6 AM Pacific

Technology and Democracy

In the last two weeks much has been said about the actions of Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft in China that are apparently aiding the Chinese government in repressing dissent. In the congressional hearing Congressmen, playing to the galleries, subjected representatives from the four companies to some pretty intense questioning. When politicians ask questions in a public hearing that is being televised they are more interested in making political statements and less in the companies’ answers to the questions. Rhetorical questions like ‘how can you sleep at night?’ which was one of the questions, can be translated as ‘Voters in my constituency, I am concerned about freedom of speech around the world, an American value that I know is dear to you.’

The American press, in general, has found the companies to be at fault. This is not surprising given that the media is the biggest commercial beneficiary of free speech. You’d expect them to be less balanced about something that threatens their raison d’être.

So are the four technology companies at fault for aiding the Chinese government curtail freedom of speech? I think this is a complex issue that does not lend itself to a snap judgment. What the four tech giants were doing was obeying the law – the Chinese law. Not complying with China’s law, would have harmed their business interests in China and perhaps the well-being of the company’s senior officials in China. It was lawful and pragmatic. Is that so bad?

It could be. A company’s management often faces choices that may be all legal, but are not all equally ethical. Some of those choices may violate the stated values of the company. In a rapidly evolving industry sometimes the laws have not ‘caught up’ with the state of evolution of the industry. In such cases, very often the industry will come up with self-regulatory mechanisms. For instance, in the early days of the e-commerce boom, customer data privacy was a big issue that was first tackled through self-regulatory mechanisms before laws could be enacted. E-mail spam went through the same cycle. In these cases, ‘good’ business behavior emerged before the governing laws were framed. Similarly, some commentators say that American businesses adopted a self-imposed economic boycott of South Africa in the days of the apartheid. This was well before the US government and the UN mandated a boycott.

China, however, is not South Africa. The stakes are much higher. We are talking about a country that will soon become the second largest economy in the world. I can just picture the management of Google on an investor conference call saying that they had decided to pull out of China because complying with Chinese laws on censorship would put them in conflict with one of Google’s values (‘Don’t be evil’?). It would be ugly. Guaranteed.

Then there’s the question - is what they are doing really ‘evil’? If so, how evil? On a scale of 1 to 10 where would you put Yahoo aiding the Chinese government in identifying Falun Gong web-site owners? On that same scale, where would you put the US government asking Google to hand over usage data related to terrorist like activities (I guess they want to know about anyone searching for ‘build a nuclear bomb in your garage’)? How about if the US government asked Google to hand over search phrases and click-stream data on suspected terrorists? To Google’s credit they have staunchly refused to do this. The matter is now in the courts.

Obeying the laws of a country is has binary states. You either do or you don’t. Being ethically or morally right is not binary. There are vast grey areas. And when the stakes are high like they are in China and you are managing a publicly listed company it is not easy to take the high ground.

What could make it a lot easier is if the US government stepped in and made some rules here. Like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, maybe there should be a Foreign Abetting Repression Act which prohibits American companies from collaborating with repressive governments. I see serious implementation problems here, but that’s what Congressmen are good at – legislating on complex matters. Such a law would make it a level playing field, so Yahoo wouldn’t have to worry that if they took the high ground in China, Google would eat their lunch. These four companies are great companies and I’m sure that given the chance they would do the right thing.

After all, the softest pillow is a clear conscience.

Tags: Technology

Infosys getting the attention of class-action lawyers

In another development it seems like my old employer Infosys,
like TCS, has also caught the attention of the class-action trial lawyers. Some
law firm seems to be soliciting interest on the internet from Infosys employees
who, in the past have worked overtime in California and have not been paid
overtime. Interestingly, if you search for ‘Infosys’ on Google, the top-most
sponsored link is from this web-site. Someone obviously thinks this is worth
the trouble.

 

Interestingly, IBM has a similar overtime class-action
lawsuit brewing. Many law firms are behind this one, including Lieff Cabraser,
the firm suing TCS. So Infosys is in good company on this one, with IBM.
Unfortunately, that is the only good thing you can say about the situation. A
lawsuit like this, if indeed it materializes, can be expensive, distracting for
management and can damage the company’s reputation.

 

The claim itself, that the company’s employees were asked to
work overtime without payment, is not going to get more than a shrug, at least
in the Bay Area. Silicon Valley runs on Jolt Cola and other higher forms of
caffeine that allow IT workers to minimize sleep and maximize work. Whether its
IBM, Infosys or the latest start-up, IT workers in general put in more than 8
hours of work a day. Before we start feeling sorry for them, we should remember
that an IT worker is well paid and in-demand. His skills are highly
transferable in a huge global market for IT workers. I don’t believe he needs
the kind of protection a unionized auto worker has (and see what that’s done to
Detroit) - neither in the US, nor in India.

 

I do hope the Infosys overtime ‘fishing expedition’ fails.
Otherwise, it will be bad news all around – for IT services companies, for
clients and yes, for employees as well.

Tags: Business, IT Services

Class action lawsuit against TCS

Last week was a pretty interesting week for the business of global business
– our focus in this blog. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Cisco were raked over
the coals in a congressional hearing for aiding censorship in China. More on
this later. First let’s look at the class action lawsuit against TCS in
California.

An Indian employee of TCS America sued TCS for ‘unjustly
enriching itself by requiring all of its employees in the U.S. who are not U.S.
citizens to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to
Tata’. The law firm involved, Lieff Cabraser is a well-known plaintiff’s law
firm that pursues class-action lawsuits and has quite a track record doing it.
It regularly features on the National Law Journal’s ‘Plaintiffs’ Hot List’.

A law firm specializing in class-action lawsuits takes no
upfront fees from its clients (the plaintiffs – in this case the TCS
employees). It works for a cut of the settlement that the plaintiffs get. Since
they are dealing with individuals, they could get as high as 30% of the
settlement. Since this is an all or nothing game, the law firm will be very
careful in picking their lawsuits – the target should have deep pockets and
there should be a reasonably good chance of winning the case. Once they sink
their teeth into something they are very hard to shake loose. All of this is
bad news for TCS.

The news on the lawsuit has few details. It seems like TCS
had contracts with Indian employees working in the US that allowed TCS to take
the tax refunds from the IRS (US tax authorities) back from the employees. To
the American public this will sound totally egregious. So why would TCS do
this?

My guess is that TCS had good intentions. They probably
wanted to guarantee a certain post-tax income to their Indian employees in the
US. The amount of tax one pays in the US can vary widely depending upon not
just your monthly income but also the duration of your stay (if it is less than
a year), which state you are resident in and dozens of other federal and state
tax rules. The employee’s tax can vary widely depending upon which client they
are assigned to and the duration of their engagement. So (TCS perhaps thought)
why not relieve the employee from worrying about all this? Why not guarantee a
post tax income to every employee? To do that TCS would have to be able to take
employee tax refunds back from employees if the refunds pushed the employee’s
income including the refund over the promised post-tax income.

Noble intentions, but they seem to have had unintended
consequences. I hope TCS resolves the matter quickly and satisfactorily. PR is
a major weapon for trial lawyers. If this thing goes all the way, they will
drag the Tata name through the American press. There will be collateral damage
to everyone in the Indian offshore industry. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Tags: Business, IT Services

Another TTDMSTM

Here’s another one for Things That Don’t Make Sense To Me.

In Indian restaurants, why is the quarter plate kept on the left of the plate? Think about it. We’ve been brought up eating with one hand - the right hand. Assuming the rotis go on the quarter plate shouldn’t they be on the right? Why should the table be set by Western customs?

And while we’re on the subject, should the glass be on the right or the left? My vote is it goes on the left.

Tags: Culture

Indian Real Estate Funds

The world of business is fascinating. There are parts of it that are science - you can predict outcomes based upon the conditions and a set of rules. Or you know that you could if you knew enough about the rules and could measure all the conditions. And there are parts of it that aren’t science. Or if they are, they are more of a ’social science’. I find joy in both CAPM and Leadership theory. Both make sense to me.

But then, I have another category - Things That Don’t Make Sense To Me. Over time I have generally found that most things in the TTDMSTM category don’t make sense to me only because I haven’t found the answer to my question, or haven’t found the right person to ask. But sometimes they just don’t make sense. The Indian Real Estate Funds question is one I have put to many people and haven’t yet found a satisfactory answer. So if anyone out there has a good answer I’ll be eager to hear from them. Here it is:

In the US there is a vehicle called REIT, which is essentially a publicly listed company that invests in real estate. Management fees are low and they are available to the public to invest in (both facts are linked in a way).

In India in the last few years real estate funds have been mushrooming like rabbits. Every company that has an asset management side of the house, and many that don’t, either has a real estate fund or is starting one. Which is not surprising, since the thesis that real estate is a good investment in a booming economy with crowded cities is reasonable. However, all these funds are structured so that they make a lot of money for the fund managers at the expense of the investors. Most of them have the economics of a Venture Fund - 2% Management Fees; 20% Carry. (20% Carry means that the Fund managers will keep 20% of the returns of the Fund over a certain hurdle rate of return).

There is a big difference between the risks in a Venture Fund and a Real Estate Fund. VC thumb rules say that a third of a VC’s investments go bust, a third are chart-busters with the remaining third somewhere in between. This is a high-risk business. It is also a business where the expertise of the fund managers in attracting and backing good ventures hugely determines the success of the fund.

Investing in real estate is not like that at all. The risk on individual properties is much more contained. Also, the level of expertise is not that high. A local real estate broker will know far more about a property than an MBA who manages the fund. I am not saying that the quality of management, the reputation of the firm and so on doesn’t add value, but 20% carry for just diversifying one’s real estate holdings sounds like a ‘get rich’ scheme - for the Fund managers.

As you may have guessed, I have so far not bought into any Indian real estate fund. If they come up with a REIT like instrument that is publicly traded, regulated and has low mutual fund like fees, I will gladly invest in that. Or if someone can explain what justifies the fees. If it is simply supply and demand for such funds, that’s not a good enough reason. I’ll wait.

Before you get influenced by this post, let me tell you about another TTDMSTM of mine - GOOG (Google). For a long time, my wife was on my case to buy GOOG. I didn’t. My reason - its P/E didn’t make sense to me. Where were they going to get that kind of growth from? Recently, when GOOG dropped over 20% from its high of $475, I told my wife that I felt vindicated about not buying GOOG. She sneered "I told you to buy it at $180!"

Tags: Economics, India