In Chinese, the Emphasis is on the Second Syllable

22+

To receive a free full-text email of The Zeitgeist whenever we publish to the website, please sign up here. You’ll get two or three of these emails every week, and your email will not be shared with anyone. Ever.


To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.

That’s the Starbucks corporate mission statement. LOL.


Starbucks Faces An Escalating Crisis In Hong Kong  [International Business Times]

Starbucks’ stores in Hong Kong were recently burned and vandalized amid the escalating protests and riots across the city. The protesters justified the attacks by claiming that Maxim’s Group, which owns Starbucks’ licenses in Hong Kong and Macao, supports Beijing and opposes the protests.

The attacks started after Annie Wu, the daughter of Maxim’s founder, spoke out against the protests during the UN Human Rights Council meeting in mid-September. Speaking to CGTN (the overseas arm of China’s state-backed CCTV), Wu called the protests “riots” and expressed hope that the Hong Kong police force would “maintain law and order.”


The point of this article is that Starbucks is “between a rock and a hard place” when it comes to Hong Kong, as the franchisee who owns the HK stores – Maxim’s Group – is kissing Xi’s ring, which has resulted in some store damage from protesters, plus something of a Starbucks boycott in the city.

This is a bad take.

The truth is that there’s no rock and no hard place in the store damage or the HK semi-boycott.

The lost sales on 174 HK-based Starbucks are the cheapest insurance policy the company could possibly buy against an NBA-like disruption on its 3,748 other Chinese stores.

Even better, because the Starbucks stores are franchised to Maxim’s Group, who is more than happy to do the dirty work here, Starbucks itself can remain pleasantly anodyne.

Starbucks itself can wallow publicly in its mission statement of “inspiring and nurturing the human spirit” … everywhere except Hong Kong, that is.

Don’t get me wrong … it’s a very clever strategy. Very coyote-ish.

But ultimately, I think this strategy will prove to be too clever by half.

Why?

Because when you’re dealing with a government that says this …

We believe that any remarks that challenge national sovereignty and social stability are not within the scope of freedom of speech.

… then ultimately you’re going to be forced to make a choice.

Do you want to preserve your authenticity and your brand, or do you want to preserve your earnings guidance and share price?

Choose one. You can’t have both.

THIS is the rock and the hard place that Starbucks and the NBA and Activision and Disney and GM and every other US corporation with consumer-facing products in China now find themselves between.

No one will believe me when I say this, but it’s the truth:

This is bigger than tariffs.


22+

To receive a free full-text email of The Zeitgeist whenever we publish to the website, please sign up here. You'll get two or three of these emails every week, and your email will not be shared with anyone. Ever. It's our effort to spread the word about what we're doing, and allow you to read more Epsilon Theory!

4
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
chudson
Member
chudson

This is almost the same as almost any registered financial institution, and much more so with any cryptocurrency MSB. You have a license to protect.

1+
Barry Rose
Member
Barry Rose

Agree. However, Starbucks management has a bad habit of opening their mouths and inserting their feet. It will be interesting to see how long the Seattle SJW’s can duck & cover.

1+
Desperate_Yuppie
Member
Desperate_Yuppie

You don’t have to be a customer of theirs to use their bathroom or their WiFi. Because you are special and they care about more than your money. Also they are fine keeping their mouth shut when the Chinese government is locking up political prisoners, oppressing religious freedom of Muslims and Christians, and controlling the flow of information. Because unlike the homeless vagrant in Seattle, the targets of systemic oppression *in China* are not special. I’m interested to see how they square this circle. Because they cannot pretend like their brand of wokeness is compatible with the current Chinese regime. But I bet they spend a lot of money on a PR firm to craft a message that says otherwise. Will be fascinating to watch.

4+
BobK71
Member
BobK71

The conflict between the US and China is similar to the one between Britain and Germany a century ago.

In both cases, a financially leveraged great power is trying to contain a rising great power that has been using its real productivity to prop up the money and debt of the former.

The real problem for the reigning hegemon is that the rising power is not friendly enough to want to continue to carry its water, to continue to believe in the value of its issued assets and keep it afloat. That the rising power is a dictatorship is all the excuse required to beat it down in any way one can.

In the case of Germany, the flimsiest of excuses were used by Britain to join World War I that resulted in massive death tolls for Britain. In the US, freedom of expression was suspended (the Espionage Act of 1917 made it illegal to write against the US joining the war.) Let us hope this time we don’t eventually have all-out war.

Indeed, this is serious business. Not many people truly appreciate the financial fragility of the global imperial system, or the ability of an unfriendly big state to destroy it. All efforts must be used to contain that state.

3+

The Daily Zeitgeist

Pleased to Meet You, Hope You Guess My Name

By Ben Hunt | January 22, 2020 | 9 Comments

It’s the one thing that Donald Trump and Rachel Maddow can agree on … “who the hell cares about the budget?”

If you don’t see that every government in the developed world is about to embark on a massive deficit spending spree, with modern-day ziggurats constructed in every burg and hamlet … you’re just not paying attention.

Read more

The Church of the Long Now

By Ben Hunt | January 17, 2020 | 2 Comments

I know, I know … it’s me being mean to Neel Kashkari again.

Sorry, not sorry. Belittlement and scorn is the only weapon we have against the creeping ensorcellment of the Long Now.

Read more

Shot, Chaser

By Ben Hunt | January 13, 2020 | 9 Comments

So I downloaded and compiled every SEC Form 4 filing that former Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg has ever made, to answer one simple question:

How much money did Dennis Muilenburg suck out of Boeing over the last ten years?

Read more

Alpha/Beta Amnesiacs

By Rusty Guinn | January 10, 2020 | 0 Comments

We are emerging from the year end, so the language shared across financial media articles is performance language. How did stocks, markets, benchmarks, funds and strategies perform in 2019?

Frequent readers will recognize Gell-Mann Amnesia as a favorite topic here at Epsilon Theory.

Read more

Normalize This

By Ben Hunt | January 3, 2020 | 13 Comments

I feel like the Billy Crystal character in Analyze This all the time. There’s always some mob boss politician or central banker or CEO or asset manager pinching my cheek and telling me that it’s all gonna be okay, that I’ve just gotta understand how things are.

My god, I am so tired of having my cheek pinched. I am so tired of being nudged in such an artless, heavy-handed way. I am so tired of being told that 2 + 2 = 5.

Read more

A Perfect Meme

By Rusty Guinn | December 31, 2019 | 11 Comments

14+ Every day we run the Narrative Machine on the past 24 hours of financial media to generate a list of the most linguistically-connected and narrative-central individual stories. We call this The Zeitgeist and we use it for inspiration or insight into short-form notes that we publish a couple of times a week to the website. To …

Read moreA Perfect Meme

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.