Will Meta Platforms Face The “China Problem” Soon? ?
Meta Platforms, the Menlo Park-based social media giant run by Mark Zuckerberg, had its worst stock market year in 2022. At this time when the crisis in the advertising sector affects the morale of investors and the financial performance of the company; rising costs to build virtual worlds technology added to already subdued shareholder sentiment. In 2023, the company will face another challenge because, according to Zuckerberg’s statements, he intends to ultimately transform Meta into a company focused on new technologies and devices that enable virtual reality interaction. . The problem is that nearly 100% of the company’s devices, such as the Oculus VR headset, are made in the US and… probably China, which also contradicts Zuckerberg. This could be very costly for the Meta.
Too good to be true
In 2016, Zuckerberg posted photos of himself in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square online and gave a speech in Mandarin to “buy into the good graces” of the Chinese people and ruling class. But the country ultimately rejected the efforts of Facebook and many other American consumer technology companies, relying on local players to consolidate their power and reduce dependence on the “West”. As a result, by 2018, many companies had abandoned their efforts to debut in China. In 2019, Zuckerberg himself admitted that the Chinese dream is over. Since then, he has repeatedly expressed his distaste for the idea of a “Chinese Internet”; he considered it contrary to American democratic values. Speaking before the US Congress, he warned against Chinese companies stealing “American technology” and warned of the threat of rapidly growing competition from China-linked ByteDance, TikTok. At the same time, however, the company has done nothing to diversify its supply chains, as Apple and other American technology companies that use Taiwan, Thailand or India have tried to do for years. As a result, the company remained completely dependent on China for technological devices.
A trade war?
Some analysts in the tech world worry that China wants to stop the growth of Zuckerberg’s empire, and that the transfer of production of advanced VR devices is not a matter of one, or even two years. Meta Platforms had to look for ways to move production to Taiwan, an advanced precision and technology industry, to avoid “Made in China” and save on customs duties, but the China-based supply chain prevented it. . Likewise, with Ray-Ban, it failed to write “Made in Italy” on smart glasses, and efforts to move production from Oculus to Taiwan were unsuccessful.
It appears that China has strong leverage over Zuckerberg, and of course it may or may not be used. This certainly poses an additional risk to the company’s shareholders. While China was not important to the company until recently because of its focus on social media and advertising, it has become crucial today, as Zuckerberg has confirmed with spending on an unprecedented scale, as it moves toward new technologies that enable “metaversion.” Localization of production seems even more dangerous given Meta’s political stakes, such as its funding of TikTok and AmericanEdge, known for its campaigns and ads criticizing Chinese authorities. The company’s policy has been repeatedly criticized in China.
Change comes from pain
Zuckerberg’s business is facing unprecedented challenges. Currently, they are bound by global concerns about consumer health and recession, as the advertising business remains the company’s main source of revenue. They also have a perspective and a psychological dimension, because the concept of the Metaverse presented by Zuckerberg still sounds abstract and profitable; Media Meta reports on reckless spending by employees of the department that develops new technologies for Reality Labs. On top of all this, concerns about China’s wiretapping are emerging from the shadows; we will probably hear about it more than once. A move from China could halt Meta’s tech expansion in a potentially “reverse, not forward” direction, as the company isn’t the only mega-tech in the market moving toward virtual reality. This trend is also evident in Apple and Microsoft. If Meta were considered low risk today, its shares would still be as expensive as they were in the fall of 2021. Today, sales deter some and encourage others to buy.
As for Meta’s business, the company has Facebook’s almost 3 billion user base, making it one of the top choices for advertisers, including the Chinese, who have paid the company large sums of money to place ads and reach them. global market. Meta, of course, is not only Facebook, but also Instagram and WhatsApp. In addition, the company continues to develop its technology, introducing popular VR devices, Oculus headsets. Zuckerberg decided to focus on technology, possibly because he felt the social platforms business was destined for slow growth due to the scale the company had reached. The next few years will tell if it will create another “goose that lays the golden egg” and we will fall into virtual worlds that resemble reality, allowing the company to regain its fortunes and dominance.
Meta Platforms (META.US), D1. Looking at the company’s share price, we can see that the SMA100 average (black color) levels around $132 per share, potentially becoming short-term resistance. On the other hand, the key medium-term resistance is the 200 SMA (red color), which coincides with the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement of the bearish wave that started in September 2021. The nearest potential strong support is at the $100 psychological level. per share. Breaking the price below can open new lows. Source: xStation5
Eryk Szmyd Financial Markets Analyst XTB
“This material is a marketing communication within the meaning of Article 24(3) of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and Directive 2002/92/EC and amending the Directive. 2011/61/EU (MiFID II) Marketing communication is not investment advice or information within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 recommending or offering an investment strategy. market abuse (Market Abuse Regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and Council Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC of the Commission and Delegated Regulations of the Commission (EU ) in addition to Regulation (EU) 2016/958 of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 596/2014 of March 9, 2016, recommending or proposing investment recommendations or investment strategies related to regulatory methods for technical methods of objective presentation of standards that does, for the disclosure of signs of special interests or conflicts of interest or other advice, including other information within the meaning of the law of July 29, 2005 on financial trading in the field of investment advice. tools. (ie Laws Journal 2019, section 875, as amended). All information, analysis and training provided are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as advice, recommendation, investment offer or invitation to buy or sell financial products. XTB cannot be held responsible for its use and the resulting consequences, the end investor remains the sole decision-maker regarding the position held in his XTB trading account. Any use of said information and any decision made regarding the possible purchase or sale of CFDs in this respect is solely the responsibility of the end investor. Reproduction or distribution of all or part of this information for commercial or personal purposes is strictly prohibited. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results and anyone acting on this information does so entirely at their own risk. CFDs are complex instruments and there is a high risk of losing capital quickly due to leverage. 82% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You need to make sure you understand how CFDs work and how you can afford to risk losing your money. With a Limited Risk Account, the risk of loss is limited to the invested capital.
