To: DataBits who wrote (345 ) 7/24/1999 10:37:00 AM From: Mohan Marette Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 504
Frankly speaking - Taking the good with the bad. I guess this David Ibison guy doesn't know it is an SEC requirement to list the good, the bad and the ugly in the prospectus,he must be reading a U.S listed company's for the first time. ============================ Published on Monday, July 19, 1999 INTERNET China.com bares all in prospectus DAVID IBISON ----------------------------------------------------------------------China.com's listing prospectus was released in Hong Kong last week, and is - to say the least - frank. As well as selling the China.com story, the prospectus offers the first comprehensive assessment of why investors should treat Internet companies with mainland aspirations with extreme caution. Many of the reasons are applicable to any aspiring Internet listing hopeful whether they come from Silicon Valley or Shau Kei Wan - they are all likely to be young, loss-making and struggling to find an earnings stream. But a number of the risks are specific to the Greater China region - providing a useful watch list of what could go wrong for the reams of Asian Internet companies queueing up to float. A summary of the prospectus - usually an aggressive sales pitch - offers the following less-than-assuring conclusion: "We are still in the early stages of development and we may not fulfil our stated goals until much later in the future, if at all." It then points readers to a section of the prospectus called "Risk Factors", a chapter that fills 14 pages and which contains 40 separate reasons why China.com may fail to live up to the high expectations investors have placed on it. The list contains a range of problems likely to afflict Asian Internet companies. It states: "We have a history of losses and we anticipate future losses"; "We may not have the resources necessary to operate as a public company"; "Our strategy of expansion through acquisition may not be effective"; "Although we expect to generate revenue from advertising in the future, such revenue may not be substantial". It goes on to say that key shareholders may pull out, access to the mainland market may be curtailed, competition is intense and the economic situation is volatile. But there are wider problems associated with mainland entry, perhaps the most significant of which is the regulatory regime. China.com has the Xinhua news agency on board as a shareholder and hopes this will help smooth its way. Competitors are unlikely to have Xinhua's backing and will have to tread carefully around the following. Under mainland law it is illegal to provide Internet content that is "socially destabilising". Among other things, this includes content that "incites defiance or violation of the PRC constitution, laws or administrative statutes", "incites subversion of state power and the overturning of the socialist system" or "fabricates or distorts the truth, spreads rumours or disrupts social order". These measures are broad and open to interpretation, meaning if the authorities want to shut an Internet company down, there is sufficient flexibility in the regulations to find practically any reason to do so. Having Xinhua on your side also carries disadvantages, as China.com admits, stating "the content we provide is stringently edited and may not be as interesting as other Web sites which do not try to comply with PRC regulatory requirements". The challenges of ensuring that an essentially free medium such as the Internet contains nothing that is socially destabilising are enormous, with the solution probably lying in providing content of such greyness that the authorities cannot be offended. But this just creates a problem of its own - how to generate advertising revenue from dull content. Another major problem facing Internet companies with mainland aspirations is its unsophisticated telecommunications infrastructure. In effect, there is only one gateway to the Internet - ChinaNet - which is owned and operated by the government. China.com's prospectus states: "We will continue to depend on the PRC Government to establish and maintain a reliable Internet infrastructure. We will have no means of getting access to alternative networks and services on a timely basis or at all in the event of disruption or failure. "There can be no assurance that the Internet infrastructure in Greater China will support the demands associated with continued growth." These concerns apply equally to any Internet service provider attempting to access the mainland. Further challenges lie in intense competition, as new entrants try and tap Asia's Internet potential, combined with the fact that the commercial benefits of the Internet have yet to be demonstrated. China.com's prospectus reveals the full range of competition out there. "Many of our existing competitors as well as a number of new competitors have longer operating histories, greater name recognition, larger customer bases and databases and significantly greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we," the prospectus states. "We can provide no assurance that we will be able to compete successfully against our current or future competitors." Hovering in the background behind the challenges associated with the regulatory regime, sole reliance on ChinaNet and prolific competition, the prospectus mentions the wider issue of mainland economic problems as well as a potential devaluation of the yuan. All in all it is a curious prospectus, akin to trying to sell a car by highlighting its atrocious reliability record. But it does provide a useful glimpse into the reality behind the hype and could be summed up in just two words: caveat emptor. technologypost.com