저자: Krishna/주요발언자:Botswana대통령DumaBoko,JamieDimon · 외국인
요약 보기
보츠와나 대통령은 De Beers 지분을 50% 이상 지배지분으로 늘리겠다고 밝히며 다이아몬드 가격이 2~3년 내 반등할 것이라 주장. 자연 다이아몬드 수요 약화와 합성 다이아몬드 확산이 배경. EA는 사우디 PIF·Silver Lake·Affinity Partners(Kushner)에 550억 달러 현금 인수로 비상장화 예정. Dimon은 미국 경기는 아직 견조하나 인플레이션 우려와 자산가격 버블 가능성을 경고하고 AI 투자 일부 실패는 불가피하다고 언급.
다듬은 글
Hi folks, welcome to another episode of Who Said What. I'm your host Krishna and for those of you who are new here, let me quickly set up some context for what this show is about. See, the idea is that I'll pick the most interesting and juiciest comments from business leaders, fund managers, and the likes and contextualize things around them.
Now, some of these names might not be familiar, but trust me, they're influential people and what they say matters a lot because of their experience and background. So, I'll make sure to bring a mix. Some names you'll know, some you'll discover, and hopefully it will give you a wide and useful perspective.
Now, for all the sources mentioned in this video, don't forget to check out our newsletter. The link is in the description below. With that out of the way, let me get started. I recently covered diamonds on Who Said What and also did a full deep dive on The Daily Brief, where we spoke about the downfall of De Beers.
And now I'm coming back to it again today because of an interview that Botswana's president, Duma Boko, gave to Bloomberg. If you haven't followed the earlier episodes, you will obviously wonder why should anyone care about what he has to say. You see, Botswana supplies 70% of De Beers' diamonds. It owns just around 15% of the company.
The majority is controlled by Anglo American, which has now publicly said it wants out. Now, the president had earlier hinted at buying out more of De Beers. Who is selling De Beers? Uh, then De Beers is not doing his job. Maybe we should take over and sell them ourselves. But this time though, the president has left no room for ambiguity.
He told Bloomberg, We are resolute now. And we've communicated, uh, uh, firm intention to increase our stake in in De Beers to a controlling stake. That is, uh, upwards of 50%. And when pressed on whether the government would go beyond that 50% mark, his answer was, We will be Yes, we will go higher.
Now, that's a remarkable level of confidence, not just because De Beers itself is in trouble, sitting on huge stockpiles, prices cut for the first time, the parent company preparing its exit, but also because Botswana isn't exactly flush with cash. The interviewer was sharp to press him on the funding bit.
Where do you get the funds from now? But one question that you also might have is why does it want to have more stake in a company that's bleeding, an industry that's not doing so well? We produce 70% of of De Beers' diamonds through Jwaneng mine and and Orapa. So, we want to have, uh, a firm voice in the direction that the industry is taking.
We want to have a firm control and involvement in the diamond value chain, including its marketing, which we believe has, uh, has slackened somewhat over the years. And, uh, we now see the advent of, uh, synthetic diamonds, uh, purportedly almost seeking to supplant and replace natural diamonds. Well, it is our firm belief and stance that there's no way in which a fake can outshine the real.
Now, that's a good aim, but the main problem still remains that people aren't buying natural diamonds. On this, the interviewer asked, But we're seeing it in the numbers. People are not paying money for diamonds. And his reply was unwavering. Well, So, why in this situation are serious about about value will appreciate that the natural diamond is a repository of value.
They're real, they're genuine, they're rare, and so they they they store value. Now, that's a powerful line, but also one that shows the stakes for Botswana. The country's prosperity has long rested on people believing exactly this, that diamonds are rare, special, and enduring. For decades, De Beers sold that story through advertising, but the world has changed.
Today, lab-grown diamonds are chemically, visually, and structurally identical to natural ones. The only difference is origin and price. A lab-grown diamond costs a fraction, which means more people can afford this once exclusive commodity. Now, to those consumers, the emotional symbolism of a diamond doesn't just vanish because it came out of a lab.
And that's what makes the president's next prediction striking. When asked if he believes the prices would recover, he said, Absolutely. It is anticipated that there will be there will be an up an upswing, indeed, over the next, uh, two to three years. Uh, but obviously it will also be a function of proper marketing and, uh, differentiation in the market and traceability.
The last word, traceability, is worth pausing on. See, in practice, nobody can really tell the difference between a lab-grown and natural diamond. Both pass through the same polishing centers, often handled by the same workers, and insiders admit that mixing is common. I was watching a documentary called Nothing Is Forever on Netflix, and a diamond expert said outright, "Both types are processed side by side, and once they are in circulation, nobody really knows what's fake and what's real." In that context, traceability is not just a technical fix.
It's the industry's last hope of persuading buyers that they can trust what's on offer, and by extension, that it's worth paying more for something called natural. Whether that works is another story. Marketing built the modern diamond industry, but it looks like marketing may not be enough to save it.
The gaming industry has just been rocked by an unexpected, geopolitically charged, and truly blockbuster deal with plenty of behind-the-scenes action. Remember EA, the creator of the legendary FIFA games, the beloved cricket game, NFS Most Wanted, and this unforgettable tagline? EA Sports. It's in the game.
Well, they've just been bought out for a whopping $55 billion all cash and will no longer be publicly listed. Now, this is the largest leveraged buyout in history. But more than the figures, what is really a surprise is who two of the three main buyers are. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, also the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, and now the majority owner of EA, Affinity Partners, a fund led by Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Now, why does the government of Saudi Arabia want a piece of EA? And what's someone from the Trump family doing here? Here's a statement from Kushner on the deal. "I've admired their ability to create iconic, lasting experiences, and as someone who grew up playing their games and now enjoys them with his kids, I couldn't be more excited about what's ahead." And here's the official statement from the deputy governor of the PIF.
"PIF is uniquely positioned in the global gaming and e-sports sectors, building and supporting ecosystems that connect fans, developers, and IP creators." Now, before we get into all of these pressing questions, let's take a brief look at where EA stood before the deal. See, contrary to their popular tagline, for a long time EA isn't in the game.
In 2019, they laid off 350 jobs or 4% of its workforce after games like Battlefield 5 didn't perform well. Since giving up the FIFA brand in 2022, their rebranded FC Football series has underperformed. Their bets in India and mobile games have largely failed. Now, as a result, their finances have not done well at all.
So, EA has been looking for a buyer. It so happens that one of the biggest shareholders, the PIF, was already keen on taking more of it. They just needed a catalyst. From building a whole city meant only for culture and sports to having an F1 circuit, Saudi Arabia is doing everything to position itself as a global sports hub.
This strategy has made the PIF one of the world's biggest sports investor. For them, it's a strategy of procuring soft power in the world, even whitewashing some of their atrocities. And Saudi Arabia happens to love football. It's evident from all the insane headlines lately, be it signing Ronaldo for an eye-popping $225 million or hosting the 2034 FIFA World Cup.
Buying a gaming giant like EA would be like magically finding another oil field for Saudi Arabia. But a buyout never truly materialized until the catalyst, which is Jared Kushner, entered the picture. FT dug in on how the deal went down, and someone close to the deal said, "He has a personal relationship and he has deep ties in Saudi Arabia.
He's created a basis of trust." Since its first term, the Trump administration has grown very close with Saudi Arabia, led by Kushner's efforts. Reportedly, it was Kushner who convinced the PIF to take EA private. Silver Lake, one of the other investors, was keen to work with Kushner, and Silver Lake is known as a hard negotiator on Wall Street that could drive the price down.
Kushner brought everyone on board, including the EA management who wanted maximum price. The PIF wanted more soft power. Silver Lake saw cost savings owing to AI reducing game production times. And to facilitate the deal smoothly, JP Morgan was brought in as the underwriter and the provider of $20 debt for the deal.
In fact, Jamie Dimon responded within minutes of when the first call was made to his office. This deal is also not expected to run into too many regulatory problems from either the US or Saudi Arabia. Now, we know what this means for the world's chessboard, but what does it mean for the gaming industry?
For good reason, there is plenty of skepticism about this deal. Saudi Arabia has strict censorship rules about games, especially around women and queer characters. Its human rights record has been on spot pretty much all the time. It's possible that now, instead of being subject to market discipline as a public company, it will be swayed far more by geopolitical whims.
There is also no certainty that EA will suddenly change track and become more agile. They're thinking of doubling down on existing IPs, while those same IPs are running out of steam. They have lacked true innovation for a while, and it's unlikely that this deal will be a positive force. In fact, the opposite seems a little more likely.
Jamie Dimon has been the head of JP Morgan Chase for a very long time, well before the 2008 financial crisis, in fact. He's known for being pragmatic. Instead of trying to forecast the future perfectly, his focus is perennially on building resilience. In many circles, in fact, he isn't seen as a mere banker, but as some sort of statesman of finance.
And so, when he recently spoke to CNBC-TV18, we were naturally plugged in. For one, we were looking to see what he thought of the American economy given the direction it has recently taken on trade. You see, many economists thought Trump's policies on immigration and trade would push the economy into recession.
But while they might eventually turn out to be right as Diamond reminds us, none of that has shown up in the numbers just yet. As he says, I mean, data is itself is not perfect. There's a lot of conflicting data. But right now, unemployment is still low, consumers both low-end and, you know, higher-end are spending their money.
At the low end, they're clearly they're a little stretched. You know, and credit losses are going up a little bit. So, it's not a disaster, it's a weakening. There's one thing, however, that Diamond has his eye set on, inflation. With the state of the world being what it is, Americans are likely to feel the pinch.
As he says, I'm a little more cautious on inflation than other people. You know, that may not go away so quick because of the global deficits around the world. You know, those have an inflationary effect. The remilitarization of the world, you know, the restructuring of trade, those things are all kind of inflationary.
You see, America usually targets an inflation rate of around 2%, but it hasn't been that for a long time. In fact, it has stubbornly remained a notch lower than 3% with no signs of relenting. But the biggest risk he flags is that asset prices are getting rather high. I mean, we're getting in bubble stuff here.
I'm not saying I don't know where we are, but but there's a lot of positive sentiment out there driving a lot of asset prices. Highest stock prices ever, highest gold ever, you know, um crypto Crypto, highest crypto ever, yeah. The other thing he talks about is artificial intelligence. In the last episode, I spoke about how everyone keeps circling back to the idea that money is pouring into AI.
He acknowledges this, too, and even admits that perhaps there's a little too much capital chasing the technology right now. Some of those bets will more likely than not go bust. But to him, that's not a cause for alarm. It's simply the nature of investment cycles. Every exciting technology has its losers.
In his words, But in almost every real investment boom, you've had people didn't do it right. So, when cars boomed, a lot of car companies went bankrupt. When television boomed, a lot of television companies went bankrupt. When, you know, the internet bubble burst, that was real, too. But that shouldn't detract you from the tremendous potential it brings.
But it is But for And And for the population, it's going to solve cancer some cancers. You know, it's going to solve some terrible problems that mankind has. And There's life after burst bubbles, too, and it might look better than today. Or that, at least, is the hope we're clinging to. That's it for this episode.
See you in the next one. The interviewer was strap strap. And Siloed Lake is known as a hard negotiator on Wall Street that could drive the pa pa pa
Comments 0