Snapdeal ends merger talks with Flipkart; to go solo

Agencies
July 31, 2017

New Delhi, Jul 31: Snapdeal today called off the USD 950 million-takeover (over Rs 6,000 crore) by Flipkart, apparently over differences in valuation and terms of what could possibly have been the largest deal in the Indian e-commerce space.

Discussions to acquire the beleagured Snapdeal by Flipkart were initiated in March but contours of the deal could not reach a finality even after several rounds.

"Snapdeal has been exploring strategic options over the last several months. The company has now decided to pursue an independent path and is terminating all strategic discussions as a result," a Snapdeal spokesperson said in a statement, without naming Flipkart.

The spokesperson added that the company will now pursue "Snapdeal 2.0" which is expected to help Snapdeal be "financially self-sustainable".

Japanese conglomerate SoftBank, which holds close to 35 per cent stake in Snapdeal and one that was driving the discussions, said it supports entrepreneurs and their vision.

"...we respect the decision to pursue an independent strategy. We look forward to the results of the Snapdeal 2.0 strategy, and to remaining invested in the vibrant Indian e- commerce space," a SoftBank spokesperson said.

According to company sources, the talks ended on account of the complexity of the deal that came with multiple conditions, right from indemnity to a non-compete clause.

These did not find favour with the founders of the Gurugram-based online marketplace, they added. The sources did not wish to be named as the discussions were private.

The deal was also contingent upon a nod from Snapdeal's high-profile minority investors, including Ratan Tata and Azim Premji's investment arm, PremjiInvest.

It wasn't immediately clear if any of the minority shareholders had objected to the deal. Once a leading player in the Indian e-commerce space, Snapdeal has seen its fortunes falling amid strong competition from rivals, Amazon and Flipkart.

Its valuation plunged from a peak of about USD 6.5 billion in February 2016 to about USD 1 billion during the latest round of discussions. India's nascent e-commerce sector is witnessing an intense battle for leadership between US-based Amazon and homegrown firm, Flipkart as more Indians turn to online shopping.

The players have been pumping in millions of dollars in building infrastructure, getting sellers online as well as promotions to bring more shoppers onboard.

The decision to continue independently also comes within days of Snapdeal agreeing to sell its digital payment platform, FreeCharge, to Axis Bank for Rs 385 crore.

One of the sources said Snapdeal is now pivoting into a 'Taobao'-like open marketplace setup and with money coming in from the sale of non-core assets like Freecharge and Vulcan (when it gets completed), the company will have a run time of at a few years. Snapdeal has about 1,200 employees.

In an e-mail to employees last week, Bahl had indicated that the company may decide to continue independently. Bahl had said the Freecharge deal would give Snapdeal the "necessary boost in resources" to continue its e-commerce journey.

The discussions with Flipkart stretched over five months for a number of reasons. SoftBank worked overtime to get early investors, Kalaari and Nexus Venture Partners -- who also have Board representation -- to agree to the deal.

After their approval, Snapdeal Board turned down Flipkart's USD 800-850 million (about Rs 5,500 crore) offer, saying the amount undervalued the company.

While Flipkart revised the offer to USD 900-950 million, it came with a number of riders that did not find favour with the company.

There have been reports suggesting that SoftBank was looking at picking up stake in Flipkart through the Snapdeal transaction.

With the deal now off, reports say SoftBank may look at investing in Flipkart separately, though it could not be independently verified.

Greyhound Research chief analyst and CEO Sanchit Vir Gogia said Snapdeal 2.0 will need the company to have a different approach to survive and thrive.

"They will have to take a specialised approach to ensure they can continue. The market is now clearly open to a third player after Amazon and Flipkart, possibly to Paytm," he said.

Gogia also noted that the development should also be a reminder to startups that "they should not take consumers and investors for granted". "Valuation alone doesn't help keep a business alive," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 25,2020

Jun 25: Tencent Holdings Ltd.'s $40 billion surge this week and the recent ascent of Pinduoduo Inc. have reshuffled the ranking of China's richest people.

The country's largest game developer has surpassed Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. as Asia's most-valuable company, with its shares rising above HK$500 in intraday trading Wednesday for the first time. Pinduoduo, a Groupon-like shopping app also known as PDD, has more than doubled this year.

The rallies have propelled the wealth of their founders, with an added twist: Tencent's Pony Ma, worth $50 billion, has surpassed Jack Ma's $48 billion fortune, becoming China's richest person. And Colin Huang of PDD, whose net worth stands at $43 billion, has squeezed real estate mogul Hui Ka Yan of China Evergrande Group out of the top three earlier this year, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the digitization of the workplace and changed consumers' habits, boosting shares of many internet companies. Now tech tycoons are dominating the ranks of China's richest people. They occupy four of the top five spots: Ding Lei of Tencent peer NetEase Inc. follows China Evergrande's Hui.

‘Perform Strongly'

Tencent has come a long way since hitting a low in 2018, when China froze the approval process for new games. Since then, the stock has almost doubled, and last month the tech giant reported a 26 per cent jump in first-quarter revenue.

“Tencent's online games segment will probably perform strongly through the Covid-19 pandemic, and most of its other businesses are relatively unscathed,” said Vey-Sern Ling, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.

That has been a boon for Pony Ma, 48, who owns a 7 per cent stake in the company and pocketed about $757 million from selling some 14.6 million of his Tencent shares this year, data complied by Bloomberg show.

The native of China's southern Guangdong province studied computer science at Shenzhen University and was a software developer at a supplier of telecom services and products before co-founding Tencent with four others in the late 1990s. At the time, the company focused on instant-messaging services.

It has been a long comeback for Pony Ma. He overtook real estate tycoon Wang Jianlin as China's second-richest person in 2013 and topped Baidu Inc.'s Robin Li as the wealthiest in early 2014. Later that year, Alibaba went public in the U.S., catapulting Jack Ma's fortune.

Bloomberg Intelligence's Ling notes, however, that Tencent's jump this year has lagged behind some internet peers, especially those in e-commerce, games and online entertainment. Just consider: Tencent shares have climbed 31 per cent in 2020, while PDD's American depositary receipts have more than doubled. Alibaba, meanwhile, has advanced just 6.9 per cent.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 4,2020

New Delhi, Jan 4: In more troubles for the former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday questioned him for over six hours in its probe into the Air India aircraft deal case, first time since his release from Tihar jail almost a month ago.

A senior ED official told IANS, "We questioned Chidambaram for over six hours today in the ongoing probe into the Air India deal with Airbus."

According to financial probe agency officials, Air India had planned to buy over 111 aircraft from Airbus and Boeing during the erstwhile United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2009. This is the first time the ED has questioned the senior Congress leader in the Air India deal case.

The questioning of Chidambaram came for the first time since his release from the Tihar jail where he spent 106 days in connection with the INX Media money laundering case. He was released from Tihar on December 4 last year after he was granted bail by the Supreme Court. The former finance minister is also being investigated by the ED in a separate money-laundering cases of Aircel-Maxis deal.

An ED official said the contract to buy 43 aircraft from Airbus was finalised by a panel of ministers headed by Chidambaram in 2009. According to the ED, when the proposal to buy 43 aircraft from Airbus was sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), there was a condition that the aircraft manufacturer would have to build training facilities and MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) centres at a cost of Rs 70,000 crore. But later, when the purchase order was placed, the clause was removed.

The name of another UPA minister, Praful Patel, had also come up in the alleged scam in a charge sheet filed by the ED against corporate lobbyist Deepak Talwar on March 30 last year. Talwar was arrested last year by the ED after he was deported from the UAE.

The ED is probing the Air India-Indian Airlines merger; purchase of 111 aircraft from Boeing and Airbus at Rs 70,000 crore; ceding profitable routes and schedules to private airlines, and opening of training institutes with foreign investment.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.