking for a different experience. Surveys suggested that auction participants were alienated by untrustworthy sellers and hidden shipping fees, and increasingly preferred the certainty of instantly buying items at a fixed price. Although eBay executives recognized and routinely acknowledged the problem, they never took bold, direct steps to address it.

In 2005, the company acquired Shopping.com, a comparative shopping site that catalogs products for sale elsewhere on the Web. But for years eBay did not promote the company’s listings, primarily because its vocal community of sellers the ones paying fees to eBay protested whenever eBay sent buyers to other retailers.
Josh Koppelman, who founded the e-commerce site Half.com and sold it to eBay in 2001, says that there was an understandable cultural reluctance inside eBay to alienate sellers. We got paid a fee to provide a service to a community, he said. Hurting members of that community was difficult.

Instead of imposing critical fixes to its slowing model, eBay searched for high-growth businesses elsewhere, acquiring Skype, the online calling service; StubHub, the ticketing site; and a series of classified-advertising Web sites. The company did create a whole new site, called eBay Express, where it tried to satisfy buyer interest in a simpler shopping experience. EBay Express automatically amassed all the fixed-price, non-auction listings on eBay properties and presented them in an organized way with only one payment system, PayPal also owned by eBay. But in the two-year life of eBay Express, eBay never directed any meaningful traffic to it, fearing that it would interfere with the more profitable and popular auction-oriented site.

The company shuttered eBay Express this year and has said it will move some of its innovative features to eBay.com.
Contributing to intransigence, according to several former executives, were deep divisions and constant hand-wringing among its managers over the most fundamental question: What is eBay? One camp believed that eBay was a discount palace and that it had to continually offer deals to buyers in whatever shopping format they wanted. But another group, resistant to change even as late as last year when eBay was clearly losing ground, believed that the brand was tied up in the excitement of auctions. Emphasizing traditional shopping destroyed what made eBay special, they argued.

Today online shopping is mainstream, but it’s also becoming boring, Bill Cobb, then the president of eBay North America, wrote in a June 2007 blog entry that typified this thinking. We’re investing in the quintessential eBay experience of buying and selling person to person in an auction format.


Ms. Whitman seemed to moderate this constant debate while never actually settling it. At times, she also seemed unwilling to leave auctions behind. In an interview last week, while on a break from traveling with the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Ms. Whitman said it was hard for her to reflect on these kinds of divisions within the company, or on missed opportunities. There was no shortage of realistic looks in the mirror, where we asked ourselves if we were doing the best job that we could do, she said. She also addressed another notion raised by former eBayers, who say executives were dismissive of Amazon but focused obsessively on Google, the search leader whose tentative moves into e-commerce were viewed inside eBay as acts of aggression. Google is a disruptive competitor. It’s not a marketplace and it’s not a retailer but has a different way of marrying buyers and sellers, she said. I don’t think you can overstate any competitive threats. But paranoia about Google, these former executives say, fueled strategic missteps like the Skype acquisition, which Google had also pursued.

Ms. Whitman and other eBay managers spent considerable energy trying to integrate Skype, and last year eBay wrote down $1.4 billion of the $3.1 billion acquisition.
As eBay obsessed about Google, the online retailer from Seattle was encroaching on its turf. CONVERSATIONS with Jeff Bezos of Amazon inevitably provoke two kinds of outbursts. One is that famous, barking laugh that punctuates even seemingly mundane sentences. The other is his paean to the wisdom of long-term thinking. We are willing to plant seeds that take five to seven years to grow into reasonable things, he said in an interview. You can’t do big, clean-sheet invention unless you are willing to invest for long periods of time. Mr. Bezos has delivered these kinds of odes to patience and risk tolerance for nearly a decade. The company’s appetite for enduring short-term pain for long-term gain is clearest when comparing it with its rival, eBay. While eBay was buying into classified advertising, online payments and Internet telephony, Amazon spent hundreds of millions of dollars building its brand as a trusted retailer hiring customer service representatives and returning money to customers when transactions went awry. As eBay took a pass on digital media, Amazon dove in and frustrated investors for years with margins that were diminished by a bulky R.& D. budget but produced promising businesses like the MP3 store. Compensation at the two companies also reflects core differences. Amazon evaluates its executives annually and gives performance-based stock grants. Until this year, when Mr. Donahoe became chief executive, eBay gave cash and stock bonuses based on quarterly performance, rewarding managers for meeting Wall Street’s short-term expectations. Similarly, Amazon’s push to recruit the small sellers who orbited eBay was marked, at first, by patience and often-embarrassing experimentation.

In 1999, five years after Mr. Bezos first plunged his stake into the ground as an online bookseller, Amazon invaded eBay’s territory, introducing Amazon Auctions and a way for retailers to set up stores on the site, called zShops. The efforts tanked. The problem then was that nobody came, Mr. Bezos said. Actually, sellers came, but the customers didn’t care and didn’t shop there. Amazon tried to promote this siloed merchandise on its site by linking to it on its more popular product pages. These so-called smart links were hotly controversial inside Amazon and became the subject of a rivalry between its retail and technology groups. Fearful that sending visitors to other pages would cut into their sales, retailing executives at Amazon took to removing them from the page at every opportunity, according to one senior Amazon executive who was there at the time. SEVERAL years ago, the company introduced Amazon Marketplace, laying the groundwork for its current path by listing new and used items from third-party sellers alongside its own merchandise. If Amazon didn’t stock a particular item, or if independent sellers could offer better prices, they would become the featured retailer on the page. Amazon settled internal tensions by giving its retail managers credit for any products sold on their pages, even by third-party sellers.

But Mr. Bezos says the arrangement still produces anxiety.
Put yourself in place of our retail buyers, he said. You just purchased 10,000 units of a particular digital camera and you are told, if any third party anywhere in the world can offer a better price, we are going to give them the buy box and you are going to get stuck with the inventory. That causes some angst. Over the last five years, Amazon has lowered hurdles for independent vendors to sell on its site and recruited new groups of merchants as it has expanded into other countries and product categories automotive parts in 2006 and office supplies this year, for example. Amazon executives say they don’t specifically pursue top eBay sellers, but some merchants suggest otherwise. David Duong, founder of Shoe Metro, a Web retailer based in San Diego, says Amazon representatives called him shortly after Amazon.com introduced a shoe category in 2005 and asked him to begin selling on the site. I guess they found us on eBay, he said. We were actually going to talk to them, but they beat us to the punch.

Lately, small merchants and their trade organizations say, the outreach has become even more direct. The Professional EBay Sellers Alliance said that Amazon recently offered to waive some fees for the 800 members of the group, an organization of eBay power sellers, to woo them to its platform.
Because Amazon also sells many of the same products as its merchants, executives at eBay predict that competitive tensions will emerge as the Amazon Marketplace grows. Maybe so. It’s happened before. Amazon once ran the Web operations of large traditional retailers like Borders, Circuit City and Toys R Us. One by one, those retailers concluded that outsourcing such a crucial feature of 21st-century retailing to a competitor was a bad idea. But some of its newer deals with sellers indicate that Amazon is finding ways around those tensions, at least with small merchants. Andrew and Deb Mowery of Fort Collins, Colo., who started selling home, garden and pet supplies on eBay in 1999, now make 60 percent of their sales on Amazon and about 20 percent on eBay. In addition to listing items for sale on the Amazon Marketplace, they are also a wholesale supplier to Amazon, providing it with products like heated pet beds.

Mr. Mowery is essentially competing with himself, but the arrangement works. If they run out, I’ve got their back, he said. If I run out, they’ve got my back. Amazon wants to forge these kinds of close ties with other small sellers. A program called Fulfillment by Amazon, introduced in 2006, allows retailers to store their inventory in Amazon’s warehouses. When someone buys an item from that seller, Amazon ships it out of its warehouse in an Amazon box. Integrating small merchants into its operations also allows Amazon to learn more about whom it can trust to sell on its site. Compared with eBay, the company says it exerts a far greater measure of control over its marketplace, calling certain vendors featured sellers and vetting others in product categories that are sensitive to fraud. At the end of the day, we believe it’s good for all of our sellers to make sure we are protecting the consumer experience first, Mr. Bezos said. Our first and foremost goal is to earn trust with consumers. If there are no consumers buying, nothing else matters. DESPITE Amazon’s success in courting independent sellers, its selection is still just a fraction of what eBay offers, and in some cases its prices are higher.

For example, there are hundreds of new, used and refurbished Trek racing bikes on eBay; as of last week, Amazon had three for sale. Acquisitive parents can buy a $90 Deux Par Deux baby sweater dress on eBay for under $30.

But only a few of this French designer’s items are listed on Amazon, and for close to full price.
And that Lehman Brothers 150th-anniversary collectible tote bag, which every irony-obsessed stock market fan wants under the Christmas tree?

It is available for purchase only on eBay, in auctions.
This is where Mr. Donahoe talks about a vision to fix eBay, and to create a Web discount store that offers a wide variety of new and old merchandise in auction and fixed-price formats. To get there, he must administer the sweeping, painful fixes that eBay has previously shunned. It was increasingly clear to me in 2007 that what felt like bold changes, and to the community felt like bold changes, were not bold enough, he said. His attempted fixes have started internally. In addition to making executive bonuses annual instead of quarterly, to keep employees from leaving and reward longer-term thinking, he moved the company’s focus to buyers instead of sellers. He canceled the annual eBay Live conference next year with merchants this year, it turned into an unwieldy complaint session and began making eBay executives read weekly surveys that ask shoppers whether they would recommend eBay to a friend. THE eBay facade is also undergoing its most significant renovation in its 14-year history as Mr. Donahoe tries to adjust eBay fees to tempt sellers to list more of their products at fixed prices. EBay has also added a new 30-day listing at a fixed price that is more economical to many sellers than auctions. It has also disabled the feedback mechanism that allowed sellers to rank buyers and introduced a new best match search engine that promotes trusted sellers and good deals.

In another controversial change, eBay has struck special deals with large merchants like Buy.com, which pays no listing fees and offers more than half a million products on eBay.com.
The point of the arrangement is to ensure that eBay stays fully stocked in basics like batteries and printer cartridges. Other eBay sellers are enraged, though, arguing that the deal violates the sacred eBay tenet of the level playing field. These sellers have vented their frustrations online about eBay’s changes. It’s hard to gauge whether the vitriol represents the majority view, but some less vocal, larger sellers on eBay say they have actually benefited. EBay has told all bad sellers to shape up, said Jordan Insley, an electronics merchant who lives near Seattle. I’ve seen a lot of sellers that used to sell a lot of product fall off the charts. Although he worries that buyer traffic on eBay is slowing, Mr. Insley says he will sell $13 million in gadgets this year on eBay alone. I think eBay is moving in the right direction. We are sticking around. Still, Mr. Donahoe can’t count on that sentiment to carry the day. Few of his changes are expected to deliver any immediate results, other than alienating certain sellers.

Yet for eBay, the changes may be a matter of survival. The company need only look across Silicon Valley at Yahoo to see what can happen to wounded Internet companies with depressed stock prices. In the meantime, he faces tough choices.

He is weighing a possible sale of Skype by next year, and analysts think he will almost certainly make that move, since the company now acknowledges that Skype has little synergy with eBay’s other businesses.
That would free eBay to focus on its core marketplace, on getting through the torrential economic downpour, and on combating a challenger that is making greater incursions every day.

[ Our suggestion to eBAY is to keep Skype. We believe that there are still ways to link Skype to the eBAY's e-commerce wagon. Hint: Try connecting the "voice to text" function to the Skype's engine. ]

I respect Jeff Bezos a lot as a leader and Amazon and what they’ve done, Mr. Donahoe said. But it is still early days in this industry. E-commerce is 7 percent of retail. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s going to end there. We think there is plenty of room for both Amazon and eBay to be successful.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/business/12giants.html

Friday, February 20, 2009

The Realities of Strategic Project Management



We understand the essentials of strategy through experience and execution. With our process, you will be able to do the following:
  • Minimizing costs;
  • Mitigating risks;
  • Accelerating delivery;
  • Maximizing opportunities;
  • Ensuring quality.


Beside devising marketing strategies for startups, we also specializes in strategic project management.


#

The following set of concepts is from Bob Lewis, one of my favorite IT project writers.

The KJR Manifesto's 13 concepts whose principal virtue is that they work:
  1. There are no best practices, only practices that fit best.
  2. To optimize the whole you must sub-optimize the parts.
  3. Bad metrics are worse than no metrics.
  4. Relationships precede process.
  5. Relationships outlive transactions.
  6. Don't confuse documentation with reality.
  7. Before you can be strategic you have to be competent.
  8. Big solutions that work start as small solutions that work.
  9. Customers are external. Internal customers aren't.
  10. Don't run IT as a business, run it in a business like way.
  11. There are no IT projects.
  12. Digest with intestines, think with brain.
  13. Every employee is irreplaceable.

http://issurvivor.com/shop/article_KJR/Keep-the-Joint-Running%3A-A-Manifesto-for-21st-Century-Information-Technology.html


All of his project management books and materials
are great. We recommended it.



Thursday, February 19, 2009

Transforming Chaos Into Opportunities


When negotiating with a trading partner, assess the competitive position of each side. Then, determine who has the advantage of time and resources. Do not rush into the situation. It is recommended to properly build a detailed plan that is based on assessed data. The greater your advantage of time and resources is, the greater your leverage becomes.

Revised content from the wiki page on the 36 Stratagems.


The View of China

Watch the fires burning across the river

(traditional Chinese: 隔岸觀火; simplified Chinese: 隔岸观火; pinyin: Gé àn guān huǒ)

Delay the entering of the field of battle until all the other players have become exhausted fighting amongst themselves. Then go in at full strength and pick up the pieces.

Usage

This "Opportunistic Stratagem" thrive on situations where vulnerabilities can be exploited. The objective is to capitalize on all opportunities so as to gain the advantage.


#

"Looting a house on fire" (趁火打劫 or "Chen Huo Da Jie")
When an organization is beset by internal conflicts, they are not able to deal with an outside threat. This is the time for a superior organization to make a deal that gives them leverage.

Usage
Gather internal information about the opposition. If the opposition is in its weakest state ever, conquer the opposition without mercy.


The View of Russia

Russia possesses no strategic options to gain any leverage in its dealing with China. Their initial objective is to fix their economy first.


#

[ Turning Crisis into Opportunities ]



China and Russia struck a deal that will give Russian energy firms Transneft and Rosneft loans to increase East Siberian oil field development and production and to connect the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline to China. In return, China will receive about 300,000 barrels per day of oil for the next 20 years. Russia might have made the deal out of economic desperation as its state-owned energy firms feel the pain of evaporating credit, economic woes and low oil prices.

China and Russia struck a deal that will give Russian energy firms Transneft and Rosneft loans to increase East Siberian oil field development and production and to connect the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline to China. In return, China will receive about 300,000 barrels per day of oil for the next 20 years. Russia might have made the deal out of economic desperation as its state-owned energy firms feel the pain of evaporating credit, economic woes and low oil prices.

Analysis

China and Russia reached an agreement under which China will give key Russian energy firms Rosneft and Transneft loans for $15 billion and $10 billion, respectively, Transneft spokesman Igor Dyomin said Feb. 17. Russian state-owned oil pipeline company Transneft will use its loan to connect the long-delayed Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline to China, and Rosneft will use its loan to expand East Siberian oil field development and production. In exchange for the loans, the Chinese will receive about 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil for the next 20 years.

The loans are part of the much longer negotiations circling the idea of the ESPO pipeline. It makes perfect sense for Russia to link its vast Eastern Siberian oil resources (about 10 percent of Russia’s total oil reserves, or 10 billion barrels) to energy-consuming Asian markets like South Korea, Japan and especially China. Moreover, a pipeline that could carry Russian oil to the country’s Pacific coast could supply markets even further abroad, such as the United States. The problem is that building a pipeline across thousands of miles of mountainous Siberian terrain requires enormous capital investments that are not easy to come up with, particularly during a global recession. During Soviet times, the Russians used central government investment to undertake gigantic energy infrastructure projects (such as the pipelines from the Yamal Peninsula to Europe) that served strategic interests. After the Soviet collapse, and especially during Vladimir Putin’s presidency, Russia has been demure about such capital projects, performing only what was absolutely necessary to maintain exports to existing markets and passing up major renovations or expansions. This tight-fistedness enabled Russia to build up massive foreign exchange reserves with its trade surpluses, but it meant that many potential plans remained on the drawing board.


Map: Russian ESPO oil pipeline

A new opportunity emerged when the Chinese and the Russians began negotiating the deal that has just been settled. The Chinese would loan the money, and a 44-mile spur off the ESPO pipeline would be jointly built and operated, linking Skovorodino in Russia’s Amur region to Daqing in China’s Heilongjiang province. When Transneft offered to build the spur, negotiations began. Despite hard-bargaining tactics and inherent distrust between the two geopolitical rivals, the proposal always seemed promising, since it marked such a close alignment of interests. Without Chinese capital, the Russians were unlikely to realize their strategic goal of transporting resources to new markets in the East at a time when their main market — Europe — is turning away. Without Russian oil, the Chinese would not be able to diversify their oil supply and enhance their energy security.

But the proposal ignited a conflict between the two major Russian players, Transneft and Rosneft, over the fact that a pipeline leading directly to China limits Russia to one customer, whereas building the pipeline to the Pacific coast would allow supplies to be shipped to any number of buyers. Rosneft wanted to secure China as a customer first, and then go on to bigger and better things; Transneft wanted to run a line straight for the coasts (to prevent China from taking advantage of a direct line by re-exporting Russian oil or by unilaterally demanding price reductions), or to refine the oil at home and continue shipping products by rail to the Pacific.

Rosneft is one of Moscow’s energy champions, and also has the support of one of two major political factions in the Kremlin, led by Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. Ever since Rosneft assimilated the broken pieces of former Russian energy company Yukos (with help from a $6 billion loan from China in 2004), it has depended on developing its Siberian potential in order to rise above its many competitors. ESPO is therefore crucial to Rosneft’s survival and success. Therefore, Rosneft wanted to secure the deal with China first so as to have a stepping stone to a broader Far East strategy.

Negotiations on the Chinese deal were delayed. The Chinese were reluctant to sign an agreement while they had doubts about whether the Russian oil producer and pipeline builder could get along — specifically, China was waiting to see whether Rosneft would have the Kremlin’s support. Beijing also knew it had control of the purse strings; and given its inherent distrust of the Russians, it wanted to be sure that the agreement was fully to its liking — for instance, by insisting, against Putin’s demands, that the loan be made in U.S. dollars and not Russian rubles. China also wanted to make sure it did not need the cash to address any immediate problems at home due to the financial crisis.

Ultimately, the Kremlin intervened in the spat between Rosneft and Transneft, approving of Rosneft’s strategy and enabling the deal to move forward — by endorsing a slew of tax reforms and incentives for oil development and export in key East Siberian sites such as Sakha, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, and eventually Taymyr, Sakhalin, Lena-Tunguska and Lake Baikal. The Chinese then came forward with the $25 billion, with a 6 percent yearly interest rate (moved down from 7 percent), which means that Russia gets the cash up front while China receives about 2.2 billion barrels of oil.

The deal reveals several things about the way regional geopolitics are unfolding as the world economy contracts. Russia and its state firms are in need of a lifesaver now that the combination of low oil prices, the absence of outside credit, and domestic financial troubles has rapidly depleted their reserves. The Chinese loan will provide an infusion of cash at just the right time to stave off financial pressures, allowing the Russians to undertake otherwise unfeasible projects that will pay off when Chinese energy demand revives. Moscow will see its Far East strategy advance another rung up the ladder, while Sechin’s clan, having scored a major victory in winning Kremlin approval for the Chinese deal, will gain an economic and political advantage over rivals.

China, meanwhile, will receive a steady stream of oil for the next 20 years. Rosneft’s facilities are ready to produce about 313,000 bpd (slightly more than the agreed-upon amount to repay the loan) at Vankor, the key Siberian site for the ESPO project. This amount of oil to be paid to China is roughly the same as the amount imported from Russia in 2007 (mostly by rail), and about half as much as the 600,000 bpd rail capacity in the region. This is significant, especially for a country so dependent on manufacturing and sensitive to energy shocks. China needs a reliable energy supply and does not want to be overly dependent on energy from one source. Moreover, most of its oil is shipped via ocean from the Middle East, and this leaves China at the mercy of U.S. naval power. However remote the possibility of an interdiction, it is enough to make a landlocked oil supply route attractive to Beijing.

But for Russia the deal is not a win-win. Moscow is getting pounded by the recession, and the decision to go forward on a pipeline that goes directly to China, forgoing the possibilities offered by a more versatile sea port destination, is a major concession. Obviously, now the Russian firms have to go through with the infrastructure developments, which will be technically demanding and fraught with unforeseen expenses and delays (sending Siberian oil eastward is said to cost twice as much per barrel as sending it westward). And the Chinese got a steal: Although not all of the contract’s subtleties are likely out in the open right now, reimbursement for the loan means that the Chinese have purchased Rosneft crude for only about $11.40 a barrel once interest is figured in — about one-third of what Russia’s crude fetches on the open market right now. The Russians have essentially locked the fate of their Far East strategy to the whims of Chinese energy policy, and this is a compromise that could reveal how financially desperate Russia is.

China and Russia reached an agreement under which China will give key Russian energy firms Rosneft and Transneft loans for $15 billion and $10 billion, respectively, Transneft spokesman Igor Dyomin said Feb. 17. Russian state-owned oil pipeline company Transneft will use its loan to connect the long-delayed Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline to China, and Rosneft will use its loan to expand East Siberian oil field development and production. In exchange for the loans, the Chinese will receive about 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil for the next 20 years.

The loans are part of the much longer negotiations circling the idea of the ESPO pipeline. It makes perfect sense for Russia to link its vast Eastern Siberian oil resources (about 10 percent of Russia’s total oil reserves, or 10 billion barrels) to energy-consuming Asian markets like South Korea, Japan and especially China. Moreover, a pipeline that could carry Russian oil to the country’s Pacific coast could supply markets even further abroad, such as the United States. The problem is that building a pipeline across thousands of miles of mountainous Siberian terrain requires enormous capital investments that are not easy to come up with, particularly during a global recession. During Soviet times, the Russians used central government investment to undertake gigantic energy infrastructure projects (such as the pipelines from the Yamal Peninsula to Europe) that served strategic interests. After the Soviet collapse, and especially during Vladimir Putin’s presidency, Russia has been demure about such capital projects, performing only what was absolutely necessary to maintain exports to existing markets and passing up major renovations or expansions. This tight-fistedness enabled Russia to build up massive foreign exchange reserves with its trade surpluses, but it meant that many potential plans remained on the drawing board.


A new opportunity emerged when the Chinese and the Russians began negotiating the deal that has just been settled. The Chinese would loan the money, and a 44-mile spur off the ESPO pipeline would be jointly built and operated, linking Skovorodino in Russia’s Amur region to Daqing in China’s Heilongjiang province. When Transneft offered to build the spur, negotiations began. Despite hard-bargaining tactics and inherent distrust between the two geopolitical rivals, the proposal always seemed promising, since it marked such a close alignment of interests. Without Chinese capital, the Russians were unlikely to realize their strategic goal of transporting resources to new markets in the East at a time when their main market — Europe — is turning away. Without Russian oil, the Chinese would not be able to diversify their oil supply and enhance their energy security.

But the proposal ignited a conflict between the two major Russian players, Transneft and Rosneft, over the fact that a pipeline leading directly to China limits Russia to one customer, whereas building the pipeline to the Pacific coast would allow supplies to be shipped to any number of buyers. Rosneft wanted to secure China as a customer first, and then go on to bigger and better things; Transneft wanted to run a line straight for the coasts (to prevent China from taking advantage of a direct line by re-exporting Russian oil or by unilaterally demanding price reductions), or to refine the oil at home and continue shipping products by rail to the Pacific.

Rosneft is one of Moscow’s energy champions, and also has the support of one of two major political factions in the Kremlin, led by Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. Ever since Rosneft assimilated the broken pieces of former Russian energy company Yukos (with help from a $6 billion loan from China in 2004), it has depended on developing its Siberian potential in order to rise above its many competitors. ESPO is therefore crucial to Rosneft’s survival and success. Therefore, Rosneft wanted to secure the deal with China first so as to have a stepping stone to a broader Far East strategy.

Negotiations on the Chinese deal were delayed. The Chinese were reluctant to sign an agreement while they had doubts about whether the Russian oil producer and pipeline builder could get along — specifically, China was waiting to see whether Rosneft would have the Kremlin’s support. Beijing also knew it had control of the purse strings; and given its inherent distrust of the Russians, it wanted to be sure that the agreement was fully to its liking — for instance, by insisting, against Putin’s demands, that the loan be made in U.S. dollars and not Russian rubles. China also wanted to make sure it did not need the cash to address any immediate problems at home due to the financial crisis.

Ultimately, the Kremlin intervened in the spat between Rosneft and Transneft, approving of Rosneft’s strategy and enabling the deal to move forward — by endorsing a slew of tax reforms and incentives for oil development and export in key East Siberian sites such as Sakha, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, and eventually Taymyr, Sakhalin, Lena-Tunguska and Lake Baikal. The Chinese then came forward with the $25 billion, with a 6 percent yearly interest rate (moved down from 7 percent), which means that Russia gets the cash up front while China receives about 2.2 billion barrels of oil.

The deal reveals several things about the way regional geopolitics are unfolding as the world economy contracts. Russia and its state firms are in need of a lifesaver now that the combination of low oil prices, the absence of outside credit, and domestic financial troubles has rapidly depleted their reserves. The Chinese loan will provide an infusion of cash at just the right time to stave off financial pressures, allowing the Russians to undertake otherwise unfeasible projects that will pay off when Chinese energy demand revives. Moscow will see its Far East strategy advance another rung up the ladder, while Sechin’s clan, having scored a major victory in winning Kremlin approval for the Chinese deal, will gain an economic and political advantage over rivals.

China, meanwhile, will receive a steady stream of oil for the next 20 years. Rosneft’s facilities are ready to produce about 313,000 bpd (slightly more than the agreed-upon amount to repay the loan) at Vankor, the key Siberian site for the ESPO project. This amount of oil to be paid to China is roughly the same as the amount imported from Russia in 2007 (mostly by rail), and about half as much as the 600,000 bpd rail capacity in the region. This is significant, especially for a country so dependent on manufacturing and sensitive to energy shocks. China needs a reliable energy supply and does not want to be overly dependent on energy from one source. Moreover, most of its oil is shipped via ocean from the Middle East, and this leaves China at the mercy of U.S. naval power. However remote the possibility of an interdiction, it is enough to make a landlocked oil supply route attractive to Beijing.

But for Russia the deal is not a win-win. Moscow is getting pounded by the recession, and the decision to go forward on a pipeline that goes directly to China, forgoing the possibilities offered by a more versatile sea port destination, is a major concession. Obviously, now the Russian firms have to go through with the infrastructure developments, which will be technically demanding and fraught with unforeseen expenses and delays (sending Siberian oil eastward is said to cost twice as much per barrel as sending it westward). And the Chinese got a steal: Although not all of the contract’s subtleties are likely out in the open right now, reimbursement for the loan means that the Chinese have purchased Rosneft crude for only about $11.40 a barrel once interest is figured in — about one-third of what Russia’s crude fetches on the open market right now. The Russians have essentially locked the fate of their Far East strategy to the whims of Chinese energy policy, and this is a compromise that could reveal how financially desperate Russia is.

--- eof

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Assessing the Global Economy (2)


How would you assess the economic grand picture for Japan? What specific data set do you look for?


How would you would use the Sun zi strategic principles to assess the economic grand picture? .
..


The clues are in this blog and some parts of it can be found in Sunzi Art of War. ...


#

Japan's economy slumps as global gloom spreads

Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:45pm EST

By Yuzo Saeki

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan sank deeper into recession with its worst quarterly contraction since the oil crisis in the 1970s, its reliance on exports and soft domestic demand dragging down the world's second-largest economy.

Hillary Clinton, in Tokyo on her first trip abroad as U.S. secretary of state, said Asia and the United States must fight the global crisis together.

The U.S.-Japanese relationship was founded on a "commitment to our shared security and prosperity, but we also know that we have to work together to address the global financial crisis," she said.

The grim Japanese figures, coupled with disappointment over the lack of coordinated action from the G7 and worries about bank rescue plans, pushed down European shares by 1.4 percent in thin trade, with U.S. markets closed and lighter UK volumes due to holidays. [nLG79960]

U.S. oil prices dipped below $37 a barrel as the raft of gloomy economic data underscored falling oil demand worldwide. Oil prices have dropped by more than 70 percent from their peak at almost $150 per barrel last year.

The pessimism extended to Latin America. At midday, Mexico's peso weakened 0.65 percent as appetite for riskier emerging market assets waned. Brazilian stocks and currency declined in thin trade as investors awaited details on a U.S. government economic plan.

In Canada, factory shipments sank a record 8 percent in December from a month earlier, far steeper than analysts had projected, boosting predictions that the central bank would once again trim interest rates.

In Rome, G7 financial leaders, fearing a 1930s-style resurgence in protectionism, pledged at the weekend to do all they could to fight recession.

"The outlook for the global and euro area economy in 2009 appears dismal," said European Central Bank Governing Council member George Provopoulos. "The current crisis is the biggest since the 1930s and exiting from it will not be easy or quick."

At the Italian parliament, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the United States against accusations of protectionism, following concerns about a "Buy American" provision in the U.S. economic stimulus plan.

"Somewhere in the mix of things, someone has decided that America has become, is becoming, more protectionist. I don't think that is the case," she said.

In the United States, President Barack Obama will sign on Tuesday the $787 billion stimulus package which is hoped will save or create 3.5 million jobs.

FURTHER ACTION

The Bank of England said it would probably have to take further action to boost Britain's waning economy but recovery could start later in the year.

"A sharp contraction in activity, both here and abroad, is already baked into the cake for the first half of this year," Deputy Governor Charles Bean said.

Falling demand forced German car maker BMW to announce it was shedding 850 jobs and cutting back production of the Mini at its factory near Oxford.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet warned policymakers they must avoid sowing the seeds of future crises in their efforts to revive economies.

Decisions made today should "not lay the ground for similar disorder in the future," he told European parliamentarians.

In India, the government said spending may have to rise sharply this year to shield the economy from the global credit crunch. The announcement in an interim budget worried investors, and credit rating agency Standard & Poor's said it planned to review the country's domestic debt rating.

Singapore Airlines said it planned to cut capacity by 11 percent in the year from April amid waning travel and cargo demand.

The German government is considering emergency measures to rescue the stricken bank Hypo Real Estate, whose shares have fallen by 97 percent over the last 18 months.

In Europe, the Czech Republic approved an economic stimulus package, Hungary announced plans to reform its tax code to help boost the economy, and Bulgaria said its economic growth nearly halved in last year's fourth quarter.

The widening economic crisis in Russia has sparked a wave of violent crime in Moscow that started last month, said the city's chief prosecutor.

GLOBAL CRISIS

Even though Japan has been relatively insulated from the collapse of the U.S. credit and housing markets that precipitated the global downturn, Economics Minister Kaoru Yosano said his country faced its worst economic crisis since World War Two.

With demand for its cars and electronics waning, an unprecedented slump in exports saw Japan's economy shrink by 3.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, or an annual rate of 12.7 percent, marking three straight quarters of contraction and its worst result since the first oil crisis in 1974.

Japanese investors had largely factored in a big fall in GDP, limiting losses after the data was released.

The Nikkei share average fell 0.4 percent. But the yen rose against other major currencies after the G7 financial chiefs made no specific mention of the strength of the Japanese currency.

Adding to the Japanese government's woes, Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa faced calls for his resignation after denying he was drunk at a G7 news conference. He said he had taken too much cough medicine.

In the United States, administration officials said President Obama would form a task force to oversee the restructuring of the ailing U.S. auto industry.

General Motors Corp and Chrysler LLC are due to submit new turnaround plans by Tuesday showing they can be made viable again after receiving $13.4 billion in emergency aid last year.

Negotiators for GM and the United Auto Workers union were making progress in talks aimed at trimming the automaker's costs and debt, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. GM wants concessions from the union and debt holders as required under the terms of the government aid package.

(Additional reporting by Sumeet Desai in Rome, Elaine Lees in Tokyo, Martha Graybow in New York, Kevin Krolicki in Detroit, and Reuters bureau around the world; Writing by Giles Elgood; Editing by Jon Boyle and Matthew Lewis)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5180XK20090216

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Assessing the Global Economy


How would you assess the economic grand picture for the United States? What specific data set do you look at?


How would you would use the Sunzi's strategic principles to assess the economic grand picture? .
..

The clues are in this blog. ...



#
Wall St. looking for clues, inspiration
Tim Paradis, Associated Press Monday, February 16, 2009
(02-16) 04:00 PST New York
--

The stock market doesn't have much to hang its hat on.

With the stream of corporate earnings reports waning and President Obama preparing to sign the $787 billion stimulus package, investors this week will be looking for fresh clues about the economy.

Wall Street has been busy focusing on companies' quarterly numbers and the developments in Washington. Now, investors are faced with finding less obvious answers to the question, "What's next?"

Any jitters about what might be the next major bit of news to drive the market could extend the back-and-forth trading seen in the nearly three months since the Standard & Poor's 500 index finished at an 11-year low on Nov. 20.

Stocks fell sharply last week to end at their lowest levels since November, as investors factored in the stimulus bill and looked to other uncertainties about the economy. The benchmark S&P 500 ended down 4.8 percent for the week, while the Dow Jones industrial average lost 5.2 percent.

"This whole process has been a market-bottoming process. It takes time," said Harry Clark, president and chief executive at Clark Capital Management in Philadelphia.

Clark and other market experts say it remains unclear whether the late-November levels will hold as the bottom of the market's pullback from its October 2007 highs.

U.S. markets are closed today for Presidents Day. On Tuesday, Obama plans to sign the stimulus bill in Denver. He is then scheduled to outline his mortgage-rescue proposal on Wednesday.

Also this week, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC are expected to submit plans to the government to meet a Tuesday deadline for showing how they can repay billions in loans and become viable, even as automobile sales are falling.

GM already has borrowed $9.4 billion and would receive another $4 billion if the Treasury Department signs off on its viability plan. Chrysler has borrowed $4 billion and is seeking another $3 billion.

Investors are worried one or more of the companies could have to declare bankruptcy if they don't win additional financing. Ford Motor Co. is the only one of the Detroit automakers not taking government loans.

Wall Street also will be looking at a few quarterly reports from retailers and other companies. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is due to report results on Tuesday before the market opens. Investors have relied on the world's largest retailer as a safe bet in a weak economy because it can attract customers looking for discounts on necessities.

Earnings are also due this week from cable TV operator Comcast Corp., farm equipment-maker Deere & Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., J.C. Penney Co. and Sprint Nextel Corp.

Most earnings reports from the final quarter of 2008 have been weak, but that shouldn't come as surprise given the difficult recession, analysts say. They contend the markets eventually will look beyond the bad news to a recovery.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/16/MNG315UN5H.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

--- e o f