More stories

  • in

    How not to work on a plane

    You are not important enough to turn left on a plane. But you are important enough for the company to want you to have completed a project-risk update by the time you land. You have six solid hours in the air, and the work should take no more than three hours. You are not in a middle seat, and no one can email you. What could possibly go wrong?You find your seat, which is on the aisle. You take out your laptop and a book, and try to put them into the seat pocket in front of you. It is made for someone who has absolutely no interests but you manage, with some effort, to shove both of them in. As the plane fills up, your hopes of space around you go down. You scan the people heading down the aisle. So does everyone else already in a seat. In this moment each passenger is being silently judged on only two criteria: girth and proximity to a baby. Eventually you get up to make way for a couple to sit beside you. Could have been worse. More

  • in

    Why does BHP want Anglo American?

    TALK OF TAKEOVER has long swirled around 107-year-old Anglo American, once among the biggest mining companies in the world. On April 25th speculation turned to specifics when BHP, the $140bn behemoth that is today top of the pile by market value, offered to buy its diminished rival (minus Anglo’s South African business) for $39bn. It then emerged that Elliott Management, an activist hedge-fund known for picking apart lumbering giants to unearth buried value, had amassed $1bn-worth of Anglo shares, giving it a 2.5% stake. In the following days it raised this slightly, perhaps counting on other suitors to come in and bid up the price.This clash of big dirt and high finance suggests that Anglo harbours something worth fighting over. Its big mines indeed tick all the right boxes: high quality and low cost, with the potential to expand. They are also extracting the right stuff at the right time. One of Anglo’s main products is copper, which is in high demand, particularly as tonnes of it will be needed for the electrification of transport and power in the green-energy transition; the red metal’s price has risen by 15% this year. Another is high-grade iron ore, which is in demand for its use in forging green steel. More

  • in

    Chinese EV-makers are leaving Western rivals in the dust

    TO GIRD YOURSELF for Auto China 2024, a nine-day motor show which ends on May 4th in Beijing, get there by car. On the opening day, navigating the human traffic eager to glimpse the mechanical marvels on display required the same tenacity as negotiating the Chinese capital’s gridlocked roads. Helpfully, the ride to the venue is also useful preparation for understanding the intense competition gripping China’s car industry—which the jamboree itself further underscores.Both on Beijing streets and at the motor show, most of the vehicles are electric. And Chinese marques, some more familiar to overseas visitors than others, and local technology champions such as Huawei and Xiaomi, better known for gizmos you carry than those that carry you, are edging out the foreign manufacturers that once dominated the domestic market. More

  • in

    Can biotech startups upstage Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk?

    BETWEEN 2021 and 2023 two parts of the drugmaking business were in contrasting states of health. An index of American big pharma rose by a third, outperforming the broader stockmarket thanks to robust sales of blockbuster drugs. One made up of smaller biotechnology companies sank by roughly as much, weighed down by rising interest rates and dissipating pandemic-era euphoria for all things medical. Unlisted biotech startups have, like most young firms, struggled to attract capital. Last year they drew just $17bn in investments, down from $37bn two years earlier. Fewer went public and more went bust.This year the giants are still going strong. On April 30th Eli Lilly, maker of a hit weight-loss treatment, delivered another dose of strong quarterly results. On May 2nd Novo Nordisk, a Danish rival with its own anti-obesity drug, is expected to do the same. Together the two are worth $1.2trn, up from $350bn three years ago. But biotech’s vitals, too, are improving. That is good news for investors, patients and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. More

  • in

    How to handle populists: a CEO’s survival guide

    THIS YEAR Western bosses must work their way through a lengthy list of obsequious phone calls. Around 80 countries, home to some 4bn people, are holding elections in 2024 (not always freely, as in Russia in March). Some chief executives may already have drafted their compliments for Narendra Modi, who is almost certain to keep his job as prime minister of India, where citizens are now casting ballots in a weeks-long festival of democracy. After Mexico’s election in June most corporate leaders expect to be congratulating president-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, the anointed successor of the incumbent, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.Western firms working to reduce their reliance on China have turned to India and Mexico. But neither prospect fills them with unadulterated delight. Mr Modi may have made his country an easier place to do business, by simplifying its tax system and investing in infrastructure, among other things. But he has also raised tariffs on goods like cars and increased the tax advantage that domestic firms enjoy over foreign ones. Mr López Obrador has been nationalising the assets of Western firms in industries from construction materials to energy and has allowed Mexico’s criminal gangs to run rampant. Indonesia, another market that has caught the eye of Western businesses, elected a populist of its own, Prabowo Subianto, in February.CEOs are finding little comfort in elections closer to home. Few are thrilled at the prospect of Donald Trump, a self-described “Tariff Man”, triumphing in November, even with his talk of slashing red tape. They also feel ambivalent about Joe Biden, the incumbent who talks of raising corporate taxes and blames greedy businesses for stubborn inflation. In Britain, the ruling Conservatives have scorned the pleas of companies to keep trade with the EU flowing. Yet many corporate grandees remain sceptical that Labour will champion their interests if, as expected, the left-of-centre party sails into government later this year. Nationalist parties dubious of free trade are predicted to expand their foothold in the European Parliament after elections in June. One such party is on track to win Austria’s national poll later this year.The long-term trend is clear. The Economist, using data from the Manifesto Project, a research group, has looked at the ratio of favourable to unfavourable discussions of free enterprise in the manifestos of political parties in 35 Western countries from 1975 to 2021, the most recent year available (see chart 1). We used a five-year-moving average and excluded political parties that won less than 5% of the vote. In the 1990s deregulation, privatisation, unfettered trade and other policies that bring joy to the hearts of businessmen were praised almost twice as often as they were criticised. Now politicians are more likely to trash these ideas than celebrate them.Chart: The EconomistAny residual business-friendliness no longer stems from a belief that what is good for business is good for citizens—and so, by extension, for their elected representative’s prospects. Instead, governments are asking not what they can do for business but what business can do for them. The West’s corporate titans are thus learning to adapt to a world in which their success can turn on a government’s whim. The outlines of a playbook are slowly taking shape.Knowledge is the starting point. Bosses are turning in droves to specialist consultancies like Dentons Global Advisors (DGA), McLarty Associates and Macro Advisory Partners (MAP) that promise to demystify politics at home and abroad. Consulting giants like McKinsey and investment banks like Lazard and Rothschild & Co offer similar counsel. These consiglieri, often former government insiders, help companies understand the political calculations and constraints that shape government policy.That allows bosses to know which political curveballs to worry about most. Consider what may come of America’s coin-toss presidential election. Corporate chiefs can be confident that hostility towards China will persist regardless of who wins in November. Mr Biden, fearful of appearing soft on America’s economic rival, is turning steadily more hawkish. In April he called for tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium to be tripled, from 7.5%, and announced an investigation into subsidised Chinese shipbuilders. On April 24th he signed a bill that, among other things, will ban TikTok in America unless its Chinese owner sells the hit video app to non-Chinese interests. Although Mr Trump may seek to decouple the American and Chinese economies more quickly than Mr Biden, the direction of travel looks similar.A victory for Mr Trump could prove more consequential for transatlantic business, argues Kate Kalutkiewicz of McLarty Associates. If he were to follow through on his threat to slap a 10% tariff on all goods imports, regardless of origin, retaliation from Europe is likely, thinks Sir Mark Sedwill, a former boss of Britain’s civil service who now works for Rothschild & Co. Last year listed American firms generated around an eighth of their revenues in Europe, three times what they made from China, according to estimates from Morgan Stanley, a bank (see chart 2). Their European counterparts, which make around a fifth of their revenues from America, would be even harder hit.Chart: The EconomistA Trump-shaped uncertainty also hangs over businesses that have come to rely on producing in Mexico for export to America. Mr Trump, who thinks trade deficits are for losers, may take aim at America’s one with Mexico, which reached a record high last year. The trade agreement he negotiated with Mexico and Canada in 2018 is up for review in 2026. If Mr Trump shuts the border to fulfil his pledge to crack down on illegal immigration, trade would suffer, too.Mapping out such scenarios helps businesses to better balance risks with rewards when making investments, argues Ed Reilly, the chief executive of DGA. Firms can hold fire on big commitments whose pay-offs hinge on close elections, notes Nader Mousavizadeh, who runs MAP, or otherwise hedge their bets. Some companies, however, are not content with mere political spectating. As one consulting boss puts it, meddling politicians create uncertainty, but can also bring benefits to those that win their favour.This need not be as flagrant as turning up for dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Consider Intel, an American chipmaker that in March nabbed an $8.5bn grant from the federal government. Pat Gelsinger, its boss since 2021, has diligently courted Mr Biden’s administration, presenting Intel as the answer to America’s efforts to reduce dependence on semiconductors manufactured in potentially perilous spots like Taiwan. Besides wrapping itself rhetorically in the flag, the company has more than doubled its spending on lobbying on Mr Gelsinger’s watch, to $7m last year, according to figures from OpenSecrets, a non-profit. The charm offensive seems to have paid off. Gina Raimondo, America’s commerce secretary, now calls Intel “our champion”.Other firms have been busy on Capitol Hill, and not just American ones. Volkswagen, which last year became the first foreign carmaker to gain eligibility for the federal government’s tax rebates for electric vehicles (EVs), has almost tripled its lobbying budget since Mr Biden came to power. One jaded corporate emissary in Washington muses on how he spent much of Mr Trump’s term helping clients sneak exemptions from tariffs and has now spent much of Mr Biden’s helping them weasel handouts. Between 2020 and 2023 the number of lobbyists fanning out of K Street increased from 11,500 to almost 13,000.Nor is the situation unique to America. A business envoy in Brussels says he has been run off his feet by clients angling to benefit from the EU’s efforts to decarbonise. Western companies have also been busy trying to prove their value to Mr Modi and his inner circle, says Teddy Bunzel of Lazard. “Never before has alignment with government policy been more important for success in India,” explains Mr Mousavizadeh of MAP. After meeting Mr Modi last year, Tim Cook, the boss of Apple, tweeted that he shared the prime minister’s “vision of the positive impact technology can make on India’s future”.Some Western firms, including Mr Cook’s, are courting favour by opening factories in India, with the added bonus of subsidies via Mr Modi’s “production-linked incentives scheme”. Others have opted to hitch themselves to India’s national champions. In February Disney, an American media giant, announced it would merge its Indian business with Viacom18, the media arm of Reliance Industries, an Indian conglomerate whose boss, Mukesh Ambani, is well-connected. TotalEnergies, a French energy giant, has buddied up with the Adani Group, an industrial group in Mr Modi’s good books.Not all politicians are equally open to overtures. Forging ties with Mr López Obrador, who is hostile even to Mexico’s businessmen, has been tricky, notes Mr Bunzel. But not impossible. In February last year Mr López Obrador declared he would bar Tesla, an American EV-maker, from building a new factory in Mexico’s arid north. He reversed course after a phone call from Elon Musk, the company’s boss, who promised to use recycled water throughout the plant. Many CEOs believe that Ms Sheinbaum will be more pragmatic than her predecessor in her dealings with business.Cosying up to governments is no guarantee of success. Intel’s share price slumped by 9% on April 26th after the company projected soggy growth in sales and profits. Mr Biden’s handouts will not do much to help it regain the technological lead it has ceded to competitors of late. What is more, as politics grows more polarised, companies viewed as belonging to an incumbent political camp could find their fortunes reversed if power changes hands.Still, with politicians around the world bending markets to their will, plenty of CEOs will be unable to resist the allure of power. Whatever qualms chief executives in Britain might have about Labour, they snapped up all the available tickets to the “business day” at the party’s conference later this year in less than 24 hours when these went on sale on April 23rd. As Grégoire Poisson of DGA counsels clients, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” ■ More

  • in

    Can anyone pull Boeing out of its nosedive?

    Few companies have had a worse start to the year than Boeing. In January a panel plugging an unused emergency exit blew out of a 737 MAX over Oregon. Thankfully the plane landed safely. A preliminary investigation into the near-disaster concluded that the bolts that should keep the panel in place were missing. The incident prompted internal investigations and brought federal regulators to Boeing’s factories to audit manufacturing processes. If that were not enough, on April 16th a whistleblower claimed that unacknowledged defects with 787 Dreamliners were symptomatic of a firm with “no safety culture”.The immediate consequences of the added scrutiny was a sharp fall in deliveries of planes—83 commercial jets in the first quarter, compared with 130 a year ago and, gratingly, with 142 by Airbus, Boeing’s European arch-rival (see chart). The damage was apparent when Dave Calhoun, its boss, presented quarterly results on April 24th. After announcing a net loss of $355m, he sought to assure sceptical investors that the company was making good progress in resolving its manufacturing problems. Hanging over the earnings call was also the question of who might replace Mr Calhoun, who a month ago announced his departure at the end of the year amid a big shake-up of management and the immediate appointment of a new chairman.Chart: The EconomistMr Calhoun’s successor will face an unenviable in-tray. A comparison with the fortunes of Airbus highlights Boeing’s slide. In 2017 Boeing’s market value was two and half times its only rival’s; now it is roughly the same. Since 2019, when the entire 737 MAX fleet was grounded for nearly two years after two fatal accidents attributable to faulty software, Boeing’s combined annual net losses have amounted to $24.5bn. In the same period Airbus has made profits of nearly $10bn. Boeing’s orders of 6,200 planes are far below the 8,600 in the European firm’s books.The roots of Boeing’s many crises are summed up by Aviation Strategy, a consultancy. An “obsession with quarterly results and share price momentum” resulted in too much cash being returned to shareholders and too little put into developing new products or ensuring production quality. Between 2014 and 2020 Boeing handed out $61bn in dividends and share buy-backs. It was not just shareholders who benefited. So did managers, whose bonuses were tied to their employer’s surging share price. Ron Epstein of Bank of America notes that a merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997 foreshadowed a “cultural shift away from engineering excellence”. Boeing began to favour short-term financial management in a long-term industry, while Airbus focused less on investors and more on its aircraft, which might have a life-cycle measured in decades.Reversing the cultural slide will be the hardest job for the new boss. It could take years. More immediately Mr Calhoun’s replacement will have to ramp up production of the 737 MAX and guide new variants of this and other long-haul planes to certification. At the same time, he or she must prepare the ground for the next generation of short-haul passenger jets. Airlines are angry with Boeing for delivery delays of the 737 MAX. Regulators, awaiting Boeing’s plan to improve quality control, have capped production at 38 a month. Boeing’s troubles mean that it does not actually expect to hit that rate until later in the year, by which time Airbus may be making 65 of its competing A320s.Delays could have a lasting effect. Switching to Airbus would be no easy matter for airlines, not least because the European firm has no free delivery slots for its short-haul jets until the end of the decade. Yet a point could come when carriers feel they can no longer depend on Boeing. United Airlines is rumoured to be considering replacing an order for a larger version of the 737 MAX that is five years behind schedule but, with certification still pending, as yet with no prospect of delivery.Boeing’s reliance on its past reputation as an American industrial behemoth won’t cut it. As Mr Epstein observes, it may be “too big to fail but it is not too big to be mediocre”. A struggling Boeing could open the door for challengers. COMAC, a Chinese one, has long-standing plans to break the duopoly, though so far without a plane that can truly compete with a Boeing or an Airbus. Embraer, a Brazilian maker of smaller regional jets, could also move into bigger aircraft.New short-haul jets, likely to enter service around 2035, are another priority. It is a huge and expensive task that Mr Calhoun reckons will cost $50bn. To investors’ consternation, that is nearly double the figure for Boeing’s previous clean-sheet designs. Choosing the right technology is a task that Boeing has to get right. But some observers fear that the firm, which has not launched an all-new plane since the 787 in 2004, may have lost the institutional memory for such a huge undertaking.The new boss will inherit other headaches. A third of Boeing’s revenues come from its defence-and-space division. In the past those profits have insulated Boeing from the cycles of the passenger-jet business. In the past two years they have turned to losses. Boeing has mismanaged fixed-price development deals, even as the Pentagon increasingly favours these to conventional “cost-plus” contracts, which remove most financial risk from the contractor. Boeing has also fallen far behind Elon Musk’s SpaceX, whose rockets are already serving the International Space Station. Starliner, the rival vehicle from Boeing, has yet to make a crewed test flight.Who, then, might take the yoke? External candidates are thin on the ground. Larry Culp, who has successfully turned around GE, another troubled icon of America Inc, appears to have ruled himself out. Bill Brown, who led the merger that in 2019 created L3Harris, a defence company, is instead taking the top job at 3M, an industrial conglomerate. Pat Shanahan, currently the boss of Spirit AeroSystems, one of Boeing’s suppliers, could be a contender—were it not for the fact that Boeing is seeking to acquire his company in an effort to improve oversight. The most plausible insider is Stephanie Pope, promoted to head of the commercial-aircraft division in the recent reshuffle. Accepting the top job at Boeing would once have been a no-brainer. Now Ms Pope, or anyone else, will think long and hard about it. ■ More