Going global: a triple disaster - the WTO columnBrussels - What have the Chinese companies Huawei, CNOOC and Baidu in common? All three embarked into a global endeavor that triggered off disaster, underlining
my gloomy assessment of the global aspirations of Chinese companies just over a week ago.
First signal that not all was fine was indicated in a devastating article in the Wall Street Journal on the US operation of China’s telecom equipment producer Huawei. While the company has been pretty successful in selling telecom equipment at discounted prices in a few developing countries, its efforts to enter the US market has been close to a scenario for a very bad movie. The article is littered with examples that illustrate its inability to sell its products in a more sophisticated market. There is the US-engineer who discovered his job interview at the Huawei headquarters in Shenzhen turned out to be a debriefing session on the latest technological development in the US with 25 Huawei employees taking notes in front of him. There was US Huawei employee who never got a security clearance and had to move around accompanied by a security guard at his daily work place because he did not get any security pass.
Second example was the dreadful end of the 8-month 18.4 billion US dollar bid for oil company Unocal by CNOOC. While American opponents saw in the deal the invisible hand of its political enemy in Beijing, the truth was sadder. CNOOC has, according to an article in the Financial Times, operated on itself and even never asked for support of the central government in Beijing. By not securing help or even advice of their government – something they said they did not need as a listed company – they maneuvered themselves in a no-win position. Their opponents saw them anyway as an extension of the Chinese government. “Diplomatic contact between Beijing and Washington might have helped CNOOC's offer weather political opposition on Capitol Hill or at least given the Chinese group confidence a takeover would not be blocked on national security grounds, according to people familiar with the matter,” rightfully writes the FT. It illustrated profound naivety on the part of CNOOC.
The third example is still celebrated as a big success: the listing of internet search engine Baidu, whose value quadrupled last week after its IPO, flabbergasting even those analysts who earn their money by frying air to pump up the value of listed companies. It reminded me of the talk I had with the CEO of another Nasdaq-listed IT-company from China after he returned from one of his compulsory trips to the US where he talked to the US investors. He was very cynical. “It is much better to find a listing much closer at home where the investors know your market,” he said. In the US he had to meet many ignorant people who ask me what part of Japan he is from.
Main losers will be those US-based investors who will see their just-gained profits evaporate in a few years time. Baidu will just be saved from being kicked off the Nasdaq as an underperforming entity and perhaps cling on to life, potentially offering a nice deal for Google in a few years time.
Let’s see this all in management clichés: in the best case we here see a stiff learning curve. Business schools in and outside China should have a look at these gruesome examples. Lessons to be learned should reach a larger audience than only the top-management of the companies involved who are licking their wounds now.
Fons Tuinstra