Opinion

The Edgy Optimist

Alibaba looks West

Zachary Karabell
Sep 27, 2013 19:08 UTC

Washington may once again be careening toward an abyss of its own making, but it is not the only story worth attending to. It makes good theater, but for now we don’t know how or if it will fundamentally shape our lives.

So what will? Half a world away, a Chinese company is considering a public offering. That would seem of even less import, but this is no ordinary company. It is Alibaba, which is to China what eBay and Amazon are to the United States. It is the leading e-commerce company in the Middle Kingdom, and it is led by a visionary entrepreneur named Jack Ma who has transformed that space in China as surely as Jeff Bezos has in the United States. And now, Alibaba wants to go public. The IPO could value Alibaba at as much as $75 billion. 

That would be noteworthy in and of itself, for sheer size and scope. More intriguing is that, according to reports, it is increasingly likely that the company will sell its shares not in Hong Kong, which is part of China, but instead in New York City, which is decidedly not. Only two years ago, Alibaba made a serious play to buy Yahoo, which was an early investor and is still a substantial shareholder. Now, Alibaba may soon join Yahoo and a host of other competitors as a publicly-traded company listed on a U.S. exchange.

While shares on any exchange can trade electronically anywhere in the world, where you list shapes what information you must report and how a company both communicates with and is perceived by the public and by investors. But listing in the U.S. versus Hong Kong is also a powerful symbol, because it shows where Alibaba believes its best interests will be served.

Jack Ma and his partners do not want to cede as much control of the company as Hong Kong rules would demand. Like many media and Internet moguls, they want to be able to determine the strategy of the company rather than relinquish those decisions to shareholders. The wisdom of that thinking may be debatable, but it is hardly unique. From Barry Diller and IAC to Larry Ellison and Oracle, many powerful publicly-owned American companies enshrine special rights and controls to those who created and run the companies.

Fed tells markets: There is no certainty

Zachary Karabell
Sep 20, 2013 16:00 UTC

So the Federal Reserve did not taper after all, as we know from its mini-bombshell of an announcement on September 18th. Having signaled in May and June that the central bank was likely to pare back its monthly purchases of $85 billion in mortgage and treasury bonds, the bank and its chairman Ben Bernanke essentially said “Never mind,” and decided that now was not the time after all.

The reaction was swift, vociferous and excoriating. The financial community reacted as if it had been stabbed in the back. One longtime trader and respected commentator announced that he was “absolutely disgusted” by the decision or lack thereof. The best line came from a strategist at a leading investment house who said, “I am perplexed and baffled. I do this for a living. I shouldn’t be so confused and confounded.”

Actually he should be. We all should be. The Fed’s decision is a much-needed slap in the face to the financial world. The Fed’s statement was laden with typically stolid prose, but if you could have distilled it and the subsequent press conference by Bernanke, the message would have been simply this: “There is no certainty. Get over it.”

A recovery without a home

Zachary Karabell
Sep 13, 2013 15:07 UTC

Five years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the U.S. housing market is at last starting to thrive. It has, in fact, been steadily improving over the past years, and that trend has only accelerated of late. Housing is widely perceived as a key ingredient to a healthy economy, and so the revival in the housing market has been heralded as a positive step for an American system that has been sluggish at best. Similar trends in the United Kingdom and parts of the EU are greeted as positives as well.

But is it? Housing is a key aspect of economic activity in most countries, but that doesn’t mean that we should welcome a return to housing as a perceived pillar of national strength. And we should be very wary of any return to an ethos that sees either home ownership or housing prices as a barometer of individual and collective success. Those attitudes very nearly imploded the modern financial system, and they could imperil it again.

Homes are places where you live. They are not — and should never have been — investment vehicles. Yes, homes may gain in value and augment one’s net worth, but the reason to own a home is that it can be a cost-effective way to obtain a place to live. The minute they are seen as investments, that reality gets perverted, with dangerous consequences.

Obama, Syria, and the decline of the imperial presidency

Zachary Karabell
Sep 5, 2013 21:18 UTC

In 1973, Arthur Schlesinger wrote about the tendency in American history for the president to assume sweeping powers in times of war and crisis. The balance of power established by the Constitution gets upended; Congress and the courts take a back seat; and the executive makes decisions about life and death largely unchecked. He called this “the imperial presidency.” Today, with President Obama turning to Congress to endorse a military strike on Syria, the imperial presidency is beginning to wane.

It’s about time. The 1990s seemed to presage a return to a more balanced government, with Cold War defense spending slashed and “the peace dividend” contributing to a more balanced budget. But then 9/11 happened; America launched a war on terror; and the rest, as they say, is history.

The imperial presidency has some justification in times of acute peril. The immediate aftermath of 9/11 certainly justified some degree of unilateral executive action, as did in its way the financial crisis in the fall of 2008. And few would argue that at times of all-out war, with the country fully mobilized to fight a genuine threat such as Germany and Japan during World War Two, ceding powers to the executive branch is imperative.

  •