Will you sell AIS?

From a business point of view, that is a definite YES for me.

Why? Because AIS is going nowhere but downhill at that point in time.

Ever heard of the phrase "Sell high and buy low?" That is the point that AIS is reaching; the very peak and it's starting to flat out. Of course AIS is the #1 telecommunication operator at the end of 2005 with the majority market share. However, the trend did not look good for AIS. With the midyear acquisition of DTAC by a Norwegian company and the merger of TRUE and UBC officially released in December 2005, the future of AIS was anything but bright.

At that point in time, the future of the telecommunication industry was no longer 2G or GSM, the most current technology employed. Its future was 3G. It was forecasted that the 3G license was to be granted at the latest the 3rd quarter of 2006, therefore 3G was coming, and fast. The problem was that AIS did not gain any advantages from this knowledge. For the the past years, AIS held the most market share because it had the best infrastructure and was the first in the market. The fact that it had the best licensing deal (again, because it was the first one in the market) and being first in the market significantly help its infrastructure. The revenue and profit from the investment could be put into the infrastructure, resulting in an increase in the customer base and increase in profit, resulting in further investment, and so on. The playing field was never leveled.

However, the coming of 3G was about to flatten the once thought mountainous playing field. 3G requires reinvestment in the infrastructure. Thus, whoever has more to invest is likely to win the 3G game. With the Norwegian acquisition of DTAC, the company was primed to compete in the new 3G arena. It had investments that AIS did not have. The merger of TRUE and UBC was their "blue ocean strategy." Instead of bidding in a price war or a 3G investment war, TRUE opted for content instead. Their "Triple Play" strategy tie their internet service, land line, mobile phone, and content together. This integration and TRUE's tendency to go toward WIMAX instead of 3G clearly show that TRUE is carving out a new market segment of its own, which give the company its own competitive advantage and a clear direction of its future.

Clearly, AIS was lacking behind the other two major telecommunication players. DTAC's advantage was its potential power to invest. TRUE's advantage was its integration strategy and content. The reinvestment in the 3G technology cannot guarantee that AIS would continue to be the market leader, considering that everyone is starting over from scratch, and the biggest spender who finished the infrastructure overhaul first would be the favorite for the new market leader. Over the long term of 3-5 years, AIS may no longer hold the majority market segment. So, why should AIS reinvest? Because their only other choice is to reinvent.

What do they do? Reinvest, reinvent, or die?

AIS has tried to reinvent itself corporate-wise. The NWO project was a great idea that failed. Technology-wise, push mail and other corporate strategy was a good idea, but not one that would put them ahead of others in the industry. They havn't had an industry-shaking move for a very long time. They did not need to before, but they need it now. The problem was, that did not happen or maybe could not happen.

Whatever the reason was, their only other choice is to reinvest. However, competing against the financial investment of a foreign company would most likely be the last thing on its mind, considering the playing field and other situations.

If I own AIS, I would definitely sell it to the highest bidder because

• AIS may not want to reinvest
• DTAC has foreign backing
• TRUE has content advantage
• AIS may no longer be the market leader in 3-5 year time period.

So why should I not sell AIS when the profit is highest?

I would be most stupid if I don't sell.

Possible terrorist attack on Feb 23rd, 2007

The Australian Government is warning tourists of a possible terrorist attack in Thailand.

The latest travel warning for the area says there are reports of a potential bomb attack in crowded places in Bangkok some time today.

The Department of Foreign Affairs says it has received reports that terrorists could be planning attacks at places such as department stores and sky-train and subway stations.

There is uncertainty over the political situation in Thailand after the military coup in September last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1855850.htm

Who is more wrong?

Just for destroying one man, another man is willing to leave 60 million people to tragic ends.

So, who is more wrong? The first or the second man?

SNOWDON: The Head of the Thai army, coup leader and political king maker, General Sonthi wants to get Thailand's satellites back.

They're the assets of the Shin Corporation satellite subsidiary.

They were sold off last year to the Singapore government's investment company Temasek as part of a controversial multi-billion dollar sale by the Thaksin family.

General Sonthi says the satellites are national assets and should be returned to Thailand.

Managing Director of Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Robert Broadfoot.

BROADFOOT: So that's why it's even more important because the comments are by the military which has put the government in place.

SNOWDON: Singapore's Foreign Affairs Ministry has issued a statement which says:
"Singapore is surprised at what Council for National Security Chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin was reported to have said about getting back Thai national assets which have been sold to foreigners. We should wait for the Thai Government to clarify what those remarks mean."

Singapore issued a similar statement in January when General Sonthi said it was possible that Singapore's ownership of the communication satellites could compromise Thai security by having them spy on military phone conversations.

Relations between the two countries turned more frosty when Mr Thaksin met with the Deputy Prime Minister during a visit to Singapore.

Robert Broadfoot believes the bilateral relationship will survive, and the bigger implications lie in business and investor sentiment - for both countries.

BROADFOOT: There's certainly going to be a strain in relations, but I think that the Singapore government in particular is going to be able to manage it. I think the Thai government also wants to manage it, but it's going to have negative fall-out for both sides.

SNOWDON: Do you think this is just an issue of national pride, could there be real security issues involved in his thinking?

BROADFOOT: Well I don't know what his thinking is, but I don't think that there are any real security issues involved. I think the main motivation now is against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The military junta wants two things, to neutralise Mr Thaksin so he cannot make a political comeback, and secondly they want to tie his hands financially as much as possible so that he cannot finance future politicians and become a power behind the throne. So to the extent that if the government can somehow tie up or even pressure Temasek into going after Thaksin to say listen, we want our money back, that potentially ties Mr Thaksin's hands. So I think keep in mind all of these moves by the Thai government are really designed against former prime minister Thaksin. And that in itself is a concern because it seems like they're so focussed on this one issue that they're making a number of other mistakes with the economy which are hurting foreign investor confidence.

SNOWDON: Such as?

BROADFOOT: Such as changing the way that they honour intellectual property for pharmeuceuticals, such as putting on the capital controls last December and scaring the 'beejeezus' out of investors in the stockmarket there. And now the way that they're going after the so-called nominees, which is going to affect the large number of foreign investors in the country.

SNOWDON: Because that's what irritated a lot of Thai people wasn't it, the use of nominees, some people called them proxies in the Shin Corp sale to Temasek?

BROADFOOT: They would like to use the Temasek deal as a way to tie Mr Thaksin into corruption. So they could have him barred from politics among other things. It's going to be awfully difficult to prove in a Thai court, which raises the next question of through this crisis will the integrity of the Thai court system be maintained or will it be compromised?

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/s1852139.htm