Why I ditched Blackberry for Samsung and not Apple

WHEN I was 11, I got my first mobile - a Nokia 3410. Compared to the modern smartphone, there wasn't a lot you could do with it. I guess it was good for playing Snake II, Space Impact and Bantumi. Other than that, the phone's functions like reminders and the calculator weren't that exciting to an 11 year old. The good thing however about phones back then was that because they were all simple in design and functions, it was easy to choose a new phone when you needed one. This is exactly what I miss about the phones of the early 2000s.

My 2 year old contract Blackberry Bold is due up for renew and I spent/wasted a lot of time this week (re)searching for a new phone. I really do like Blackberry. Their indicator light, acceptable size, physical QWERTY keyboard and its ability to receive emails extremely easily has made me value this brand over the unnecessarily large touchscreen smartphones that grace the phone market. But as a follower of business news and tech companies, I knew deep inside that choosing Blackberry again -  even their new models of Q10 and Z10 would be a mistake. 

Blackberry, who changed its name from Research In Motion at the beginning of 2013 (to put the emphasis on the company's main product) is really a dying brand and a maker of phones in many ways. I don't think it is the 'design' of Blackberry phones that have caused their continued poor performance but it is the Blackberry software itself. The phone market is populated by touchscreens and for 3+ years, Blackberry have adopted touchscreen technology into various models, such as the Bold Touch range and the Torch range. Therefore, the physical design is not likely to be a shortfall. I believe the real shortfall lies with the software. iOS and Android are more technologically advanced than Blackberry's software. Without going into the tech. specifications, I think its fair to say that the former 2 operating systems can just 'do more' than Blackberry. This is exactly what makes iPhones and other phones that run Android more exciting and fresh. For example, many applications today are developed for Android and iOS, leaving Blackberry out. One of the reasons for this is that Android and iOS are technically superior, allowing apps with more functions and graphics to be coded. I do use apps and as a Blackberry user, I have often been frustrated when I cannot download app x for a Blackberry platform. Blackberry's newest software - Blackberry 10 - allows for Android apps to run although the developer will have to tailor some code to suit a Blackberry phone. Despite not being a fan of the huge touchscreen only smartphones, the general superiority of iOS and Android (that you can 'do more') is the main reason why I could no longer consider Blackberry. 

So now the choice was down to iPhones (by Apple) versus Android phones (by HTC, Sony and Samsung).

For me, iPhones and iOS are still the most aesthetically pleasing phones and operating systems on the market. However, between the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and the current iPhone 5, there have not been that many variations in design or internal software at all. This argument holds for the iPad and iMac ranges. Whether Apple is guilty of patent thickening is debatable, but the truth is that iPhones have become boring, unexciting and still overpriced because the brand is 'Apple'. I am wondering if Apple still has the same innovative foresight as it did under Steve Jobs. Probably not is the answer. Because of this (lack of innovation and variation in their products), I am not convinced that I can be fulfilled with an iPhone.

So next, my search turned to the Android phones. 

Sony was easy to ditch as the design of the Xperia range didn't quite appeal to me. It is too rectangular and 'sharp'. 

HTC's latest phone - HTC One and Samsung's Galaxy S3 and S4 became the serious contenders. First thoughts? Well, the HTC One's serious silver slick design and its frontal 'Beats' speaker attracted me to the phone immediately. One the other hand, the S3 and S4 are both technologically powerful, yet they are not as aesthetically pleasing and definitely the least premium feeling phone (with a plastic casing) in their category. After much pondering, watching various Youtube phone reviews and copious visits to various phone shops, I decided to settle with Samsung for their technology and all their extra functions over the HTC (and also Apple). The S4 is lighter, has a bigger screen, a faster processor, an improvement of 5MP in its camera to 13MP and a better resolution. But the S3, only one year older then its successor, it not that inferior. Therefore, (unlike most people), I didn't think it would be worth paying an extra £12+ per month to upgrade to the S4 and settled for the S3 in the end.

Perhaps my thoughts have been reflected in the companies' recent financial results. Blackberry's results coincidentally were released today. Their Q1 results for June 2013 ended (fiscal year 2014), revealed that although revenues reached $3.1 billion (up 15% from previous quarter) and global shipments of smartphones were up by 13% to 6.8 million, they still made a huge operating loss of $84 million. Even with the roll out of new products and services over the next year and the global roll out of Blackberry 10, I am not convinced in this competitive environment that Blackberry can turn fortunes around so easily. I would anticipate another loss in Q2. However, perhaps they can be helped by the adoption of BBM on to iPhones and Android. BBM is more user friendly and established compared to other instant messengers like WhatsApp or PingChat. It wouldn't be a bad idea either for Blackberry to 'combine' their traditional QWERTY keyboard with a full touchscreen using microfluidics technology (by a joint venture) as seen below. However, like Dell, I think Blackberry would really benefit from a buyout and going private for a few years. It has little prospects of competing with Apple, Samsung, HTC among others even with the launch of Blackberry 10 and its future successor operating systems. It would be a good time for Blackberry shift its focus out of  smartphones and into business services. 

This quarter has really belonged to Samsung, who has become the most profitable mobile company in the world, (finally) beating Apple. In Q2 2013, to June month end, Samsung's phones made an operating profit of $5.2 billion ($7 billion for the entire company). This has mostly been driven by strong demand for Android devices from Asia and LATAM as well as its new S4. Samsung has also succeeded with rigorous cost controls, high volume of production and high wholesale prices. 

Apple's iPhone profit was $4.2 billion ($6.9 billion overall for company). This figure has marked the iPhone range as 'underperforming',  reflecting poor sales of the iPhone 5 globally including China, and strong competition from the likes of Samsung. Samsung now accounts for the biggest share of the global smartphone market at 27.7%. Nokia is in 2nd with 15.8% while Apple is in 3rd, accounting for 8% of the global smartphone market, their smallest market share in 3 years. (Blackberry does not rank in the top 5). This, coupled with a lack of innovation and unsuccessful attempts to gain significant market share in emerging markets due to their high price of phones, has made Apple less and less of a darling company. In Sept. 2012, Apple's share price hit a record $700 odd but now it is trading at 40% less. Until a brand new innovation - that is not an adaptation of its existing products - the story for Apple is likely to remain the same. According to Tim Cook, this is likely to happen in autumn 2014. The 'Apple watch' is likely to be one of these, but I will be curious to see what else there is...

JH

What's the 'deal' with Chinese internet companies?

THE AMOUNT of M&A activity and the increasing value of deals - fuelled by the money making potential in mobile platforms - in the Chinese internet scene makes the sector a very exciting place at the moment. Analysys International, an internet research firm recently reported that the value of China's mobile internet market will rise to 300 billion Yuan (£30 billion) in 2014. It was only worth 150 billion Yuan in 2012. China's internet users stands at 591 million in June 2013, an increase of 41% compared to three years ago.

M&A wise, I believe there will be continued activity here and especially in the mobile internet sector since mobile internet and applications fields are not fully developed in China. There is much scope for growth, organically or by M&A.

I have chosen a few momentous (planned) deals to blog about.

*****

In the past day, Qihoo, the second most popular search engine by traffic in China (after the almighty Baidu) has announced it is in early talks with Sohu to buy its search engine Sogou (meaning literally 'search dog'). I believe that the acquisition of Sogou, the third most popular search engine by traffic is a well thought out strategic decision for catching up with Baidu who is and still will be (if the acquisition goes ahead), miles ahead in terms of traffic and revenue. Internet research firms CNZZ and Alexa show that Baidu command roughly 69% of search traffic while Qihoo and Sogou only have 15% and 9% respectively. However, Qihoo has still been a serious competitor to Baidu. Their simple interface is more attractive to inexperienced users and at the same time, delivers a better smartphone/tablet experience. Further, Qihoo have an advantage over Baidu in that it is also a software company. This has enabled Qihoo to incorporate search engine bars into their software to boost traffic. 

Market share is important in the internet sector and the fastest way for Qihoo to increase market share is through M&A. With the Sogou buy, Qihoo will reach more than 20% of market share for search engines and can scale it up. This acquisition will also give the company access to the search technologies of music/MP3, videos, maps, shopping, photos, Sogou's online radio station among other features which are popular among younger internet users (who form the bulk of internet users), directly challenging Baidu's products. Further, Qihoo will reap the technology of Sogou's smart input search method which currently has 195 million users. In general, both brands have similar business models and I think there are strong synergies between Sogou and Qihoo search. Not only will they be a dominant challenger to Baidu from a second position, but they will also be dominant in the browser, internet security, software and Chinese language input markets.

Given that it is early days in talks, numbers are unclear. Sogou is valued between $1.2-$1.4 billion. As Qihoo reported $301 million of cash and cash equivalent at year end in March, any offering is more likely to be equity heavy. And since Sogou is in talks with other parties, Qihoo could potentially lose to bidders who can offer more cash, namely Baidu. However, any acquisition by Baidu could be blocked on antittrust grounds. 

The valuation of Sogou is questionable since it was only worth $237 million one year ago. A valuation of over $1 billion only makes sense if Sogou has dramatically optimised and innovated new products in its search and other software in the past year which admittedly it it has done some of...see here and here. Still, a more prudent estimate should be around $800 million maximum.

*****

The IPO of Alibaba in possibly this year or early next, will be one of the biggest IPOs globally. Alibaba is currently valued at up to $120 billion and could raise $15-$20 billion in this IPO. Alibaba is the biggest e-commerce firm in China and its platforms are the equivalent of eBay, Amazon, Groupon and PayPal. 

I think this IPO is likely to happen sooner than later. Alibaba achieved a profit margin of 48.4% in Q1 2013  - double than that of Apple's in the same period - boosted by the demand for e-commerce services to link businesses and consumers in China. If Alibaba can demonstrate such strong earnings growth again in Q2 2013, an IPO could be ready by the end of 2013. Other financials are also very attractive. Compared to its US counterpart, Amazon, who is the world's largest online retailer, Amazon only achieved a profit margin of 0.51% in the March quarter while it was 18.1% for eBay. Alibaba's net income in Q1 2013 was $669 million compared to only $220 million in Q1 2012. Further, Alibaba constituted 70% of parcel deliveries in China last year and sales alone on its two main platforms reached 1 trillion Yuan in 2012.  

Alibaba is also an attractive company to hold on any investor's portfolio due to the large growth market it operates in. Alibaba is still in its early days also, who has a more vertical growth curve rather than a flatter one. 

Other details of the IPO remain sketchy. But Credit Suisse is expected to take a leading role given its history of working with Alibaba on past transactions. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are also expected to play a leading role in this prestigious and highly lucrative deal. 

I believe that one problem Alibaba has however, and which could be reflected in valuations, is that Alibaba does not have a strong position in China's social media/mobile market. It is has been unable to monetise on mobile users thus far unlike other Chinese internet giants of Tencent and Baidu among others who all operate rather strong e-commerce platforms or capabilities. The other challenge is choosing which stock market to float on. With many foreign backers, Alibaba may have to float outside of Hong Kong. 

Overall, internet companies are inherently volatile, as are their valuations. I believe any valuation up to $100-120 billion of Alibaba is fair. High performers in this sector are attractive to fierce competitors and creative destruction (in the Schumperterian spirit) is not uncommon, whereby new technologies uproot even the most established ones. It therefore makes sense for Alibaba to take imminent action for an IPO. 

*****

A few days ago, Baidu, China's Google, has announced it will acquire 91 wireless from NetDragon Websoft for $1.9 billion to further penetrate the mobile applications market. 91 wireless is a platform that distributes Android applications and connects over 90,000 application developers. Baidu is behind the other giant internet companies, namely Tencent and Sina, in terms of targeting mobile internet. So strategically, this acquisition is the correct one for Baidu. Baidu, as a search engine, is really for desktops but since consumers are devoting more time to mobiles/tablets, Baidu cannot continue to rely on online search for revenues. Baidu really needs this acquisition as location based and real-time applications (for maps, business nearby, SatNav for traffic data) are growing popular and consumers no longer need search to find what they're looking for. Using Baidu on smartphones is not particularity user friendly either.  

This acquisition will allow Baidu to generate more traffic from mobile users. Tencent's WeChat has 400 million mobile users and Alibaba is also starting to make headway in mobile applications by investing in Sina Weibo, AutoNavi among others. It is safe to say that Baidu is falling behind in traffic from smartphones. Unlike Google, it also has few applications for smartphones but this acquisition can help Baidu to boost usage experience in mobile apps and help the company to build a mobile ecosystem faster than developing organically. As well as catching up with Alibaba among others, the 91 Wireless acquisition can also shrug off competition from Qihoo who is the market leader in mobile application distribution. 

Although Tencent is a big player in developing, operating and marketing mobile gaming applications, I believe that Baidu and also Alibaba could look into targeting gaming apps in the near future as these are hugely popular with younger Chinese users, who are willing to pay for add-ons within games. 

*****

All this got me thinking why Chinese internet companies are hugely successful in China but nowhere else. And why, the likes of Google, Yahoo!, eBay or Amazon are hugely successful everywhere else but not in China. So, what is the deal with these Chinese internet companies? There are several answers to my question:

• A large internet/mobile internet market (due to China's population) has been an underlying factor to all Chinese internet companies' success. 

• The rise, growth and later dominance of the main Chinese companies we know today can be attributed to first mover advantage. The companies were founded in circa 1999, a period of mass internet adoption within China. This not only provided the opportunity to enter the internet content market but internet companies also capitalised by emerging as the first movers. Later entrants fail to be as successful since the first movers capture the benefits of dynamic increasing returns, which cause rise and growth. This is true for Baidu for example, as later entrants, whether indigenous firms or foreign firms who enter the search engine market hold significantly less market share.

• Joseph Schumpeter argued that innovation drives economic growth and an organisation forward. Innovation allowed Chinese internet companies to emerge and achieve first mover status but importantly, innovation facilitated their development of new combinations, leading to rise and growth. Baidu contributed little to the general search engine technology having modelled/imitated itself after Google, but the company innovated China’s first Chinese language search engine. Similarly, Tencent QQ is imitated after Mirabilis’ ICQ but Tencent innovated the first Chinese language instant messenger and also technology to send offline messages and store chat history, rapidly increasing QQ’s popularity. Sina’s main innovation lies in being the first to provide comprehensive news and entertainment and lifestyle portals, allowing Sina to diminish its direct competitor Sohu’s market share. Innovating Chinese language platforms in particular, immediately improves ease of use for Chinese users, leading to customer loyalty, brand recognition, other dynamic increasing returns and in turn, rise and growth. Weak IP laws within China have allowed internet firms to do so without much consequence and then reap the benefits of imitating an already successful model.  Just compare: 

Or:

Spot the similarity: Facebook v RenRen; Baidu v Google v Qihoo

• Chinese internet companies' success within China can also be attributed to possessing an excellent understanding of the Chinese market. Chinese search engines' MP3 downloads and games searches are of interest to young Chinese users and Tencent’s QQ and games allow users to purchase items for customising virtual characters, meeting their entertainment needs. Sina provides region-focussed news, relevant adverts and infotainment channels such as automobile information and luxury goods which appeal to China’s ever-growing middle class. The companies also brand themselves strongly as indigenous Chinese firms, further appealing to users.

• Cooperation with the Chinese government’s censorship regulations enabled the companies to emerge and rise. Cooperation is key; Google’s refusal to censor instigated its exits from China in 2010 and several Google services became blocked, allowing Baidu’s market share to increase from 60% to 75.9%. Following Wikipedia’s block in 2005, Baidu also capitalised by developing a Chinese version of Wikipedia, Baiduknows. Sina used the opportunity to launch Weibo in 2009, after the closure of micro-blog Fanfou due to censorship disputes. Thus, censorship regulations and blocks on the main foreign internet companies from Facebook to Youtube to Google reduces competition, grants indigenous companies who comply opportunities to replicate such foreign websites and space to thrive in the Chinese market. 

• Chinese internet companies have been and will be unable to compete globally, I believe. Chinese internet companies cater only to the Chinese market and their niche models cannot succeed abroad. . Mastering an understanding of international markets can also be difficult if management have little experience of the target country. Further, competing abroad is unlikely as well-established or indigenous firms may already operate in the market; Google, Yahoo!, eBay and Amazon serve many regions outside of China. For example, Baidu, who entered the Japanese market in 2008 holds only 0.2% of the market share; the market is divided between first-movers Google and Yahoo!. Moreover, as Chinese internet companies generally will offer no markedly new products, entering foreign markets will generate little success. Similarly for these same reasons, foreign internet brands cannot be successful in China so easily. However, Baidu and Tencent currently operate small-scale foreign ventures - includes multi-language products and establishing partnerships with foreign counterparts - in emerging markets such as Brazil, India and Vietnam. Expanding into developing markets offers Chinese firms an increased chance of success as they benefit from first mover advantage and will experience little competition . Such companies will continue to expand into emerging markets, as their management have expressed a desire to invest in, or acquire foreign firms. For example, Tencent have invested substantially in FAB and KakaoTalk and Qihoo 360 have partnered with Line. 

JH

Royal Mail for Sale

FOR THOSE reading this post from outside of the UK, you may not be familiar with what exactly Royal Mail is. Royal Mail is the UK's state-owned postal and parcel delivery service. Well actually, not for much longer. 

Last week, Business Secretary Vince Cable confirmed to Parliament that the government plan to privatise Royal Mail in an IPO worth £2-£3 billion. Royal Mail is set to float on the London Stock Exchange around March 2014, making this IPO one of the biggest of 2014 and also the biggest UK government privatisation since the sale of railways in the 1990s under John Major. This IPO will raise £1 billion for the country while post offices will not be part of the privatisation. 

Plans to sell Royal Mail are nothing new. We may remember in 2011 that legislation was passed to privatise Royal Mail. Before that, there were failed attempts by Lord Mandelson in 2009 who put forward the idea of selling off 1/3 of Royal Mail and also the unsuccessful efforts of the Conservative Party in the 1990s. 

Seven investment banks, led by Goldman Sachs and UBS are appointed by the government for this IPO, sharing fees of around £30 million or more . The other five houses  -  UBS, BAML, RBC, Nomura, Investec and Barclays  - act as bookrunners. Lazard are advising the government. 

A majority stake of Royal Mail will be sold but the government will hold a minority stake. This percentage of each will be dependent on market conditions and investor demand, of which I believe there will be ample of. 10% of shares will be granted to Royal Mail's 150,000 employees free of charge and provided that they hold them for at least 3 years. This move is made to weaken their support for trade unions and to placate workers. Or plausibly to placate voters by wanting to echo that "we're all in this together" - something the coalition parties' policies have not thus far reflected. 

I am in favour of this privatisation. Why? 

Firstly, it is quite noticeable from everyday life that the way we use (snail-)mail and the postal service has changed dramatically over the past few years. The internet, from providing paperless bills to online communication, has really decreased the volume of letters arriving on our doorsteps year by year. Coupled with a reduced appetite for mail due to sharp rises in stamp prices, the letter business is nor lucrative or popular for individuals and small businesses. But at the same time, while letters have declined, parcels and courier usage have increased quite sharply reflecting the prevalence of online shopping.

Secondly, you may live in an area where your mail  isn't actually handled or even delivered by Royal Mail but in fact by one of several private companies like TNT Post or UK Mail following the opening of the market in 2006. Therefore like all businesses, if Royal Mail wants to be profitable, competitive and wants to continue remaining as a major player in the industry, it needs to innovate and it requires the investment to do so. 

TNT among others: real competition...

There has also been a rise of many courier players (from large conglomerates to 'lifestyle couriers') and this is the type of business that Royal Mail should start to make a mark on. 

Given this changing environment, it is quite clear that Royal Mail requires adaptations and innovations.  However, the capital to do so should not be granted by the government; cuts are still waiting to be made in several spending areas and public sector money could be better used for building and modernising Britain's infrastructure, preferably faster than the development of HS2. I 100% support that the private sector are better positioned to provide Royal Mail with the investment to re-vamp in order to be competitive.

While it can be argued that a further benefit of the privatisation is that approx. £1 billion will be raised, it is important to remember this is only an one-off gain. But the real benefit of privatising Royal Mail means the government will not need to invest large sums or seek additional borrowing to do so at a time of austerity.

This of course is big news for Britain but following the privatisation, I believe any changes will not happen immediately and there will be very little change, if any, to the way the service operates at the start. However, there could be a longer delivery period to make savings; it used to be before 9am that mail is delivered, now its around 12pm but the period could be extended to sometime in the afternoon. Or, mail could be delivered on alternate days.

Royal Mail's operating profits were £403 million but there are several ways following investment this figure could rise:

• A target area for growth would be in the parcel area, fuelled by the volume of e-commerce in the UK. Future profits will come from parcel delivery and this area will be of key interest to investors. 
• To compete with the explosion of 'lifestyle couriers', Royal Mail also needs to create a similar business unit and yet at the same time, not undermine or endanger the jobs of its 'real' employees. 
• There are 150,000 employees within Royal Mail and its new owners may want to reduce this headcount if the way post is delivered is changed (since fewer staff will be needed). Staff reduction have occurred in other European mail privatisations - in Sweden, Germany, Finland and recently in Belgium for example. 

Despite the fact that the Communication Workers Union - who represent the majority of Royal Mail employees  - are threatening strikes, I think that with no announcement of plans to make redundancies and with the share option grant for all employees, this threat is really of little substance. Royal Mail's overall stability and a huge potential in the rise of profits among other long term growth mean that its shares will generate a keen interest from institutional investors. However, this will of course depend on valuations and some investors could see Royal Mail as too risky since it is prone to be hit by industrial actions (seeing as Royal Mail has been hit by such events throughout its history).

This IPO is one of the most exciting IPOs since Yelp for me so I will certainly be following it closely. 

JH

A 'Freakonomics' experiment - some summer fun

THIS POST is meant to be fun and 'non-serious' and what I'm blogging about is also quite cool! (Well, at least I think so anyway).

So I was recently clearing out some old books and came across this old favourite of mine:

If you want to find out what the KKK and estate agents have in common or how sumo wrestlers and school teachers both cheat or what its like to be a drug dealer in Chicago, then I suggest this is the perfect summer read for you. 

Then I went on the Freakononmics website to see what's new and I came across this experiment - run by the Chicago School of Economics and the authors of Freakonomics designed to 'help' you make a major life decision(s). The results, data and follow-up questionnaires from your experiment will accumulate in an academic study.

Its up to you how seriously you want to take the solution but I thought this was a pretty good behavioural economics experiment and also killed some time when I was bored one afternoon.

Here are my results:

Dilemma: 
Should I splurge on electronics (iPad)? I just can't decide whether to splurge on an iPad!
Result:  
After flipping 3 coins, you flipped the coin and got that you should build your bank account. So, what next? You shouldn't purchase electronics and should instead save that money over the next two months. After that, you should feel free to purchase electronics.

Hmm...I'm still not convinced that Freakonomics has solved my dilemma! 

JH

Beyond the BRICs: the 'Next 11' and even further beyond

ONE THE eve of my graduation (when I was supposed to be ironing my clothes for it), I opted to attend a talk by Jim O'Neill at my university. You probably have heard of him before, but he is the recently retired Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and the famous coiner of the BRICs acronym - the 4 emerging market giants of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Entitled ' The Changing World: an overview of dynamic and adapatable capitalism in a world beyond the BRICs', his talk of coure focussed on the BRICs but also shed substantial light on the 'Next 11' or 'N-11' - the 11 countries to watch out for as they make make their ascent towards wealth and full industrialisation, all with the potential of becoming the largest economies of the 21st century and the BRICs of tomorrow. 

These include:

The BRICs of tomorrow?

And notably, the 'MIST' (Mexico, Indonesia, South [Korea] and Turkey) nations make up 73% of the total of the N-11's GDP. 

For people my age and younger, it is all very easy to get excited about the BRICs, MISTs and the N-11 knowing that these nations will have increasing influence on our lives, no matter where we are in the world. The thing about emerging markets is that despite several commonalities, they are all different. The differ in area size, population size, rates of growth, patterns of economic reform, political, economic and legal regimes and styles of government which may pose as a threat or opportunity for investors. For example, you can probably tell from the word cloud that some N-11 members are far more industrialised than others already. 

South Korea aside (being an already highly developed nation), I believe that Nigeria, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam are the best positioned to grow into the largest economies over the next 30 years+. I have chosen a few countries to blog a some quick words about...

Nigeria, being the most populous nation in Africa and the 7th most populous country in the world, still faces huge challenges including poverty, some corruption, poor infrastructure and power supply among its 170 million people. However, for the past 6 years, the country has grown at an average 7%. Its large and young workforce means productivity won't be in short supply, attracting investment from both home and abroad. Sectors within each country grow at different rates and thus offer different opportunities for growth. Sector-wise, I know the food & beverage sector here is very vibrant at the moment and is projected to grow into the coming years, mainly driven by a wealthy middle class ready to consume with increasing disposable income. Energy is the hottest sector there (no pun intended), and still will be in the next coming decades with the oil and gas resources attracting international investments particularly as more state owned power and oil companies are set for privatisation. The banking sector is another industry ready for growth, having undergone extensive regulatory and restructuring.  

Whilst growth and attracting FDI or home investment is likely to be the top of the policy agenda for Nigeria's current and successive governments, I believe that solving the social and infrastructure related challenges faced by the country should certainly receive near equal status as part of the path to growth into an international economic force. 

Philippines, has an educated and young work force which I believe is a blessing given this characteristic cannot be replicated so easily in other countries also competing for investment and growth. Philippines is a strong exporter of electronic products, garments, petroleum products and fruits and they can continue to hold this status in the next coming years. Philippines, only very recently has become a popular destination for foreign investment given that its credit rating was raised to investment grade by Fitch and S&P not so long again. Bullish growth was a cause of this, but also due to President Aquino's rather successful bids to tackle corruption; now, there is a shift towards transparency creating more confidence among foreign investors. 

Corruption is still widespread nevertheless, and if Aquino and success governments can push for more anti-corruption measures and policies for welfare improvement, Philippines will see more investment and growth as investors tap into the work force and into the ever growing middle class. 

Indonesia, is a country I am often guilty of confusing it with the Philippines. These two countries have many commonalities but also a lot of differences. Indonesia is the world's 4th most populous country and has the largest economy in South-East Asia, with a growth rate of 6% per year. There is a thriving banking sector, with many local private equity and investor setting up, with more opportunities for growth in both banking and private equity well into the future.  The country has a large and young work force which creates an excellent source of productivity. Low wages in the country also make Indonesia an attractive destination for manufacturers  The most attractive point about the country is its 'open door' policy towards investment, where it actively welcomes investment and simplifying the legal framework (from the 1980s) to do so. Given that it is a democracy, it is also fairly easy to move money in and out of its borders (in comparison to China, for example). However, unlike the Philippines  the work force is not as educated and thus investors have trouble finding suitable management here. Therefore, should policy makers focus on improving its primary-tertiary education system, possibly modelling it on the Singapore or Filipino systems,  Indonesia could be become a serious magnetic force for attracting global investments. 


Vietnam, is an exciting place I feel as while it is a developing and generally agrarian economy, it is one which is shifting from a centrally planned economy into a more market orientated one. GDP growth is around 5%, and there is a lot of M&A activity and FDI in the country, particularly in manufacturing related sectors as suppliers seek a lower wage market as China and other Asian economies experience wage inflation. I expect Vietnam to be a major exporter of agricultural and food produce. As trade links improve with the rest of the world, the food and beverage industry could be a strong target for investors. Aside from the growth of manufacturing ( food processing, cigarettes, garments chemicals, and electronic consumer goods), I expect the tourism industry to grow as the Vietnam National Administration of Tourism is implementing a large scale diversification of the tourism industry to attract foreign exchange (as well as attracting more tourism). This sector therefore offering investment opportunities for local investors and those from further afield. Like several other N-11 members, Vietnam however faces the challenge of tackling corruption and providing experienced management due to its young population. 


With regard to Bangladesh, the country faces several large challenges that other N-11 countries do not face. Over population is the main issue which contributes to a largely uneducated country with widespread poverty. The tragedy of the garment factory incident and a general lack of regard for industrial safety reminds us that Bangladesh has a lot to do, although some action is slowly being taken. Time will tell if these actions are prolonged.  Out of all the N-11 nations however, Bangladesh has the one of the biggest opportunities to grow. Currently, although investment activity is nascent, there is growing interest in the country due to the large work force and the expanding economy (at more than 6% per annum) coupled with a growing middle class and their ever-growing disposable income. It is only ranked second to China in clothing exports, and will this industry will gain momentum into the future years as manufactures seek to move away from China into lower wage economies such as Bangladesh; it is one of the cheapest places to manufacture. 

There are high hopes of Iran and Pakistan as they are one of the largest producers of natural commodities in the world. Political and foreign policy challenges in both countries however will detract Western investors. Nevertheless, I believe we will see a thawing of relationships between the US/Europe with Iran and Pakistan over the next coming decades; Iran 's new leadership could pave a way for nuclear disarment and building a relationship with the US. As the 'war on terror' ends, Europe and USA could focus on strengthening a business and commercial partnerships with both countries. 

*****

Jim O' Neill's talk also made me think outside of the box a bit. What nations are beyond the BRICs and the N-11 to challenge the G7 of the world then? Will these nations be the emerging nations of the world when I'm spending my days playing bridge and bowling on greens?

This is very difficult to say many countries can potentially fit into this category and as for each country,  a whole host of social, political and economic factors and risks will come into force throughout my lifetime. At present however, to take a few, I believe Mongolia could fit into this category. As can Kazakhstan, Angola, Zambia, Botswana and Iraq. I've created a mind map of my thoughts as this post has been pretty wordy and long already. Take a look (click to enlarge)...

JH