This article was originally published by Wumian Finance.
Author: Su Nan
Editor: Chen Jian
Design: motionless
Intern: Guo
This past weekend, the biggest news in the industry was that Alibaba Group was fined more than 654.38+082 billion yuan by the State Administration of Markets. At the end of 65438+February last year, the General Administration of Marketing settled in Ali for investigation, and it took only four months before and after to issue a sky-high ticket. The decision was made quickly, and the fine was huge and thunderous.
The General Administration of Market Supervision takes Alibaba, the e-commerce leader, as a warning. But Ali didn't hurt his bones, nor did he breed new opportunities, and his opponent didn't have time to raise champagne to celebrate.
How is the sky-high ticket released?
In the official wording, Ali's "two choices" behavior has serious consequences.
The penalty book pointed out that "Alibaba excludes and restricts the competition in the online retail platform service market in China, hinders the free circulation of goods, services and resource elements, affects the innovation and development of the platform economy, infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of merchants in the platform, and harms the interests of consumers."
It can be seen that the General Administration of Market Supervision believes that the relevant behaviors of Alibaba Group have caused damage to businesses and consumers in the industry, economy and social environment. Studying the penalty book helps to understand the essence of the matter, and some details are more intriguing.
The penalty book mentioned: "Since 20 15, Alibaba Group has abused its dominant position in this market, and put forward a' two-choice' requirement for merchants in the platform, prohibiting merchants in the platform from opening stores or participating in promotional activities in other competitive platforms ..."
What is "abuse of dominant market position"? First of all, we must find out what is market dominance. There are three main situations: the share of a single operator in the relevant market reaches half; The total market share of the two operators reaches two-thirds; The total market share of the three operators has reached three quarters. Alibaba naturally belongs to the first type.
According to NEWSS, according to GMV statistics, the top three online retail B2C markets in 20 19 years are: Tmall 50. 1%, JD.COM 26.51%and Pinduoduo12.8%; The fourth to eighth places are Suning.cn, Vipshop and Gome Retail, while others including Ji Yun and Mushroom Street account for less than 4%.
20 19 market share of major e-commerce, the data comes from the network economic society.
JD.COM, Pinduoduo and Vipshop have more than 40% market share, thus losing the prerequisite of "dominant position". There may be questions from the outside world. Tmall+JD.COM has a market share of over three quarters. Why is JD.COM innocent? As will be mentioned later, JD.COM is the victim of "two in one" and the main prosecutor who sued Tmall. Most importantly, JD.COM did not initiate "two in one".
According to the anti-monopoly law, there are 6+ 1 cases of abuse of market dominance. Seventh, the "power of interpretation" of the regulatory authorities has retained greater flexibility. The accusation against Alibaba mainly applies to the fourth situation, that is, "without justifiable reasons, the counterparty can only trade with it or only with its designated operators".
In daily business, businesses can cross multiple platforms and coexist peacefully. However, during the big promotion period, such as "6 18" in the middle of the year, "Shuang 1 1" and "Shuang 12" at the end of the year, the platform side will invest huge resources to drain, and it is difficult for netizens to resist the temptation of crazy "chopping hands" in the face of goods with great discounts.
Ali, JD.COM or Pinduoduo are just trading platforms, and all goods come from the brand side. If the brand has deep cooperation with which platform, you have to "choose one from the other" during the promotion period. Tmall or JD.COM can't monopolize Internet traffic, so the initiative is not in the brand. Every platform wants to monopolize products with strong brand discounts. Consumers vote with their feet, and the standard for evaluating the success or failure of the platform is GMV. If businesses "don't line up" at critical times, the consequences can be imagined.
The General Administration of Market Supervision also mentioned "from 20 15", which should be pointed out.
Alibaba has achieved a dominant position in the e-commerce platform for many years. HC Network and Focus Technology in B2B field (China Manufacturing Network); Ebay Paipai.com Yi Bei in C2C field; It is difficult for Amazon China, Dangdang and JD.COM Mall in B2C field to surpass Alibaba. The key point is that the above platform has been established for more than ten years, or even longer. Why did the General Administration mention 20 15?
Pinduoduo was founded in 2065438+September 2005. It's different from JD. COM's self-operation, Pinduoduo is completely a platform model, just like Alibaba's Taobao and Tmall.
With the help of WeChat, Pinduoduo's GMV has exceeded one trillion yuan in 20 19, and will increase by more than 60% in 2020, exceeding10.6 trillion yuan. Pinduoduo will be influenced by Ali's "otherness", but when it comes to "anti-Ali", JD.COM is a depth charge.
"20 15" has a hidden meaning. 2065438+In May and September of 2004, JD.COM and Alibaba went public one after another. JD.COM, in particular, has been losing money before. Although backed by Tencent, only by landing in the capital market can we really open the financing channel, increase more ammunition and challenge Ali. Then after 20 15, it is logical for Ali to suppress or aggravate JD.COM.
This huge fine of 654.38+082 billion yuan is mainly based on Article 47 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Where an operator violates the provisions of this Law and abuses its dominant market position, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency shall order him to stop the illegal act, confiscate his illegal income, and impose a fine of more than 1% and less than 10% of the sales in the previous year.
The fine of 654.38+082 billion yuan is also the biggest fine issued by the regulatory authorities since the implementation of China's Anti-Monopoly Law in 2008.
The fine of 182 billion yuan is 4% of Ali's domestic sales in 20 19, which is higher than the lower limit of 1% and far from the upper limit of 10%, belonging to the middle value; 10% is also the top penalty ratio of major economies in the world in antitrust.
The General Administration of Market Supervision started the investigation at the end of February 2020, so "last year" refers to the financial data of Alibaba in 20 19. Alibaba's fiscal year is from April 1 year to March 1 year, but the General Administration of Market Supervision should adopt the natural year.
20 19 From the first quarter to the fourth quarter, Alibaba achieved revenue of 93.5 billion yuan, 1 149 billion yuan,19 billion yuan and161500 million yuan respectively, totaling. Accordingly, the total amount of 4% is about 654.38+09.6 billion yuan.
Considering that the General Administration of Market Supervision initiated an investigation into Alibaba's market abuse in China, excluding overseas income, the final fine was set at 654.38+082 billion yuan.
Alibaba's total revenue and net profit over the years are from wind.
The "sales" here should be understood as Alibaba's net income, not the transaction volume (GMV) of the whole platform. After all, in terms of transaction amount, Alibaba's GMV in 20 19 years should exceed 6 trillion, and 4% is 240 billion.
The fine of 65.438+0.82 billion yuan set a new record, but for Alibaba, it did not hurt the bones.
In 20 19, Alibaba's net profit for four quarters was1721000000 yuan, and the fine of1820000 yuan accounted for about 10.57% of the net profit of that year. In that year, the net cash flow generated by Alibaba Group's operating activities totaled 654.38+0.97 billion yuan, which exceeded the scale of net profit, that is, the profit was full of gold.
Secondly, in the past 10 years, Alibaba achieved a total revenue of about 2.8 1 trillion yuan and a net profit of 635 1 billion yuan, accounting for about 6.5% of the total revenue and less than 3% of the total net profit.
Furthermore, by the end of 2020, Alibaba's total assets163.53 billion yuan, shareholders' equity * *108.23 billion yuan, and current assets of 597.7 billion yuan, including cash and cash equivalents of 3 12 1 billion yuan, and short-term investments10.
"4%, 182 billion yuan" has a law to follow, which has both a deterrent effect and feelings. According to the procedure, Alibaba can file an administrative reconsideration or administrative lawsuit, but it is useless to pester again. Ali has accepted all the punishment and will carry out rectification.
The sky-high fine of 65.438+0.82 billion won't have a substantial impact on Alibaba's operation, but the lesson is profound. If Ali stops in time, it can be avoided.
There are not only Pinduoduo, JD.COM, Vipshop, but also merchants on the e-commerce platform, and only the platform can resist. Tencent is the largest shareholder in JD.COM, the second largest shareholder in Pinduoduo, the second largest shareholder in Vipshop and the third largest shareholder in Vipshop. So it is not surprising that Tencent is an e-commerce company.
2065438+September 2009, JD.COM sued Tmall for abusing its dominant market position, claiming 65,438 billion yuan. Soon, Vipshop and Pinduoduo submitted applications to the Beijing High Court at the same time, requesting to join the above proceedings as a third party.
Wang Shuai had previously expressed his views on "one of the two options".
Alibaba Group's main voice to the outside world is Wang Shuai, Chairman of the Market Public Relations Committee, who made a sharp counterattack on the social network platform on June 4, 20 19. He pointed out: "Choose one from two" has always been a false proposition, and it is a common means of competition for some enterprises; "Choose one from two" is a normal market behavior and the simplest business rule for good money to drive out bad money.
Ali Group and Wang Shuai didn't realize that it was going to rain at this time.
On 20 19 1 1.5, the General Administration of Market Supervision convened a meeting of more than 20 e-commerce platform enterprises, including Alibaba, JD.COM, Meituan, Pinduoduo, Suning and Vipshop, in Hangzhou, Ali's base camp. The General Administration once again made it clear that "one of the two choices" and "exclusive transactions" violated the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the "one of the two choices" would be investigated according to law.
Wang Shuai's statement that "the cost is not caused by the strong wind" is true. However, Alibaba's profit has increased from 24 billion yuan to nearly 654.38+06 billion yuan in the past five years, an increase of about 7 times, far exceeding the growth rate of GMV. It is also true that monopoly position brings excess profits.
The intuitive data is operating income and profit, while the imperceptible figure is commission. The GMV of Alibaba in fiscal year 20 16-2020 increased from 3 trillion to 7. 1 trillion, and the corresponding revenue increased from10/1billion to 509.7 billion yuan.
Alibaba GMV and its income.
Thus, in fiscal year 20 16-2020, Alibaba's goods-taking rates were 3.37%, 4.2%, 5. 19%, 6.58% and 7. 18% respectively. In FY 2020, Ali's liquidation rate was more than twice that of five years ago. With the doubling of GMV, Alibaba is not a small profit but quick turnover for merchants, and its charges are more "malicious".
Although other sectors of Ali, such as the cloud business, have also grown rapidly, the group's total receipt rate has increased rapidly, not entirely by cutting merchant wool. If there is no GMV of Alibaba Group with more than 7 trillion yuan as the cornerstone, how can cloud merchants attack the city?
In the face of Alibaba's strong position, it is impossible for businesses to rise up. JD.COM and Pinduoduo are the second, third and fifth largest B2C platforms respectively, but the total GMV is less than half of Alibaba 20 19.
Taking the recent fiscal year 2020 as an example, the GMV of Alibaba, JD.COM, Pinduoduo and Vipshop were 1 trillion US dollars, 2 trillion yuan,16676 million yuan and1650 million yuan respectively. Tencent's total GMV is about 3.8 trillion yuan, much lower than Alibaba's (7. 1 trillion yuan). Ali has enough say in the business.
Comparison of main e-commerce platforms in GMV.
If Tencent, the same level as Ali, is not behind the scenes, JD.COM, Pinduoduo and Vipshop will fight back together, and businesses will continue to endure. Just as the public gradually forgot this matter, one year later (65438+February 2020), the General Administration made a move, which was obviously serious this time; In another four months, the sky-high ticket of 654.38+82 million yuan will be thrown out.
The fine of/kloc-0.82 billion yuan did little harm to Ali, but it was very fashionable.
After punishing Alibaba, a large wave of complaints were on the road, and mutual harm between platforms was inevitable. For example, Yao Jinbo, CEO of 58 City, declared war on Shell on social platform. During the epidemic in 2020, Guangdong merchants couldn't stand it anymore and denounced the "two choices" of the US Mission. The link was blocked and Tik Tok and WeChat filed a lawsuit. These platforms may be the key regulatory targets.
Recently, Tencent CEO Ma's anti-monopoly remarks and WeChat's loosening of Taobao are obvious signals. As far as this ticket is concerned, "two choices one" will become history, and both e-commerce platforms and businesses will benefit from it.
Throughout the global technology companies, most of the giants have been fined by the regulatory authorities, and there are not a few fines of one billion or even several billion dollars, but the development of the companies has not been greatly affected.
Some global technology giants were fined.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that Ali has "reformed" since then. At the same time, Ali promised to lower the operating threshold. Is it a "dimensionality reduction" blow to other platforms?
"Misfortune depends on happiness, and happiness lies in misfortune." Who is the big winner in the end, the sky-high ticket, is not the final conclusion.
Driven by the listing of Ant Group last year, Alibaba's market value is higher than Tencent's trillion Hong Kong dollars, and now it is lower than Tencent's trillion Hong Kong dollars. It remains to be seen whether the symbolic tens of billions of fines thrown by the General Administration of Market Supervision mean the exhaustion of the entire Ali system.
copyright statement
This article was originally published by Wu Mian Finance and Economics, and the copyright belongs to Wu Mian Finance and Economics. Unauthorized reprinting will be investigated!