November 22, 2024

DealBook: Baidu to Pay $1.9 Billion for Chinese App Store Operator

Robin Li, chief of Baidu, the Chinese search engine.David Gray/ReutersRobin Li, chief of Baidu, the Chinese search engine.

HONG KONG —Baidu, China’s biggest Internet search engine company, said Tuesday that it had reached a preliminary agreement to pay $1.9 billion to acquire 91 Wireless, a major developer of app stores in China.

The proposed deal comes as Baidu seeks to branch out beyond its traditional search business in order to better compete against the rival Chinese Internet giants Alibaba and Tencent, and is the latest in a series of acquisitions in the sector.

In May, Baidu agreed to pay $370 million for the online video business of PPStream. One week earlier, Alibaba had said it would pay $586 million for an 18 percent stake in Weibo, a hugely popular Twitter-like microblogging service in China owned by Sina Corporation.

Baidu, which is listed on the Nasdaq, said Tuesday that it had signed a legally binding memorandum of understanding to acquire majority control of 91 Wireless from NetDragon Websoft, a Hong Kong-listed company that invests in online gaming and mobile Internet businesses in China.

The preliminary deal calls for Baidu to pay NetDragon $1.09 billion for its 57.4 percent stake in 91 Wireless, and to offer around $800 million on similar terms to the owners of the remaining 42.6 percent stake, who were not identified. The companies have until Aug. 14 to agree on final terms for the transaction.

Last month, NetDragon said revenue in its mobile Internet business in the first quarter of the year rose to 144.7 million renminbi, or $23.5 million, more than tripling from a year earlier.

A key part of that business is 91 Wireless, which was set up in 2007 and today operates the popular 91 Assistant and HiMarket app stores in China, which run on Google’s Android operating system. As of March, the two stores had reached more than 10 billion cumulative app downloads, according to NetDragon’s latest earnings release. The 91 Wireless unit also develops its own apps, like PandaReader, which allows users to read and bookmark documents created in a number of file formats.

NetDragon said Tuesday in a stock exchange filing that a separate plan announced in December to seek a potential spinoff of the 91 Wireless business on Hong Kong’s secondary board would be scrapped, pending finalization of the sale to Baidu.

Shares in NetDragon plunged Tuesday on news of the proposed sale and abandonment of the spinoff plans, and were trading down 17.7 percent as of noon in Hong Kong. Still, the stock has risen about 80 percent this year in anticipation the company would cash out of 91 Wireless.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/baidu-to-pay-1-9-billion-for-chinese-app-store-operator/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Economix Blog: Answers to Questions About China’s Economy

David Barboza

On Wednesday, Economix asked readers to submit questions for David Barboza, who has reported for The Times from Shanghai since 2004. Mr. Barboza’s article, “Entrepreneur’s Rival in China: The State,” was published on the front page of Thursday’s paper.

Below are his responses.

From Michael Hauge, of Huangshan City, Anhui Province

In light of your experience conducting extensive due diligence in the past on corporations such as Enron, what are the biggest mistakes foreigners can commit when examining companies for investment in China? Genuine balance sheets? Government influence on industry? Trustworthy executives? I’d love your take on the issue.

Michael, great question. And a really tough one.

Few would argue that investors should avoid China. Many of the hottest initial public stock offerings during the past decade have been Chinese companies. And today China has two Internet giants — Baidu and Tencent — whose market capitalizations top $40 billion! But the risks are considerable. China has a weak rule of law, and has struggled to contain rampant corruption and accounting fraud. There is also a lack of transparency in government operations and the way many companies operate here.

I am not an investment adviser, but based on my experience on the ground, I would suggest caution and counsel investors that there are many hidden risks here.

Also, looking at your recent ‘Entrepreneurship’ article through the lens of a writer experienced in Chinese MA (referring to the Lenovo-I.B.M. deal here), could you see a trend of Chinese nationals such as Cathay’s Mr. Liu getting frustrated in China and taking their business abroad via MA? While reverse mergers have been common in the past few years, it seems as though many Chinese companies are trying to unwind their abroad positions and return home, but as your most recent article depicts, the grass might not be greener for them at home…

The executives at Cathay have told me they have considered moving some facilities outside of China. We’re already seeing many wealthy Chinese entrepreneurs investing overseas. But they also know there are major challenges operating overseas. Many Chinese executives don’t have experience outside of China. And they’d lose some of the labor and supply chain advantages they’ve built up here. Also, it’s probably hard to leave a country that continues to grow at 9 percent a year. My feeling is they’ll dabble overseas but mostly stay at home, despite the frustrations.

From Jonathan Huneke of New York, N.Y.

I wonder if anyone is looking at the impact of state-owned or state-championed companies from China (or Russia) who may have an advantage over their U.S. or other Western rivals in bidding on contracts in third markets? It’s well known that state firms have a competitive advantage in their home markets. Now, as Chinese and other state companies begin to invest abroad, are they crowding out established private companies, and is there a need for new rules to address this?

I have begun looking at this, and I’m sure many, many others are too. But I have not yet seen a thorough study that compares China’s efforts with those of other countries. I believe the U.S. government and European governments also find ways to support their own national champions. What the comparisons look like I don’t yet know. Many may quibble over how the evaluations are done. But this is an area ripe for study. And with so much at stake, I imagine we’ll see many such studies in the coming years.

My colleague Keith Bradsher, who is based in Hong Kong, has dealt with some of this in recent articles about China’s government-backed solar industry.

From David Gibson, Shanghai

What are your views on the possibility of severe recession in China due to bad loans made by local governments?

I wrote a lengthy article on China’s investment binge in July, and based on that earlier reporting, and what I continue to hear about and read about from analysts like the Beijing-based banking expert Charlene Chu at Fitch Ratings, I’d say this is cause for major concern. A consensus is building that, perhaps in the next year or two or three, China can absorb the waste and excess. But after that, the country could slide into a long, protracted recession that lasts five to 10 years. I’m not an economist, but there have to be consequences to a system that encourages overspending and overbuilding.

Do you think there is a real estate bubble in the eastern, industrialized cities? If so, what affects will it have on policy makers in Beijing and elsewhere?

This continues to be a major concern among policy makers. And I had these worries when I arrived over six years ago. So I was reluctant to buy. I stood by and watched as housing prices in Shanghai went up about 400 percent in the area I live in! It is perhaps too simplistic to say China is one big property bubble. But there are certainly plenty of bubbles in eastern cities, including the one I live in, Shanghai.

Nicholas Lardy, an economist at the Peterson Institute and one of the leading authorities on China’s economy, traced some of this to China’s system of financial repression — punishing household savers by paying them low interest rates and subsidizing state companies. Because households cannot earn a decent interest rate in banks, they are doing what’s natural: piling into real estate. “If I wanted to create a real estate bubble,” Professor Lardy told me, “I’d do what China has been doing. If you leave money in the banks, it vaporizes!”

In your opinion, can Western companies compete successfully in China? Is it a level playing field?

American companies complain a lot these days about how the Chinese government places them at a disadvantage when competing with Chinese companies. But probably you need to think in terms of sectors or industries. In some industries, like telecom, Chinese state-run companies have big advantages, and even oligopoly status. But in others, like the retail market, there are great opportunities, and American and European companies are thriving here, selling Coke, Nike, Gucci, Mercedes Benz and dozens of other brands. Affluent Chinese want the best, and right now, China still doesn’t have much in the way of reliable brands. Apple is probably going to sell more than $15 billion in greater China next year. That’s a remarkable figure, considering some of the best brands are lucky to have retail revenue of $1 billion.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9cf9a1389e5ee0458041ff73437c0e38

China’s Biggest Search Engine, Known for Illegal Downloads, Makes Music Deal

The agreement between Baidu and One-Stop China, a joint venture between the Universal Music Group, the Warner Music Group and Sony BMG, will shut down access to a vast amount of pirated music and promises to broadly reshape the way China’s 450 million Web users gain access to online music. The country has long been a haven for pirated content. Baidu has been one of the chief conduits to it, much to the consternation of record labels, publishers and artists both here and abroad.

Under the two-year deal between Baidu and One-Stop China, the three music labels will license over 500,000 songs, about 10 percent of them in Mandarin and Cantonese, which will be stored on Baidu’s servers and available for free streaming and download on the site’s ad-supported MP3 search page and social music platform, Ting.

Baidu will pay a fee to the labels for each time a song is downloaded or played in a stream. It will also share revenue from online ads if that revenue exceeds a certain amount, as well as provide promotional support for the labels. The companies declined to disclose financial details of the agreement.

With Baidu taking up the costs, this deal keeps music free — but legal. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents global music companies, estimates that 99 percent of the music found online in China is illegal, much of it available through Baidu. Although China has more broadband connections than the United States and a rapidly growing middle class, the global recorded music industry’s revenue in the country for 2009 was worth just $75 million, compared with $4.6 billion in the United States, according to the federation. So making money from music downloads and streaming in China will have an outsize impact for the labels, since digital sales accounted for 76 percent of the country’s legitimate music revenue in 2010, compared with just 29 percent globally, where CD sales remain dominant.

As part of the deal, on Monday the labels and Baidu agreed to a settlement endorsed by the Beijing Higher People’s Court ending all outstanding litigation. For years, the American and Chinese music industries have singled out Baidu for criticism, saying the company has enabled users to steal vast quantities of copyrighted music, accusations that spurred a number of unsuccessful lawsuits.

In February, the United States trade representative named Baidu as one of the world’s 33 “notorious markets” for piracy and counterfeiting, centering on Baidu’s practice of “deep linking,” or providing search results that direct users to unlicensed songs on other Web sites. Although American search engines have long been forced to abandon such practices, Chinese courts had ruled that deep linking was legal because the music was not stored on Baidu’s servers.

Despite those favorable court decisions, Baidu has now agreed to remove all deep links to music belonging to the three labels, though a small amount of other independently loaded music may remain available. “We’ve never wanted to stand there and thumb our noses at the recording industry,” said Kaiser Kuo, Baidu’s director of international communications. “This is a watershed moment. It’s a great way for us to deliver the best possible user experience by providing free and high-quality music and brings obvious tangible benefits to all parties involved including the labels, artists and advertisers.”

Later this year, as part of the agreement, Baidu plans to introduce a premium fee-based service which will allow paying users to download music onto any computer, tablet or mobile device from a virtual storage locker.

Mr. Kuo added that music search was profitable but had never been a source of major traffic. He said it accounted for a high of 30 percent in 2004 and was now less than 10 percent.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/technology/baidu-chinas-search-giant-announces-music-licensing-deal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss