China’s ‘Big Tech’ crackdown: A step forward

There’s a growing consensus around much of the world that internet platforms have enjoyed a consequence-free environment for far too long. Many governments want to put in place stronger regulations for ‘Big Tech’, but there’s a significant variation in the nuance, speed and intent of regulatory response across regions.

The decisive actions taken by China may have surprised many, but we don’t see them as signs of China not appreciating innovation. Nor do we think that China intends to impose greater state control on (or even ownership of) its tech giants. Much of the regulatory agenda appears to be driven by pragmatic concerns around abusive monopolistic behaviour and reckless competitive engagement. In our view, this is likely to ultimately strengthen both leading Chinese tech innovators and their ecosystems, as they encourage entrepreneurial innovation.

Looking ahead, we see the future through the following lenses:

1.   ‘Ecosystem’ does not mean exploitation

The economic temptation to become gatekeepers is often too great to resist for internet platforms. Mobile app stores in China continue to charge 30% (or more) in gatekeeper fees on all throughput across all applications in their stores. This hurts smaller developers while providing an unfair and transparent view to app store owners on innovative new ideas. Social networks, such as those owned by  some of China’s tech giants, wall off rivals, while providing an easy channel for group investee companies to reap the rewards of the social traffic.

This must change. But not all change needs to be disruptive or damaging. Opening social media to all might make China’s tech giants even stronger than they are today. However, while group investee companies may lose their exclusive access to social channels, we believe their competitive advantages will remain. We expect regulatory action to sustain what was well-earned, while removing that which was appropriated.

2.   Extraction differs from facilitation

Internet platforms can earn money in two ways: by extraction or through facilitation. Extraction is defined by commissions, take rates, operating fees – charges that can be ‘extracted’ from merchants and raised on a whim without the need to deliver better service. The other side of the coin is facilitation. Every business is currently seeking online expansion through traffic and higher sales. In our view, internet platforms that can help them achieve this by offering creative solutions will thrive.

A regulatory pushback to extraction while encouraging facilitation could make internet platforms more creative and consumer friendly. ‘Earn your keep’ should be the hand regulations play here.

3.   Financial ‘innovation’ cannot come at the cost of systemic stability

One of the most important outcomes of this intervention is the provision of clear regulatory guidelines for fintech disruptors. Fintech’s desire to operate in an unregulated zone separated from traditional financial institutions was always a step too far.

Society would benefit far more, if traditional financial institutions were given incentives to digitalize and artificial barriers around access to consumer data, traffic, and payment methods were removed. Data transparency and a fair sharing of risk and reward are all worthy objectives. They remove moral hazard from the system, forcing skin in the game for all players – traditional and online.

Fintech players don’t need to feel restricted. As traditional institutions gain fair access to online channels, fintech platforms should also be able to expand as digital banks, bearing the same regulatory responsibility as incumbents, while being allowed the freedom to choose their point of scale, market focus and cost structure.

4.   Data belongs to no one… and everyone

Data ownership has been framed as a battle for consumer privacy in the West. In China, it will be hard to divorce the debate from the watchful eyes of the ‘Big State’. As a result, we expect this reform to come slower. Early wins might centre around combining online with offline data, and then making this framework available to all innovators. This could help spur innovation – China has no dearth of talented entrepreneurs willing to try new things.

While there are uncertainties about many things in China, we believe that the recent antitrust regulatory interventions and guidelines will ultimately strengthen leading Chinese innovators by encouraging more rational competitive behaviour. US regulators, who are beginning to grapple with similar questions around the monopolistic behaviour of their own tech giants, could possibly learn a few things from the evolution of internet regulation in China’s very vibrant digital economy.

Investment risks

The value of investments and any income will fluctuate (this may partly be the result of exchange rate fluctuations) and investors may not get back the full amount invested.

When investing in less developed countries, you should be prepared to accept significantly large fluctuations in value.

Investment in certain securities listed in China can involve significant regulatory constraints that may affect liquidity and/or investment performance.

当資料ご利用上のご注意

当資料は情報提供を目的として、インベスコ・アセット・マネジメント株式会社（以下、「当社」）のグループに属する運用プロフェッショナルが英文で作成したものであり、法令に基づく開示書類でも特定ファンド等の勧誘資料でもありません。内容には正確を期していますが、必ずしも完全性を当社が保証するものではありません。また、当資料は信頼できる情報に基づいて作成されたものですが、その情報の確実性あるいは完結性を表明するものではありません。当資料に記載されている内容は既に変更されている場合があり、また、予告なく変更される場合があります。当資料には将来の市場の見通し等に関する記述が含まれている場合がありますが、それらは資料作成時における作成者の見解であり、将来の動向や成果を保証するものではありません。また、当資料に示す見解は、インベスコの他の運用チームの見解と異なる場合があります。過去のパフォーマンスや動向は将来の収益や成果を保証するものではありません。当社の事前の承認なく、当資料の一部または全部を使用、複製、転用、配布等することを禁じます。

M2021-065

そのほかの投資関連情報はこちらをご覧ください。https://www.invesco.com/jp/ja/institutional/insights.html