TheChek News Flow

The Zalando-owned streetwear and youth culture media platform announced the layoffs of 24 employees last week, citing unfavourable economic conditions and the need for cost-cutting measures, sources said.

German streetwear and youth culture media platform Highsnobiety announced the layoffs of 24 employees last week, about 10 percent of its workforce, people close to the matter told BoF.

Founder and CEO David Fischer and chief operating officer Jürgen Hopfgartner announced the news on an internal call last week, citing unfavourable economic conditions and the need for cost-cutting measures, according to these sources.

The job cuts affected employees across departments including editorial, commerce, data and marketing, as well as the company’s in-house creative agency, HS+.

Highsnobiety confirmed the layoffs in a statement released exclusively to BoF saying the company is “streamlining our global structure to more closely align with the shifting industry as well as internal needs as the publishing, the e-commerce and the agency elements of our company continue to individually evolve and expand.” The company added that its “longer-term vision remains unchanged by any of these measures.”

The restructuring comes amidst uncertainty regarding the company’s retail business. The opening of Highsnobiety’s first-ever permanent flagship store in Berlin was originally slated for June, but has now been pushed back until towards the end of 2023, sources told BoF.

The company, which was founded by Fischer in 2005 as a streetwear-focused blog, was acquired by Zalando in June 2022. The German e-commerce giant was enticed by Highsnobiety’s connections to high-end luxury and streetwear brands, along with the platform’s content-driven retail business, which comprises its multibrand e-commerce site and other retail pop-ups.

Financial terms weren’t disclosed, but the deal reportedly valued Highsnobiety between $180 million and $250 million.

Last week, Highsnobiety threw a large party at Paris Fashion Week in collaboration with sneaker resale platform StockX and hosted by Canadian model Winnie Harlow, as part of its five-day long “Not In Paris” retail and cultural pop-up.

Meanwhile, the platform launched verticals dedicated to beauty and sports in February this year and May 2022, respectively.

Industry executives see export ban on gallium and germanium as retaliation over chip curbs by U.S. and others

SINGAPORE—China set export restrictions on two minerals the U.S. says are critical to the production of semiconductors, missile systems and solar cells, a show of force ahead of economic talks between two rivals that increasingly set trade rules to achieve technological dominance.

The minerals—gallium and germanium—and more than three dozen related metals and other materials will be subject to unspecified export controls starting Aug. 1, Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce said Monday. Its statement referred to safeguarding national security and interests and said some future export applications would require review by the government’s top body, the State Council.

The China-U.S. rivalry increasingly features export restrictions tailored to slow the high-technology industries of the other nation. Trading complaints about such controls, which both sides say are designed to protect national security, have featured in a return to high-level talks between the two governments.

More focus on the issue is likely when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visits Beijing later this week and if Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo makes an expected trip in the coming months.

The U.S. Commerce Department had no immediate comment.

The U.S. in October halted exports to China of equipment used to produce more technically advanced semiconductors and has leaned on allies like South Korea and the Netherlands to do the same. Beijing warned its companies to consider the national-security implications of exports to the U.S. It banned the use of products made by Micron, the U.S.’s biggest memory-chip maker, in its critical information-infrastructure firms, while warning American allies to reject what it terms Cold War-type protectionism peddled by Washington.

Complexities bind the U.S. and China in production of wares such as semiconductors in ways that make it difficult for either side to act too rashly, a kind of technology-sector equivalent of mutually assured destruction. The Biden administration is trying to entice producers such as Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to expand in the U.S. but getting them to turn their back on China appears unlikely.

The new restrictions on gallium and germanium affect specialty metals produced and refined primarily in China, giving it leverage in some cutting-edge sectors. Neither gallium or germanium is traded in large quantities.

Both nevertheless have uses important to particular industries, especially production of semiconductors that are often designed in and for use in the U.S. even if made in Taiwan and South Korea.

“This measure will have an immediate ripple effect on the semiconductor industry, especially with regards to high-performance chips,” said Alastair Neill, board member of the Critical Mineral Institute who has nearly 30 years of experience with China’s metals industry.

China has smarted at U.S. efforts to slow the advance of its semiconductor manufacturing, which Washington warns is ultimately aimed at strengthening Beijing’s military.

The Biden administration has made it difficult for China to buy lithography machines needed to produce high-performance chips, and last week scored a win when the Dutch government said its equipment makers like ASML would need government permission to ship some products abroad.

Chinese chip makers and suppliers who gathered in Shanghai for a recent industry event were in a grim but defiant mood following a Wall Street Journal report that the Biden administration is considering new restrictions on exports of artificial-intelligence chips to China.

Industry analysts see a pattern of tit-for-tat. “If you don’t send high-end chips to China, China will respond by not sending you the high-performance elements you need for those chips,” said Neill, who added that Beijing usually tries to match U.S. trade measures with a countermeasure of equal proportion.

Both gallium and germanium appear among 50 minerals that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “critical,” meaning they are essential to the economic or national security of the U.S. and have a supply chain vulnerable to disruption.

Gallium, a soft, silvery metal at room temperature, is a key ingredient in a fast-growing class of semiconductors used in phone chargers and electric vehicles, among a growing range of commercial and military applications.

About 53% of the U.S.’s gallium was imported from China between 2018 and 2021, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, with imports decreasing substantially in 2019 after the U.S. imposed higher tariffs on Chinese gallium.

There is no U.S. production of unrefined gallium.

Gallium arsenide—a compound with arsenic—is widely used for high-performance chips because it is more resistant to heat and moisture as well as more conductive than silicon.

At the moment, “no effective substitutes exist for GaAs in these applications,” noted the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey on gallium.

The U.S. military relies on gallium nitride, a related product, for its properties for efficiently transmitting power deployed in the most advanced radars under development.

It is also being used in the replacement for the Patriot missile-defense system being made by RTX, formerly known as Raytheon Technologies. Beijing previously had said it would seek to prevent a unit of RTX, which didn’t respond to a question about gallium, from using Chinese products in its military technology.

In 2016, the U.S. blocked the proposed purchase by Chinese investors of a controlling stake in an auto and light-emitting diode components business unit of the Dutch electronics company Philips valued at $2.8 billion over concerns of the dual-use potential for gallium nitride.

Sales of chips using gallium nitride were $2.47 billion last year, according to Precedence Research, but are expected to climb to $19.3 billion by 2030.

Chips produced with gallium-arsenide are expected to grow from $1.4 billion last year to $3.4 billion in 2030, according to Research and Markets.

Germanium, a lustrous, grayish-white metal, can make silicon a faster conduit and is often used in making fiber-optic systems and solar cells, including those used in space applications.

To trade experts, China’s new export restrictions on the commodities is a reminder of an earlier export-quota system Beijing imposed for rare earths, another group of metals produced mostly in China that have prized qualities for high-technology manufacturers.

The U.S. in 2014 won a case at the World Trade Organization that argued China’s export limits on rare earths, as well as tungsten and molybdenum, were inconsistent with international trade rules.

Later, in 2019, Chinese leader Xi Jinping made a visit to one of the country’s key rare-earth production zones. To analysts, the visit appeared to be a warning Beijing could disrupt trade in the minerals, days after the Trump administration made it illegal to supply some U.S. technology to Chinese telecommunications equipment maker Huawei Technologies.

Export controls allow Beijing to target individual companies as well as broader sectors of particular industries and make decisions based on geopolitical considerations, said Paul Triolo, senior vice president for China and technology-policy lead at the Washington-based advisory firm Albright Stonebridge Group.

China has signaled to the U.S. that it is interested in establishing a new bilateral dialogue on export controls, and the latest move could provide Beijing with more leverage in coming discussions with Washington, he said.

The controls announced Monday follow a pattern of quieter restrictions on American access to other commodities produced in China, such as materials known as super-abrasives that also are used in high-technology industries, according to Nazak Nikakhtar, a trade lawyer who formerly held roles related to national security and commodity supply chains at the Commerce Department and is now a partner at Washington law firm Wiley Rein LLP. “It’s really arm-flexing, to remind the U.S. how strong they are and to remind us how much control they have over our supply chains,” she said.

While Nikakhtar said she doesn’t think the gallium and germanium restrictions are designed to be a bargaining chip for the coming talks with American officials, she said they should seize the opportunity to remind their Chinese counterparts that Washington can close loopholes on its current export restrictions and that it has the power to apply economic sanctions.

Biden administration proposal, aimed at closing loophole in chip export controls, could escalate tit-for-tat fight with Beijing

WASHINGTON—The Biden administration is preparing to restrict Chinese companies’ access to U.S. cloud-computing services, according to people familiar with the situation, in a move that could further strain relations between the world’s economic superpowers.

The new rule, if adopted, would likely require U.S. cloud-service providers such as Amazon.com AMZN -0.11%decrease; red down pointing triangle and Microsoft MSFT -0.75%decrease; red down pointing triangle to seek U.S. government permission before they provide cloud-computing services that use advanced artificial-intelligence chips to Chinese customers, the people said.

The Biden administration’s move would follow other recent measures as Washington and Beijing wage a high-stakes conflict over access to the supply chain for the world’s most advanced technology.

Beijing Monday announced export restrictions on metals used in advanced chip manufacturing, days ahead of a visit to China by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

The proposed restriction is seen as a means to close a significant loophole. National-security analysts have warned that Chinese AI companies might have bypassed the current export controls rules by using cloud services.

These services allow customers to gain powerful computing capabilities without purchasing advanced equipment—including chips—on the control list, such as the A100 chips by American technology company Nvidia NVDA 0.26%increase; green up pointing triangle.

“If any Chinese company wanted access to Nvidia A100, they could do that from any cloud service provider. That’s totally legal,” said Emily Weinstein, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

The Commerce Department is expected to unveil the action within the coming weeks as part of an expansion of its semiconductor export control policy implemented in October, the people said.

The Commerce Department declined to comment.

The ban on cloud services would be the latest in a series of tit-for-tat actions between Washington and Beijing over semiconductors and other advanced technologies.

Concerned about China’s advancement in artificial-intelligence technologies and their military applications, the Biden administration is stepping up efforts to limit transfers of chips and other products and services to Chinese companies.

China has struck back, including banning some firms from buying products from Micron Technology, the largest memory-chip maker in the U.S.

Yellen has said she is hoping to arrest a downward spiral in relations, as U.S. officials worry that China could cut off access to key goods such as components to electric-vehicle batteries. In China, meanwhile, officials contend the U.S. is seeking to hobble China’s economic development.

Weinstein said that as an alternative to blacklisting certain types of chips in cloud service, the administration could also restrict U.S. cloud companies from offering services to users linked to military, security or intelligence services in China and other countries of concern.

The new policy would expand the reach of the export control policy to a new set of companies beyond the semiconductor and equipment makers. Among U.S. cloud-service providers, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft’s Azure are expected to be the most affected because of their existing presence in the Chinese market.

Neither Microsoft nor Amazon had any immediate comment on the potential action.

In October, the Biden administration unveiled restrictions to curb exports of advanced chips and equipment, but hasn’t codified them in final rules. In the coming weeks, the final and upgraded regulations are expected to be issued, including expanding the scope of restrictions on artificial-intelligence chips made by Nvidia and other chip makers. The new cloud-computing rule will be part of that effort.

As part of the update, the U.S. is also expected to unify the list of controlled chip-making equipment with the Netherlands and Japan. On Friday, the Dutch government published formal rules requiring its companies to seek government permission before they can sell some types of chip-making equipment abroad.

Under the rule announced by the U.S. last year, U.S. chip makers are required to obtain a license from the Commerce Department to export certain chips used in advanced artificial-intelligence calculations and supercomputing that are used in modern weapons systems.

Outside of the export control regime, U.S. officials and lawmakers have also been considering implementing steps to curb U.S. operations of Chinese cloud-service providers such as Alibaba and Tencent.

Ofgem tells energy suppliers to put financial stability before dividends

Utilities warned to ‘behave responsibly’ and ensure they are properly capitalised

Britain’s energy regulator has warned suppliers not to pay dividends unless they are financially stable, as it seeks to avoid a repeat of last year’s energy crisis.

Jonathan Brearley, the chief executive of Ofgem, has written to company bosses warning them to “behave responsibly” as the price pressures ease in the wholesale energy markets.

The intervention came after Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, urged regulators last week to make sure businesses were passing cost cuts on to consumers, in an effort to address the mounting cost of living crisis.

In an open letter to energy supplier bosses on Tuesday, Brearley told them that they should “reciprocate” the support given to the sector by taxpayers over the past year.

The government stepped in last October to subsidise rising energy bills after wholesale prices surged in the months before and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, costing an estimated £27bn.

The energy crisis led to the collapse of 30 suppliers, with households having to pick up the cost of transferring affected customers to other companies, which added a further £94 to domestic energy bills last year.

As suppliers failed Ofgem was widely criticised for failing to monitor the sector effectively, having allowed dozens of poorly capitalised suppliers to enter the market to boost competition.

It has since taken a tougher approach to financial resilience, including new capital requirements, though critics believe it should go further.

The regulator’s warning came as energy prices are falling.

From the start of July, the energy price cap, which normally governs the amount paid for gas and electricity bills for typical usage, fell to £2,074 per year, its lowest level since April 2022.

However, the lower level still remains well above the pre-crisis average of almost £1,150 meaning many families will still struggle to pay their bills.

The latest price cap level includes allowances for a slightly higher profit margin for retailers, from 1.9 per cent to 2.4 per cent. The increase, which Ofgem argued was needed to boost financial resilience, is expected to add about £10 to average annual bills from October.

In the letter, Brearley acknowledged it was important to have an “energy sector where companies can make a reasonable profit” to ensure a sustainable, competitive market.

But he warned that “a return to the practices we saw before the energy crisis isn’t on the table — suppliers must reciprocate the support the sector was given by consumers and taxpayers when wholesale prices increased by behaving responsibly as prices fall and profits return”, adding: “I expect no return to paying out dividends before a supplier has met those essential capital requirements.”

The letter did not mention individual suppliers by name. Following last year’s market rout, the market is concentrated in the hands of large suppliers, such as British Gas, owned by Centrica, as well as EDF, Octopus Energy and Ovo.

The letter echoed a similar one from Ofgem in May that warned suppliers that any dividend payments had to be “within an appropriately responsible framework”.

Energy UK, the industry trade group, said: “It’s right that the regulator ensures the financial resilience of companies operating in the retail market. It should be noted that in withstanding the energy crisis and an extended period of unprecedented volatility, those suppliers still operating have already demonstrated resilience and financial responsibility.

“The energy industry will continue to work closely with Ofgem and the government to ensure a sustainable retail sector over the long term.”

Billionaire hedge fund manager claimed firm misadvised him over investment in Tyneside enterprise zone

Hedge fund manager Chris Rokos has reached a settlement with Deloitte over claims he received bad advice on a failed investment scheme that left him with a £40mn tax bill.

The billionaire had sued the Big Four firm in London’s High Court, alleging Deloitte was in breach of its duties when it advised him on an enterprise zone investment 14 years ago in north-east England.

Legal records show the court last month approved a so-called Tomlin order, which is used to settle disputes. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. It also covered law firm McDermott Will & Emery, which was named as a co-defendant in the suit that Rokos filed in 2020.

The case had been expected to go to trial last month, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The enterprise zone in Tyneside was one of several such schemes — championed initially by Margaret Thatcher’s government — that offered tax breaks in return for investing in areas in need of regeneration. Under the schemes, investors were generally able to deduct from their taxable income the sum of their investment in the year it was made.

According to Rokos’s lawsuit, the hedge fund manager — whose personal fortune stands at £2bn, according to the Sunday Times Rich List — invested £100mn in the “Tyne Riverside” scheme, including £40mn of his own cash and the rest funded by a non-recourse loan. Promoters of the scheme had intended to construct a data centre on the site.

According to the claim, Rokos anticipated his investment would allow him to reduce his taxable income for the year by £100mn, resulting in a tax saving at the higher 40 per cent rate that applied at the time. As a result, he believed that even if the investment itself incurred losses, the £40mn in tax savings would allow him to mitigate them, the claim says.

However, according to the lawsuit, HM Revenue & Customs refused the tax claim and issued Rokos with a so-called accelerated payment notice — a demand to pay — in 2016. Rokos made the payment five months later. The lawsuit said Rokos might also need to pay HMRC penalties and interest.

Not only was he issued with an unexpected tax bill, but the investment itself “has also been a commercial failure”, the legal filing said. It added: “The claimant will accordingly obtain no benefit for the vast majority of the sums invested . . . and suffer significant financial loss and damage.”

Rokos is one of the most successful hedge fund managers of his generation. After stints at Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse First Boston, where he worked alongside trader Alan Howard, Rokos co-founded Brevan Howard. He then launched Rokos Capital Management in 2015, which manages about $15.5bn.

In its defence, Deloitte, the first defendant in the suit, noted Rokos was a “highly sophisticated and successful fund manager” who was able to take his own decisions about whether the proposed transaction was commercially attractive or not. He could also draw on other sources of tax expertise.

“Deloitte owed no duty to advise on the commercial aspects of the transaction,” it said in a court filing. “Insofar as any losses were caused by commercial risks coming to pass . . . [those] are matters for which the claimant is himself responsible.”

Deloitte and a spokesman for Rokos declined to comment.

MWE did not respond to requests to comment.

Geneva-based Paramount investigated about use of overseas subsidiary

Swiss authorities are probing a prominent Geneva-based oil trader’s legal arrangements to sidestep Russia sanctions, in a sign the country has begun actively policing its large commodity industry’s ties with Moscow.

The regulatory questions to Paramount, posed in April in a letter seen by the Financial Times, are one of the first known efforts by a European authority to investigate compliance with the western sanctions regime on Russian oil.

Switzerland, the world’s commodity trading capital, has mirrored EU sanctions against Moscow, placing a cap of $60 a barrel on all trade in Russian crude. But under Swiss rules, overseas subsidiaries of a local company are largely exempt if they are “legally independent”.

The provision was notably used by Geneva-based Paramount Energy & Commodities SA, founded by veteran commodities trader Niels Troost, which transferred its Russian oil trading activity to a company with a near-identical name in the United Arab Emirates last year.

That company, Dubai-based Paramount Energy & Commodities DMCC, has continued to export a crude from eastern Russia called ESPO-blend. This has consistently traded above the $60-a-barrel cap introduced by the G7 in December, the Financial Times reported in March.

Following the FT report, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the department responsible for sanctions enforcement, wrote to Paramount SA about its relationship with Paramount DMCC in the UAE, and Russian oil trading.

The sanctions were intended to allow Russian oil to continue to flow to markets outside Europe and the US, while limiting the revenue captured by the Kremlin.

Washington has even encouraged western traders to keep moving Russian oil under the price cap to limit supply disruptions.

But one result has been a massive shift in oil trading activity out of former European centres like Geneva to jurisdictions such as Dubai, which has not enforced the west’s rules.

While some traders in the UAE have chosen to comply with the price cap in order to maintain access to western services, others appear to be trading oil above the cap by using non-European shipping and financial service providers to do it.

In the April letter, SECO asked Paramount SA, among other questions, to confirm whether and at what price it had sold Russian oil since December and whether any individual holds shares — directly or indirectly — in both Paramount SA and Paramount DMCC. It also asked whether there had been any financial flows between the two companies, such as loans or dividend payments, since March 2022.

Paramount SA told the FT it had responded to SECO’s questions in full, telling the agency that the Swiss entity had ceased all transactions involving Russian oil “long before any price cap was in place”.

It said Paramount DMCC is a subsidiary of Paramount SA but stressed the companies are “separate legal entities” and “do not share directors”.

However, separate legal structures and directors do not guarantee that Swiss courts will view a subsidiary as independent and therefore beyond the purview of Swiss law, SECO told the FT in response to questions.

“Swiss authorities assess on a case-by-case basis to what extent acts committed abroad fall under Swiss jurisdiction and thus under the sanctions provisions of Switzerland,” Fabian Maienfisch, a spokesperson for the department said. “Possible points of contact with Swiss jurisdiction exist, for example, if payments or instructions are made from Switzerland,” he added.

The agency declined to respond to specific questions about Paramount.

“SECO does not comment on specific cases nor on ongoing investigations,” it said.

The Paramount case raises clear questions about the level of control exerted over foreign subsidiaries by parent companies and the reach of Switzerland’s sanctions.

It also provides an insight into some of the measures some European commodity traders have taken to protect themselves from potential sanctions breaches while continuing to trade Russian oil.

UAE corporate records, reviewed by the FT, show Paramount DMCC was registered in 2020 by a Dubai-based Swiss national François Edouard Mauron, who was the sole director and only shareholder on incorporation. Mauron transferred his shares to Paramount SA in April last year but remained a director.

Paramount SA told the FT in March that Troost, a Dutch citizen, had no role in establishing Paramount DMCC and no management role in the company.

However, a nominee agreement, signed by Troost in February 2022, described Mauron as a “nominee director” obliged to “act upon the instructions” of the shareholder, Paramount SA, in return for an annual nominee fee of CHF 350,000 ($390,000). Troost is described in the February 2022 contract, seen by the FT, as the ultimate beneficial owner of Paramount SA.

“The Nominee shall report to and consult with the Shareholder on any matter concerning the company,” it said. “In case of doubt he shall request instructions in writing.”

Paramount SA said the nominee agreement was terminated in November, one month before the price cap was introduced, to ensure Paramount DMCC met the requirements of a legally independent subsidiary under Swiss law.

That included giving “full authority” to the management of Paramount DMCC for the “development and execution of [its] international commodity trading activity”, according to minutes of a Paramount SA board meeting on November 2 2022, which the company shared with the FT.

Paramount SA added that “all payments and instructions relating to the relevant trading activities were conducted by DMCC completely independently from Paramount SA”.

Mauron told the FT he was no longer a director or manager at Paramount DMCC. He shared a letter dated May 18, 2023 identifying an Indian national as the company’s sole current director.

Chief executive wants expanded London office to become hub for global operations

United Talent Agency, one of Hollywood’s top agencies, is seeking to tap into the lucrative football market with plans for new acquisitions after expanding its office in London to act as a hub for its global operations.

UTA chief Jeremy Zimmer said the market for entertainment had become increasingly global given the rise of streaming services that were producing and selling TV and movies in different parts of the world, with the UK now a key focal point for much of its efforts to tap into different parts of the entertainment industry outside the US.

“Streaming has really globalised the business — in the rest of Europe, going into Asia and into Africa, there’s so much happening in terms of culture, media, fashion, music, sports,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.

“This is a great place to be at the centre of what’s happening around the world outside of the US [with] great opportunities to export talent to the US.”

Sports agents have become an integral part of the hugely lucrative football industry, acting as middlemen for transfer and sponsorship deals worth tens of millions of pounds. Zimmer said many of its clients were now interested in moving between different forms of entertainment — such as musicians moving into acting, or sports stars into fashion.

UTA has been on an aggressive acquisition spree in recent years, adding UK literary agency Curtis Brown in London a year ago. Next, Zimmer said, would be a move to boost its business in sports, where it already owns Klutch Sports led by Rich Paul, LeBron James’s agent, which mostly works in the NBA and NFL.

“We’re really looking to do something in sports, particularly in soccer,” said Zimmer, who had just flown into London from Stockholm where he had meetings at EQT, the private equity group that last summer became UTA’s largest minority shareholder. Zimmer and partners still control the firm.

As the agency seeks new revenues in other parts of the entertainment industry, Zimmer admitted that traditional business in Hollywood was going through a period of upheaval given a combination of internal and external “existential” dilemmas at many of the US media groups.

“Every company — some through more self-inflicted wounds, some just due to general market dynamics — has had a really rough adjustment from a stock price point of view,” he said.

“It’s now incumbent on everybody to look at the right balance of streaming, ad sales and selling their product [to rival services]. As people start to get that right, their revenue will go up, their profitability will go up. It’ll be good for the companies, which I think will also be good for our clients,” he added.

This upheaval is not limited to streaming services, Zimmer said, with many of the big studios also “going through their own existential dilemma”.

He said: “Do they go alone, try to merge or be acquired, and what is the right mix of streaming versus other distribution models? Everybody’s kind of trying to figure stuff out right now.”

This was also now affecting how much the actors and professionals employed by these studios were paid “to some degree”, he said.

“If people are making [fewer] shows there’s less work and there’s less upward price pressure,” he said. “As much as that is true, what’s also true is competition for the very best stuff is as fierce as it’s ever been.”