Complete Intelligence

CI Banner
Login

Tag: NBA

Categories
Podcasts

Biden administration backs lifting vaccine patent protections

Our CEO Tony Nash recently guested at the BBC Business Matters to share his thoughts on the lifting of the vaccine patent protections to help in manufacturing more vaccines faster. Is that fair specially in this time of need? Also discussed are the special case of Facebook and Twitter’s suspension of Donald Trump’s social media accounts, college football, and the growing industry of recycled furniture.

 

This podcast was published on May 6, 2021 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172xvq9r0rsxwz.

 

 

BBC Business Matters Description:

 

The US government has backed a temporary suspension of intellectual property rights for Covid-19 vaccines in a move likely to enrage the pharmaceutical industry, which strongly opposes a so-called waiver. Shares of the major coronavirus vaccine companies were hit by the announcement but is it just an empty gesture? We speak to Jorge Contreras, Chair of the Open Covid Pledge, a group that is lobbying organisations to share their patents and copyrights in relation to vaccine efforts. We also hear from Thomas Cueni, of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. And there’s no status update for Donald Trump anytime soon; Facebook decides to uphold it’s ban of the former US president. We speak to Issie Lapowsky, Senior Reporter at tech site Protocol. Also in the programme, college sports in the United States are a big business, but the athletes taking part have typically been compensated through scholarships rather than salaries. But could that change? The BBC’s Will Bain reports. Plus, the Swedish furniture retailer Ikea has launched a scheme in the UK to buy unwanted furniture back from its customers, in a bid to save items from going to landfill. Hege Saebjornsen is the company’s sustainability manager for the UK and Ireland explains how it works. And we’re joined throughout the programme by Tony Nash, chief economist at Complete Intelligence in Texas and the writer, Rachel Cartland in Hong Kong.

 

Show Notes

 

VS: Tony, do you think, people in Texas will be as upbeat as George, our first speaker?

 

TN: Yeah, absolutely, I think people here are pretty happy about that. A couple of weeks ago, there was an uproar in India over Americans not sharing vaccines with India. Houston has a very large Indian community. And so we were very supportive of everything that could be done to help get vaccine components and vaccine intellectual property to India. So this is a positive development in every way.

 

VS: And so in terms of an anxiety of giving vaccines away before the population is fully inoculated, does that not exist in your experience?

 

TN: I don’t think so. There’s plenty of capacity, at least in Texas, if you want a vaccine today, you can sign up to get it. So it’s not really an issue here. I think India has the manufacturing capacity and the know how to do very good vaccines in India. So once the licensing is clear and the components are there, they can manufacture for India and for many parts of Asia, Middle East and Africa.

 

VS: Tony, what does this actually mean for Donald Trump? He’s not allowed to use social media at the moment.

 

TN: There are other social media channels, but I think it’s bigger than that. I think the real issue here is around what’s called section 230 in the U.S. government, which allows websites to not be considered publishers. And under Section 230, they are supposed to provide unrestricted access to posting content unless it’s a rules based system. This is clearly a personal deal. Whether you like Trump or not, this is this is making special rules for an individual. I think the bigger issue is around whether Facebook and Twitter and the other social platforms are abiding by Section 230 or whether they should be considered publishers. The BBC is a publisher there and certain things that the BBC has to adhere to that Facebook doesn’t. And so if Facebook was a publisher, they would have to adhere to the rules that the BBC abides by. So if they’re going to restrict postings like this, they should be a publisher. Otherwise, they need to have rules that they enforced regardless of the individual, regardless of the political party, regardless of the country someone from. I think they need to be applied consistently.

 

VS: So this idea of this board is a way of sort of perhaps circumventing that.

 

TN: But nobody does. I mean, nobody if you ask anybody in America, nobody actually believes this is an unbiased board. It’s just a fallacy so…

 

VS: Wide ranging from all around the world, different types of backgrounds. So you can kind of argue that they are a mixed background with lots of different worldviews.

 

TN: I run an artificial intelligence company. Nobody in the technology community, hand on heart. I actually believe this is an unbiased view. I’m sorry. It’s just not true. And it’s a big pretend game to act like this is unbiased. I’m not on Trump’s side here necessarily. But if you’re going to make rules personal, that really companies lose credibility as a result of that. And all I’m saying is that Facebook should be considered a publisher and they should abide by the rules that publishers like the BBC abide by.

 

VS: I’m sure it’s not going to last that we’re going to hear from this issue. And for those of us outside the United States, we don’t understand the significance of college football in everyday American life. Tony, you’re in Texas. Can you paint us a picture of that?

 

TN: Yeah, so college football is not professional and it’s kind of professionalizing, but by professional, I mean paid, right. So this California bill starts to professionalize college football. I think part of the problem with that step is that we have students who come out of high school effectively 17 or 18 year olds who have really raw talent. They’re not necessarily trained to play professionally. They typically spend time with high caliber coaches in universities to develop their skills in their craft over three to four years. Many of them go out early to try to go pro, but it’s over three to four years and then they’ll go into the professional leagues and make money.

 

So there is a very large investment that universities are making into those athletes. And what happens at the university level is,  when students come to a university, they do get a scholarship. The athletic dorms are not normal dorms. They are first class dorms. The food they eat is first class food. I’ve been in their cafeterias. It’s amazing. So they are not treated like normal students. So they do get a lot of advantages above a scholarship, but there’s this huge investment in their skill. And so, the other side of this is if students want to get paid when they leave high school, they’re welcome to try to go pro after their senior year in high school when they’re 18 years old.

 

And so if there’s a problem with them getting paid, they’re welcome to to try to join the draft and go through that process. They can do it at any time. They could go pro at 18 years old. I doubt many of them, if any of them, at least in football, would would qualify, would get drafted by a team.

 

VS: As you say and say presumably then, sports is encouraged at quite a young age, given how lucrative it can can be.

 

TN: Sure. And so they can try to do that, LeBron James actually went into the NBA out of high school, he never went to university. So there are kind of phenoms who can do that and, more power to those guys. They’re welcome to do it. But university, so the school where I went, where I did my undergrad is Texas A&M University. It has the largest revenue sports program of any university in the United States, very large. But the facilities that Texas A&M has for their student athletes are amazing. They rival any pro facility. And so what’s happened over probably the past 20 years, I would say, is a dramatic kind of upskilling and a dramatic improvement of not just the facilities, but the coaches.

 

And so there are coaches who go from college level to pro and back because the skills that they impart on the students are are amazing. So, the path to getting paid for your sport is one that is always there. They can always go pro straight out of high school. LeBron James did it, other athletes to it. But it’s a very, very, extremely rare process, I think, paying student athletes. Part of the reason I like college football, I prefer college football to pro because you root for a team in college football, you don’t root for an individual in pro football, really. It’s rooting for individuals. And it’s not really a team sport as much as it is at the college level. So I think a lot would change. I really do think a lot would change.

 

VS: When we heard that about Rachel’s lockdown project. Lack of. And are you cycling anything?

 

TN: Always, you know, so we just moved back to the U.S. about three years ago, so we’re not recycling much, but when we lived in Asia, we would regularly recycle as my kids grew up, as we worked through furniture, we would regularly, regularly recycle in Singapore.

 

There’s a guy named the current goony man in every neighborhood who would come and take your recycled materials. And so we would work with with him and he would donate it or something like that. So, you know, every community has its own way of dealing with these things.

 

VS: Do you sell on furniture that you don’t know because of these websites these days? You can do that well now.

 

TN: We do that as well. And it’s pretty common. I mean, there are loads of websites where we can do that. So it’s pretty common. We don’t really throw away much big stuff there. We had my son, my son’s bunk bed here. We just sold it on one of those sites about six months ago. So, yes, it’s very common.

 

VS: Costly to these sites around. Don’t say I wonder if if a company or a retailer decides that they’re going to buy back things. They’ve actually got quite a bit of competition, haven’t they?

 

TN: Yeah, I mean, I think they’ve probably done that calculation, it’s a pretty crowded market, so, you know, people will dispose of it in a pretty economic way and make money where they can. So I don’t know that everything will be coming back to them.

 

That’s probably just a small, small fraction that will actually.

 

VS: Thank you very much, Rachel and Tony, for joining me today.

 

Categories
QuickHit

QuickHit: Can Western companies solve the China dilemma?

This week’s QuickHit, we have Isaac Stone Fish of Strategy Risks to talk about how western companies and other companies around the world should deal with China and compromises that you need to do for that. He also shares the status of Hong Kong as a gateway to China. How about the environmental and human rights violations of China and how the US companies can make sure they are running an ethical business? And what is the status of non-profit organizations in China, especially those that are environment and human rights focuses?

 

Strategy Risks quantifies corporate exposure to Beijing. This was started because Isaac got frustrated at the way that ESG environmental, social and corporate governance providers were ranking Chinese companies and US companies that had exposures to China. Isaac thought it would be fun and interesting and hopefully very useful to have a different way of measuring and quantifying this exposure.

 

Isaac grew up in Syracuse, a nice little place but basically about as far away from the center of anything as possible. He started going to China when he was 16 for something different. He started in Western China and ended up living in Beijing for about six years. He also worked in journalism mostly, it was the Asia foreign policy. Spent a few years doing a mix of public affairs, commentating, bloviating, writing, and then started Strategy Risks roughly six months ago.

 

💌 Subscribe to CI Newsletter and gain AI-driven intelligence.

📺 Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

📈 Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

 

This QuickHit episode was recorded on February 3, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Normalization of China QuickHit episode are those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any content provided by our guests are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

 

Show Notes

 

TN: It’s really interesting looking at ESG and public markets and I think we’ve seen over the past few years a lot of tensions between China and the U.S. They’ve been there for 10 years but they really took shape over the last few years. If you’re a publicly traded company today in the U.S. or traded on a U.S. exchange, what are the things that you need to really think about with regard to China? What are the biggest risks and biggest considerations that you’re talking to your clients about?

 

ISF: One thing that people overlook is the risks of their China strategy. Not in China itself but globally and especially in the United States. The rules for engagement in China are so different for these corporations in China than they are in the United States. And the U.S. is drawing some pretty thick regulatory lines especially around Xinjiang, the region of northwest China where there are roughly a million Muslims in concentration camps. That a lot of times, these major corporations, their China offices will ignore or overlook or not put nearly enough attention on.

 

The messages that we’re communicating and the things that luckily are starting to bubble up into these board rooms is the understanding that to have a China strategy, you need to have a global strategy that is very aware both of what Beijing wants but also what the Biden administration and many American people want.

 

TN: For the last 15, 20 years it almost seems like companies have had a global strategy and then they’ve had this China strategy off to the side because it was such a big market, growing so fast. It seems to me like you’re talking almost about the normalization of China in terms of performance expectations, social expectations, those sorts of things. Is that right? Is that kind of what you’re implying?

 

ISF: One of the smartest ways of the Chinese communist party, which has ruled China since 1949, were the smartest things they have done is made it seem like their country was a normal country. And there’s nothing aberrant about China or the Chinese people. But there’s something quite apparent about the Chinese Communist Party.

 

And the rules for playing in China are quite different than they are in basically everywhere else. What we’re starting to see is the realization that companies need to do something to limit the influence of Beijing on their corporate headquarters, on their products and on their decision making.

 

TN: But can you do that actually? Because if you’re saying an automotive company and most of your revenues come from China, and the Chinese government says something, it seems really hard. And companies have been awkward about doing that for the past say 10, 15 years. Really changing how you help companies treat them like any other country? I think what you raised about what the CCP has done since 1949 is amazing. It’s great perspective. But can the CCP understand that they’re being normalized as well?

 

ISF: The CCP are doing this as an active strategy in as much as such a complex institution has a single strategy. They’re certainly trying to make people think that they are normal in our sort of western liberalism definition of that. Most of the companies that we talk about in this space, the U.S. is a far more important market for them than China. NBA is a great example.

 

China is its growth market. The USA is its most important market and what companies are starting to realize is that what happens to them in China and what touches China doesn’t just touch on their business in China but affects their business in the United States as well.

 

What we do at Strategy Risks is less working with the companies like the NBA that are having these problems, but work with other people in the financial chains, institutional investors, pension funds, endowments and explain to them the different risks and exposures that they’ll have with the companies in their portfolio and some of the problems they might have with being overweight in certain companies about Chinese or American that are complicit in Chinese human rights abuses.

 

TN: From a portfolio investor’a perspective, until very recently, you could park a whole lot of money in Hong Kong and then dip into China as needed. But it seems that that’s becoming less of an easy strategy since the crackdown in Hong Kong last year. Is that the case or is Hong Kong still in a pretty good place to take advantage of mainland stuff?

 

ISF: From a pure markets perspective, Hong Kong is still an excellent place for that. What’s really changed is the safety and the rule of law and the feeling of security for people doing deals in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is still an excellent window into China and we’re seeing Shenzhen and Shanghai supplanting a lot of what Hong Kong is doing in Seoul to agree. But the issue with Hong Kong is much more for the people there as opposed to the people who are using it as a conduit.

 

TN: That’s really interesting what you say about Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Seoul because I’ve been seeing that take shape over the last five or six years and it’s interesting that it’s getting a lot of traction.

 

With Xinjiang and with other things happening socially in China, what about things like non-profits? Issues that they have to raise in China? How can you operate a non-profit in China and stay true to your mission if it’s kind of awkward with Beijing or with the CCP, which are one and the same?

 

ISF: Most times, you can’t. What’s been happening is that a huge amount of western nonprofits have, sometimes it’s this evangelical view and sometimes it’s just well this is a very important country filled with a lot of lovely people and we want to come here and do good. But they find that knowingly or unknowingly, their message and their mission gets corrupted because they need to work with their government partners. And sometimes, their mission is totally at odds with the mission of the party. And so, they have to make sacrifices that I would say perverts what they’re doing.

 

We see this perhaps most intently in both the very human rights focused nonprofits and in the environmental focused non-profits. A lot of whom have found themselves being very praiseworthy of what Beijing is doing even though China’s far and away the worst polluter and the worst carbon emitter. They take signs coming from top leaders that Beijing is committed to making these changes even though the changes often don’t get made. But they are finding themselves in a position where in order to be there, they have to sacrifice some of their credibility. A very heartening sign I’m seeing is people saying, maybe I don’t actually need to be in China in order to do something that’s positive for the world.

 

TN: Do you see a path to China having that type of environment in 5, 10, 20 years time? Or do you think we’re kind of on this this really is it slower than that?

 

ISF: It’s such an important question and I wish I had some good way to answer it. In China, as Chinese officials love to say, has 5,000 years of history. The Communist Party has been in power for what, one and a half percent of that time. At some point, in the near future, the party will no longer rule China. Will that be next year? Will that be 30 years? Will that be 200 years? It’s so hard to say, but it’s certainly not inevitable.