Let’s talk about something substantial, relatable and thought-provoking. Have you ever heard about the On-Demand Economy? Or the Gig Economy? Or the Collaborative Economy? Wait, here’s something – an Uber driver who rents their car, regularly orders from Swiggy and lives in an Airbnb.

We’ll get back to this in a while.

After going through several articles (flashes of content appear in front of a frowning person), we raised a few questions – probably the ones you’d also have raised at some point, if not many. How do food delivery companies and companies providing ride-hailing services make money – or, if we are being precise, ‘profit’?

Taute Terminology

The On-Demand Economy is defined as the economic activity created by technology companies that fulfil consumer demand via the immediate provisioning of goods and services. Well, three's a crowd (does a 'Gig' make more sense now?), and there are three points in this economic model – 'demand', 'supply' and a 'facilitator', with this facilitator being at your fingertips. An oddity of the On-Demand Economy is the assumption that people should be buying a lot more personal-assistance-type services than they used to. So yes, over-pampering is the new definition of consumer behaviour. The internet makes human desires easily attainable, and convenience makes people feel good. It's that simple.

The On-Demand Economy facilitates something that's known as the Gig Economy. The Gig Economy comprises short-term contracts – the workers are independent contractors, online platform workers, contract firm workers, on-call workers and temporary workers. In short, freelancers over full-time permanent employees.

This Gig Economy, in turn, gives rise to a Collaborative Economy, which can be defined as a marketplace where consumers rely on each other instead of large companies to meet their wants and needs. Here, we're talking about co-working platforms, peer-to-peer lending platforms, freelancing platforms, wherever idle assets and services can be shared and used to facilitate collaboration.

The glitz of the Foodtech

What do you think about the (obviously) 5-star rated Uber driver we mentioned earlier? We will hop up in that Uber and move ahead with our unanswered questions. So I changed the question to ‘profit’ simply because the corps generate revenue. It's just that the revenue generated is not enough to trump their expenses. For instance, let's consider a few players (the very talented and dominant forces, our in-house foodtech unicorns) in the food delivery marketplace – Swiggy and Zomato.

Swiggy reported an insane loss (widened six-fold) of ₹2,345 crores on ₹1,122 crores of revenue in the financial year 2019.

Zomato reportedly lost (a 9.4X rise) ₹1001 crores from revenue of ₹1,397 crores in the same period.

Zomato’s total expenses increased by 11X (₹260 crores to ₹2893 crores), and Swiggy's total expenses increased by 4X (₹841 crores to ₹3,637 crores).

So, the 'how they make money' is pretty straightforward – by providing services. The 'how they make profits’ is, ugh, not that easy to explain because they indefinitely keep losing money.

Here’s what almost everyone thinks about the business model of the On-Demand startups — they are waiting to establish a dominant market position. At this point, they can raise prices to a level where they will be profitable, which analysts like to call a fundamentally flawed business model.

Swiggy grew at 2.7X, while Zomato grew at 2.8X – we can observe that growth in terms of volume/scalability doesn’t help. What’s said about foodtech is that food delivery is only a means to an end, unlikely to ever be profitable on its own. In other words, delivery will always be a low-margin business at best. And it has historically been a money-losing industry. Contemporary history is a thing.

The Trough of Disillusionment

But we’re being a bit too harsh here. ‘Profits’ can indeed happen. ‘Sustained Profits’ – now that’s like licking your elbow. Uber was profitable two years back; however, it couldn't sustain that profitability. So there comes another question, if things are so bad, then why do investors go all 'shut up and take my money' when it comes to app-based service companies?

It’s pretty clear that the more money these businesses make, the more they lose. However, they keep expanding and diversifying, in turn attaining massive valuations, which is where venture capitalists say 'sold'. The tech sector's rapid growth is one reason why investors (should we mention Masayoshi Son or did you get it when we started talking about tech?) are willing to put their money into these unprofitable companies. They value growth and tend to be more comfortable even if firms aren't making huge margins. And these companies have chosen subpar growth to become profitable over subpar earnings to drive demand.

But investor behaviour has been changing lickety-split. They have started to avoid On-Demand startups, with most investors turning bearish. And it's still the first wave of the On-Demand startups – it makes sense if they're overhyped or overpriced or even if they become the talk of the town. For now, investors have somehow settled with the aspect of ‘growth’ over demand for 'profits' – putting in more and more money, giving the wobbly structure the much-needed additional support.

Elon Musk is the closest we’ll ever get to having a Tony Stark on Earth-616. But, as it goes for all the other mortals, the pandemic is not treating the founder, CEO, and chief engineer/designer of SpaceX and co-founder, CEO, and product architect of Tesla, Inc. well.

The past few months have been no less than extraordinary for Musk. As much as the 31st-richest person in the world likes to explore space, we’ll be exploring how Musk is grappling through the pandemic by taking a look at the billionaire’s timeline through the pandemic.

The COVID-19 panic is ‘dumb’

Back when home confinement was an esoteric concept in India, and the pandemic wasn’t characterized as a pandemic yet, the Tesla CEO put out a controversial tweet (he’s a pro at tweeting things that shouldn’t be tweeted, come on, don’t compare him to Donald Trump) - "the coronavirus panic is dumb" on March 7. Further stating that both the virality of COVID-19 and fatality rate are overstated. 

Not sure if the tweet garnered more criticism than the Tesla Cybertruck or not, but it came pretty close. The outrage was shared by all the Elites of the society (or the highly exclusive Billionaire Club if that’s a thing) as people started saying that billionaires shouldn’t exist. This is the complete opposite of taking one for the team.

#LaunchAmerica

Musk is a witty, sarcastic, and culty visionary. We can’t say whether he’d be the first person to colonize Mars or not but, he is the first person to reignite NASA’s space troupe adventures. NASA and SpaceX have joined hands — as NASA shifts to outsourcing to cut costs — for the first launch of US astronauts from US soil since the Space Shuttle’s final mission in 2011. 

In March, Musk's Crew Dragon capsule made a round trip to the International Space Station, which is in orbit more than 400 kilometres above Earth, with a mannequin on board, before returning to the Atlantic after six days in space.

The big mission was scheduled for Wednesday, May 27 when SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket would’ve blasted-off from Pad 39A Florida’s Kennedy Space Center. The weather, however, was not on their side. It’s evident why they couldn’t risk it. They’ve waited for so long, and can easily wait a few more days.

Two days and a few sleeping pills later, on Saturday, May 30, Musk’s SpaceX made history by finally launching the Crew Dragon into space and on its way to the International Space Station. The pandemic meant that crowds wouldn’t be at Cape Canaveral to see it live, but the entire launch was streamed online by both NASA and SpaceX.

The Blind Side of the Pandemic

In April, Elon Musk had among the largest percentage gain of billionaires during the two months, seeing his net worth jump by 48% in the two months to $36 billion. Tesla Inc. posted its third quarterly profit in a row, shares of the company were up more than 8% at $870 in extended trade. When the billionaires were filling their bags with gold, as many as 22 million Americans were filing for unemployment. 

Even as the broader economy faced a recession, tech stocks rallied, boosting the net worth of billionaire founders. Jump to May, Musk’s wealth has grown by $12.6 billion to more than $40 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

A Series of Peculiar Tweets

Our Space Cowboy put out a series of peculiar yet provocative tweets in the beginning of May including "Tesla stock price is too high," and “I am selling almost all physical possessions. Will own no house.” Shares of Tesla Inc. tumbled 9% following the tweet. And as far as his vow is concerned, Musk has jointly-listed four LA properties on the same hill with a combined asking price of $62.5 million, as well as a mansion in Hillsborough for $35 million after listing two other Bel Air mansions for $30 million and $9.5 million. And we thought it was all just like an infamous podcast.

Southpole of the Moon

Around the same time, NASA selected Musk’s SpaceX, Bezos’ Blue Origin and American applied science and information technology company Dynetics for building for Artemis Human Landers, lunar landing systems that can carry astronauts to the moon by 2024. The three companies will share $967 million from NASA. The Mission holds importance as NASA gears up for a long-term presence on Earth's satellite that the agency says will eventually enable humans to reach Mars.

X Æ A-12

His partner Grimes gave birth to a healthy baby boy on May 4. The SpaceX CEO named his newborn ‘X Æ A-12’, which, on the first look, appears like a random sequence of numbers, but as Musk’s significant other says, each character has a significance and represents something important. The ones comparing him to Ultron have a vivid imagination. The state of California, on the other hand, is indicating the bizarre name, X Æ A-12, for the newborn child of Musk and singer Grimes does not jibe with state health codes. Jump to the last week of May, Grimes confirmed that the baby would now be known as X Æ A-XII because apparently roman numerals “look better tbh”.

Musk V. California

Musk has been furious and vocal for weeks about lockdown restrictions that county officials placed on Tesla operations as part of their effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Things got out of hand when Tesla Inc. sued local authorities in California calling the continued restrictions a “power-grab” as the electric carmaker pushed to re-open its factory in Fremont, California. He even threatened to pull the company’s headquarters out of California and move them along with future projects to Nevada or Texas. Tesla has roughly 20,000 employees in the San Francisco Bay area, about half of which are in Fremont.

Two days later — if only we could insert the SpongeBob slide here — Musk restarted production at Fremont, flouting county officials who ordered the company to stay closed and openly acknowledging he was risking arrest for himself and his employees.

A ‘Stark’ Conclusion 

The coolest billionaire has had it rough with COVID. From calling it dumb to promoting the antimalarial drugs dubiously embraced by President Trump and to wrongly predicting that new cases would be close to zero by the end of April, Musk has only underestimated the destructive force of the virus. It’s almost like Tony Stark’s ego was his worst enemy. It’s pretty much the same with this guy. But, it’s not merely ego, its selfishness. We get that Elon hates humans — I mean what else would you expect for AI? — and wants to leave this planet as soon as he can, but he’ll have to take things slow and wait for it. We all know he’ll be the first to lead us on deep space endeavours, but take it easy, it’s been elon day.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles.

Today, we’re dealing with one of the most common dilemmas, the one we just can’t shrug off because we’re already shrugging off a lot, and that’s the whole reason for putting this out here.

We can blame the new work-from-home culture but truth be told, we have been sideling work and procrastinating way before we were hit by a global pandemic, from the dawn of mankind when the primitive man needed to hunt but decided against it.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with procrastination (yes, we’re with you on this one), but sooner than later it runs out because of the exogenous variables in the equation of work – deadlines, targets, plus you can’t keep giving the silent treatment to your superiors (unless you’re craving unemployment). But there has to be some way out, right? How to figure out a strategy to (try and) beat procrastination and for once live without the ‘thrill’ of finishing off your work at the last minute.

Before blurting out advice, let’s understand why you might be procrastinating in the first place.

1. You’re scared of messing up

We’ve all been through this one, and this is a safe space right here.

A lot of us, when dealing with even the lowest forms of responsibility become afraid of screwing it up. This can be taken care of by adding ‘prevention focus’ or the motivation to avoid loss to the mix. This works as a way to assess risk because you start seeing the task as a way to hang on to what you’ve already got – to avoid loss. Sometimes, there’s simply no better way to motivate yourself than thinking about the dire consequences of not doing the thing you’re supposed to be doing.

2. “I don’t feel like doing it”

All aboard the feels train, next stop Gloomsville.

Are you also the one whose lazy mornings easily transform into lazy days and you end up loathing yourself by the night for wasting a perfectly good day? Does the guilt eat you up? This one’s actually easy to deal with. It might sound absurd at first but think about it.

If you remove all the ‘feelings’ from this equation, you have a clear answer. You don’t need to plan or ‘feel’ to start doing something, you can just start. It’s as simple as that. You’d be consciously instructing your brain to work, you’d be introducing the idea of working when you didn’t feel like it.

3. It’s boring, difficult and tiresome 

Yes, work is supposed to be like that if you want to grow. And it is a fact that you’d sometimes need to do something you’re not interested in. For once, however, ponder on this most ‘likely’ scenario – you would be forced to do something you hate in a short time span to meet a deadline with a lot less productivity because you hate the said work. Do you want that? We’re hoping you’d have gone with a no. How to tackle boring work, then? Planning. 

Instead of doing a bunch of it together, plan and do a little every day or in a single sitting. Plan according to your deadlines, plan with the aim of completion and getting rid of it. And who can say, you might end up liking the work.

Here’s something extra for all of you out there who are always aiming higher only to be limited by their procrastination. We believe in you. We believe you every time you say “I’ll do it tomorrow”.

And that’s why we are sharing a few extra pointers.

4. Practice discipline

Start off your day by making your bed. You would be adopting a ‘keystone habit’, habits people introduce to their routines that unintentionally carry out other work. Keystone habits have a domino effect and can drastically change your routine – for the good.

5. Create a dedicated workspace

Your environment automatically tricks your brain, that’s why having a place solely dedicated to working can stimulate the desire to work.

6. Take breaks

Instagram wasn’t built in a single day. Work less but work consistently.

And that's it. You're ready to take on the world.

Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) have been around for an awfully long time. They were created almost after 25 years of International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) inception, in 1969 to supplement its member countries’ official reserves. 

Why would a country need SDRs?

IMF works to foster macroeconomic stability while reducing poverty around the world. And a country going through a crisis or a recession would be a stumbling block for its bigger goal of achieving global economic stability.

How does the IMF fund the SDRs?

This might as well be a history lesson. Keynes is a ‘household’ name for economic enthusiasts and he was the one to first propose a supranational currency (unified global currency) ‘Bancor’ in 1941 but, it was rejected at the Bretton Woods Conference. He was a radical for his time. IMF ‘took inspiration’ from Keynes and created SDRs. The basic fundamental that works for the pool of SDRs is the same as any other financial instrument. If a member country provides funds according to the SDR value — consider the SDR value as the medley of a basket of five currencies - U.S. dollar, Euro, Chinese Yuan, the Japanese Yen, and the British pound sterling — i.e. becomes a remunerated creditor then they are paid interest on its holdings. Fact, in 2003 India became an SDR creditor. Currently, 1 SDR equals $1.36 or ₹104.30.

Can SDRs help fight a pandemic?

This is open for deliberations but might as well provide a bit of hope. In a crisis, like a global health emergency, SDRs are issued to all the members in proportion to their IMF quotas — which determine their financial commitment to the fund and their voting rights — without having to provide anything in return. Furthermore, it is an international reserve asset aimed at augmenting international liquidity which means that countries can ‘cash in’ their SDR holdings in exchange for hard currency when faced with a liquidity crunch.

In the global financial crisis of 2009, SDR 182.6 billion (which at the time amounted to $287 billion) were ‘printed’ and allocated. But, did SDRs benefit the emerging economies? Yes and no. One flaw then, and now, is that new reserves are allocated according to members’ quotas. The IMF will tell you that it allocated the abovementioned amount, what it will not tell you is that two-thirds of the allocation went to advanced economies who didn’t require it as much as the poorer countries did. In that context, an allocation will not be an effective tool to tackle the pandemic. The poorer countries only swapped a mere SDR 1.9 billion for cash. The allocation enabled emerging countries to acquire more dollars, which only worsened the situation. Now, however, almost 40% of the total allocation will go to emerging economies, which is still not enough.

Catalysts of Economic Growth

What we’re currently facing is a ‘whatever it takes’ scenario, even if the countries get low allocations, they’ll at least get something to ease up their balance of payments. SDRs are catalysts of economic growth, but the pandemic would limit them as a chance at survival for a large portion of the lot.

IMF’s Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva stated that issuing SDRs is a tedious process. Several developing countries have called for it, but the United States strongly opposes it because when converted, SDRs are printed — they’re paper promises that are created out of thin air — and thus increase the circulation of cash, and in turn, cause inflation.

Trumping Opposition

The opposition cannot be ignored, primarily because it holds a veto (laughs in Trump), but also because the allocation is based on the IMF quotas. The opposition stems from international relations (obviously). The Trump administration doesn’t want to give China and Iran access to unconditional extra reserves because geopolitical relations can ‘trump’ humanity at any given day.

Georgieva also stated that advanced economies can donate/voluntarily transfer their SDR holdings to help developing and emerging economies. The proposal was also brought up in 2009, though there isn’t a consensus on that yet.

Alternatives 

The United States is also considering an alternate option of advanced economies directly contributing to poorer countries (through IMF Trusts) over a fresh SDR allocation. Although it only came up with it because an SDR infusion would mean having its tail on fire, if advanced economies do step up to fulfil their responsibility, it might just do the trick. We like the fact that countries, nonetheless driven by selfish motives, are still willing to lend a helping hand.

Therefore, a restructured SDR allocation wherein the poorer countries can be given more support can prove to be a solution to this global crisis of unprecedented proportions. But, with the existing terms, it wouldn’t be able to make much difference.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles.

The Big Tech is arguably the most versatile and AI-sthetic team affiliations of all time. There was a time when the technocrats and the power of tech was undermined but ideas, knowledge, and technology are non-rival and non-excludable. With a grand shift in the tide of time and cross-border penetration of data, media, advertising, and even autonomous tech, the Tech Titans created an enormous niche for themselves in this new tech-infused world.

The Big Introduction

The largest and most dominant companies in the information technology industry are feisty enough to reap gains from the economy-crushing force of a pandemic. These are the times when conventional businesses are hibernating but the Big Tech are hyperactive. It’s almost as if they have been preparing for apocalyptic situations from the beginning. Well, we would too if we were working with Artificial Intelligence in the first place.

They’re in a strong position in this new digital economy, dominating their respective sectors, operating like near-monopolies, and possessing enormous amounts of cash on their data-centric balance sheets. If anything then the pandemic has only helped take out some of their competition as not everyone can afford to sit out a storm. The Big Tech stocks, which were hit in the first few weeks of the pandemic, are on an upward march to the top of the market-cap heap with their big valuations; beating Wall Street expectations of their quarterly earnings and sending a clear message to the rest of the world.

The Big Valuations

The Big Tech stocks have been pushed up thanks to the pandemic, with mammoth-like valuations — Microsoft at $1.32 trillion, Apple at $1.26 trillion, Amazon at $1.14 trillion, Alphabet at $900 billion and Facebook at $577 billion.

Google’s parent company Alphabet was up by 7% garnering over $41.16 billion in revenue. The company witnessed increased engagement coupled with a slump in ad revenue.

Facebook’s shares jumped 10% as the company reported a $17.74 billion revenue with signs of stability. We’re disappointed that Mark Zuckerberg isn’t up to something evil. Or is he?

Microsoft clocked $33.66 billion in revenue setting a solid footing and taking over Apple as the world’s most valuable company.

We didn’t forget the e-commerce alpha it's just that Amazon reserved a sour spot on the list after reporting less than anticipated earnings. Although the company announced a massive $75.45 billion in revenue as it continues to spend heavily to combat the effects of the pandemic on its shipping and logistics network, the stocks fell 5%. Jeff Bezos has said that he would spend future profits on the coronavirus response.

The Big Ending

Now, as we turn to healthy companies to help us revive the economy, it could be that the only ones with real immunity are the tech giants. The question arises if one should fear the Big Tech as they’re bigger than ever, with close to unlimited power and godlike financial might. Most importantly, we’re highly reliant on them. COVID has accelerated the Big Tech’s rise and tightened their grip, making it difficult to describe the kind of power they’d wield in a post-pandemic world.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles.

We’ve got news. But you already knew that. Let’s try again. An hour after TikTok’s Chinese parent co. ByteDance turned down Microsoft’s ambitious bid for its US operations, it chose Oracle Corp. in a deal structured as a partnership rather than an outright sale.

Barring the complete catastrophe

It seems simple, right? It's not. It is clear that ByteDance had to make a decision or else President Donald Trump would have followed through with his plan to ban the Chinese video-sharing app in the US, citing national-security risks. The government worries about user data being funnelled to Chinese authorities.

However, barring the complete catastrophe, TikTok will keep operating in the US. On top of that, the deal does little for the country or its security concerns. Firstly, Oracle would serve as TikTok’s “trusted technology provider,” which is vague and doesn’t give much away. If it is just a glorified hosting deal then Oracle wouldn’t be writing TikTok’s source code, rewriting the algorithm or handling moderation. It doesn’t tie ByteDance’s hands in any manner. Oracle would be a mere babysitter. Making a few extra bucks over the weekend, and taking the fall if things go south. Which is good enough for TikTok.

The explicitly implicit

Conversely, Microsoft explicitly stated that it would have made significant changes to ensure the service met the highest standards for security, privacy, online safety, and combatting misinformation, which when compared with the ambiguity looming around Oracle’s implicit deal seems lot more shielded.

Regardless of how, in the end, everyone seems to be happy. TikTok didn’t get banned, the out-muscled infrastructure and cloud software business got a partner, Trump made a point (well, sort of) and user data is still at risk. Wait, the last point doesn’t help our case. Let’s pretend it’s not there.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles and published in their newsletter on 15th September 2020.

The Jaw-dropping Getaway

We still can’t believe how a Brazilian-born French businessman of Lebanese ancestry (that’s, well, okay) who had spent months preparing to stand trial on financial misconduct charges in Tokyo managed to flee Japan.

Carlos Ghosn, the multi-millionaire former head of Nissan and Renault, fled Japan and took refuge in Lebanon. From there he sent out an email. As soon as the news spread, the internet lit up with unconfirmed reports and theories of how he pulled off the escape.

The Houdini of Fraud

Ghosn had forged an alliance between France’s Renault and Japan’s Nissan and Mitsubishi Motors. He was arrested in 2018 and sent to a detention centre in Tokyo. Ghosn is accused of underreporting his income over eight years to 2018. He was later released under strict bail conditions. Nissan, Renault and Mitsubishi pledged a 'new start' for the alliance, breaking up the all-powerful chairmanship previously occupied by Ghosn. 

Waiting for the Netflix Original

Lebanese MTV reported that Ghosn smuggled himself out of Japan in a large musical instrument box after a Christmas band visited his residence in Tokyo. He was then shipped out of the country and later entered Lebanon from Turkey on a private plane. The Wall Street Journal reported that a team of accomplices assembled last weekend to carry out his exfiltration, and his wife, Carole, played a major role in the operation.

French daily Le Monde reported that Carole organized the escape with the help of her brothers and their contacts in Turkey. Ghosn entered Lebanon with an ID card. Another French newspaper said that he may have left Japan under a false identity with a forged passport.

Lebanese newspaper Annahar, by contrast, reported that he entered the country with a French passport. The former industry heavyweight has Lebanese, French and Brazilian citizenship. Lebanon’s foreign ministry said that Ghosn entered the country legally but it was unaware how he fled Japan and arrived in Beirut. In the meantime, Japanese law enforcement officials have some serious explaining to do.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles and published in their newsletter on 2nd January 2020.

Alphabet’s Google is in discussions with publishers about paying licensing fees to include excerpts of their articles in Google News search results, a move aimed at blunting criticism that it unfairly profits from copyrighted news.

A War of Words. Literally.

Negotiations between the internet titan and news outlets were said to be in the early stages, like really early, with no signs of any agreement. Most of the publishers are located in France and other parts of Europe. Loosely quoting Henry Ford II from Ford v Ferrari, this isn’t the first time an American company’s gone to war in Europe.

But unlike the movie, this is a war of words (for words, with words) with both sides having some strong arguments. Paying for news is against Google’s practice of helping people find quality journalism. Google vice president of news Richard Gingras said it's important to informed democracy and helps support a sustainable news industry.

Chicken or the egg?

The News executives, conversely, have been calling on Google to pay for the rights to host their articles. They argue that their journalism is what’s drawing users to those platforms, while the tech giant is earning from most of the online ad revenue. To this Google counters that it’s the other round. Google drives traffic to news websites and thereby helps those publishers get ad revenues.

A licensing deal would be welcomed by news organizations but Google has remained steadfast about not paying for news article links displayed in search results and is not changing that position.

Google said last year it would not pay European media outlets for using their articles, pictures and videos in its searches in France. This led to Google’s rocky relationships with publishers in Europe turning into legal action, long European Union antitrust investigations and an EU copyright directive.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles and published in their newsletter on 17th February 2020.

We like lawsuits, particularly when there are big tech companies and White House influences associated with them. But for this, we’ll need to level up our mindset, young padawan. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…Microsoft beat Amazon for Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract which explicitly meant the Pentagon sensed a strong force in Microsoft (or did it?) for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud (JEDI) contract.

Darth Trump

This was back in October (when we weren’t going through a pandemic induced breakdown) and has since then stirred up a lot of controversy. Since its inception, the JEDI, which is a key element to Pentagon’s digital modernization aimed at making it more technologically agile, was supposed to be offered to Amazon. But as we all know how betrayal works, Microsoft was eventually declared victorious with the Pentagon avowing the competition was conducted fairly and legally.

The Conspiracy is Strong with this One

Everything is fair and legal until challenged. In November, Amazon filed a lawsuit. It blamed President Donald Trump for bias against the company and for improperly pressuring the Pentagon. It said the Defence Department’s decision to give the contract to Microsoft was full of “egregious errors”. Microsoft defended its claim by saying that Amazon lost the contract to their high pricing and not political interference.

The Pentagon’s inspector general, however, said it could not determine whether the White House influenced the award because of the assertion of a ‘presidential communications privilege’. This means that even if the White House communicated with the Department of Defence and improperly influenced the contract, the information would never be made public.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles and published in their newsletter on 17th April 2020.

$50 billion – the estimated overseas Initial Public Offer (IPO) valuation of Walmart owned Indian e-commerce giant Flipkart. Competing with the likes of Bezos’ Amazon Inc. and Ambani’s Reliance with a plentitude of investments sprinkled on top, Flipkart can certainly milk the investment cow, as it should.

Catching the wave

The developments and discussions come in as India drafts new regulations that could pave the way for domestic companies to directly list overseas. Incidentally enough, the stock market launch could be viewed in line with India’s giant leap to atma-nirbharta.

Flipkart, which is registered in Singapore, is likely to choose between its Country of Incorporation and the United States, where parent Walmart is headquartered, for the said IPO.

‘Big Billion’ Investments

Walmart is heavily invested in Flipkart. After acquiring a roughly 77% stake in the co. for about $16 billion in 2018, the single largest foreign direct investment in India to date, it led a $1.2 billion investment round in July 2020. It valued the co. at $24.9 billion, around 19% higher than its acquisition valuation of $21 billion. And now, the IPO (if successful) would more than double the US retail behemoth’s investment in India’s ‘Big Billion’ company.

Going public all the way

IPOs are crucial and the market seems to be heating up. We’ve covered Zomato’s IPO plans in a recent issue and would also like to talk about the SoftBank-backed logistics unicorn Delhivery, which is planning to go public in 12-18 months. Besides Delhivery, several other players of the Indian startup space like Ola, Paytm, Grofers and Lenskart, have also decided to go public and file for an IPO.

We have seen major IPOs going south real quick, but that was the talk before the pandemic. How the market perceives these IPOs is a talk for later but what can be said now is that 2021 could prove to be a key year for India’s fledgling internet ecosystem and gig-economy.

This article was originally written for The Chai Chronicles and published in their newsletter on 17th September 2020.