NY Post : TikTok reportedly monitored users who watched gay content

TikTok reportedly monitored users who watched gay content

TikTok reportedly compiled a list of users who were being monitored after they watched gay content on the app, according to former employees who protested the policy.

The popular video-sharing service kept tabs on users who frequented clips that were tagged under headings including LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender), according to The Wall Street Journal.

Former TikTok employees told The Journal that information about users’ viewing habits were compiled and stored on a dashboard.

The ex-employees based out of the company’s offices in the US, UK, and Australia said they flagged the issue to top executives in 2020 and 2021, according to The Journal.

The former employees expressed their concerns that the information would be shared with outside parties or could be used to blackmail TikTok users, The Journal reported.

Social media companies including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and others have been criticized in years past for gathering user data on their online habits for the purpose of tailoring their targeted ads.

The Post has sought comment from TikTok and its parent company, the Chinese-based multinational ByteDance.

“Safeguarding the privacy and security of people who use TikTok is one of our top priorities,” TikTok said in a statement provided to The Journal.

Last year, the prominent LGBT advocacy group GLAAD, which is an acronym for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, demanded that tech companies take steps to safeguard user data and privacy.

“This includes ceasing the practice of targeted surveillance advertising, in which companies use powerful algorithms to recommend content to users in order to maximize profit,” GLAAD said in the report.

TikTok’s handling of user data and the fear that its Chinese parent company’s ties to the ruling Communist Party in Beijing makes American users vulnerable to espionage are at the source of US lawmakers’ concerns about the app.

Calls to ban TikTok in the US have grown despite the company denying that it is providing the Chinese government with Americans’ user data.

TikTok has already been banned from government-issued phones in countries such as Canada and Australia over concerns about whether the Chinese government can access user data or influence what people see on the popular app.

TikTok said on Tuesday its head of US trust and safety, Eric Han, will depart the company on May 12.

In March, a Canadian cybersecurity firm found that TikTok’s parent company was tracking the websites of dozens of US state governments.

The Biden administration has navigated tough Republican opposition toward TikTok, as GOP lawmakers have called for a crackdown — and hit Democrats over their permissive stance on the Chinese app.

(ZH) US Bank-Run Escalates: Deposit Outflows Top $360 Billion In Last 3 Weeks

US Bank-Run Escalates: Deposit Outflows Top $360 Billion In Last 3 Weeks

The bank run continues to accelerate...
...especially if one looks at non-seasonally-adjusted data.
Crucially that is over 360 billion of deposit outflows from US banks in the last 3 weeks.
And here is the source data:
SA:
NSA:
How much of this tax related, and how much is a bank run, and how does the Fed know which is which?
Sure, some of this is tax outflows, but the Fed is just using a historical seasonal adjustment factor AS IF there is no bank run which is traditionally the case...
* * *
After yesterday's massive money market inflows, expectations are that tonight's data from The Fed's H.8 report will show major deposit outflows from US commercial banks (despite today's exuberant bounce in some regional bank shares). Bear in mind, as we detailed yesterday, that The Fed's emergency bank rescue facility usage remains extremely high and has shown now signs at all of easing...
Source: Bloomberg
On a seasonally-adjusted basis, total US Commercial Bank deposits fell $12.5 billion during the week ended 4/26...
Source: Bloomberg
However, on a seasonally adjusted basis, US commercial bank deposits (ex-large time deposits) increased last week (during the week-ending 4/26), rising $10.92 billion...
Source: Bloomberg
On a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, US commercial bank deposits (ex-large time deposits) tumbled again, down $113 billion (also at its lowest since April 2021)...
Source: Bloomberg
That is over $360 billion in outflows in the last 3 weeks... but but but SVB fixed everything?
And judging by yesterday's money market inflows, the deposit outflows continued this week (remember, despoist data is lagged a week to money market and Fed balance sheet data)...
Source: Bloomberg
Large and Small banks saw very modest inflows (on a seasonally adjusted basis) but foreign banks saw large outflows...
Source: Bloomberg
Foreign banks saw the biggest weekly outflows since 6/30/2021...
  • Large Banks +$10.3 billion
  • Small Banks +$584 million
  • Foreign Banks -$22.14 billion
Source: Bloomberg
However, what really matters is the non-seasonally-adjusted data which saw major outflows across small, large, and foreign banks...
Source: Bloomberg
In context, the bank run is escalating...
On the other side of the ledger, Commercial bank lending rose $41.6 billion in the week ended April 26 after increasing $12.4 billion the prior week, according to seasonally adjusted data.
Small bank lending exploded higher to $30.6 billion...
Small Bank Weekly Change:
  • Small Bank C&I Loans: +$1.1BN
  • Small Bank Real Estate Loans: +$20.6BN
  • Small Bank Consumer Loans: +$5.3BN
  • Small Bank All other Loans and Leases: +$3.7BN
Anyone else wonder how and to whom the small banks lent that much in CRE loans? Money good?
Large Bank Weekly Change:
  • Large Bank C&I Loans: -$0.4BN
  • Large bank Real Estate Loans: -$1.7BN
  • Large Bank Consumer Loans: +$4.4BN
  • Large Bank All other Loans and Leases: +$7.4BN
Despite today's bounce, it was another ugly week for bank stocks(big and small)...
Source: Bloomberg
So you still believe the banking crisis over?
Finally, we remind readers, this data does not include this week's potential problems (as the deposit and loan data is lagged by a week).

FT : COP28 team marshals oil and gas industry alliance ahead of climate summit

COP28 team marshals oil and gas industry alliance ahead of climate summit
Goals outlined in initiating letter do not address most damaging emissions

A new alliance of the oil and gas sector is being marshalled by the COP28 team behind the UN climate summit in the United Arab Emirates, but early outlines of its goals aimed at tackling global warming do not include the bulk of emissions that arise from the use of fossil fuels.

Billed as a flagship COP28 initiative, the provisionally named Global Decarbonization Alliance will set a goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 from direct emissions and emissions derived from the energy the companies purchase, known as scope 1 and 2, an initiating letter seen by the Financial Times says.

However, the framework as it is outlined in the letter does not include a target for so-called scope 3 emissions, or the indirect emissions that make up by far the biggest proportion of the sector’s pollution.

The central question of these emissions was addressed by Sultan al-Jaber, president-designate of COP28 and head of the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, in a speech to the CERAWeek energy conference in March.

He told the gathering that the oil and gas industry “has the capacity and the resources to help everyone address scope 3 emissions”. The sector “needs to up its game, do more and do it faster”.

Companies responsible for just under half of global oil and gas production have individually announced plans or targets to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions, “only a fraction” of which were sufficiently ambitious, according to the International Energy Agency.

“It’s hard to see much decarbonisation in the Global Decarbonization Alliance,” said Thomas Hale, director of the independent research group Net Zero Tracker, adding that any “credible” oil and gas COP initiative must address scope 3 emissions.

“The UAE as an oil and gas producer has a major opportunity to be the transformative force to bring together the whole industry to take this challenge seriously.”

A private workshop is expected to take place next week in the UAE where the alliance and provisional framework will be discussed.

COP28 said it would not comment on leaked documents.

The recent letter outlining the goals was addressed to COP industry partners and sent by Samir Elshihabi, COP28 energy transition lead, who has worked at Occidental Petroleum in Abu Dhabi. “We aim to reach net zero emissions (Scope 1 and 2) under our control, and work with partners to achieve the same in non-operated assets, by or before 2050,” it said.

While it does not include reference to a quantifiable target for scope 3 emissions, it says that supporters of the planned alliance will be asked to back an “ambition” to work with customers, partners and other energy intensive industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It does set out progressive targets for methane in upstream production. Methane is the main component of gas and a potent contributor to global warming that can leak during production and distribution. It is estimated to account for about 30 per cent of the global temperature rise since the industrial revolution, with the energy industry making up about a third of human-induced methane.

The letter proposed a goal to end all routine flaring, where gas produced during oil production is burnt off rather than collected.

“We aim for zero routine flaring and near-zero methane emissions by 2030 on our upstream operations,” it said, without making reference to methane in midstream or pipeline operations.

The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, launched in 2014, which is backed by Saudi Aramco, BP, ExxonMobil and other big oil and gas companies, already has a similar stated target of zero methane emissions.

The UAE-backed initiative includes the proposal that oil and gas companies in the alliance should aim to measure, verify and report their progress on cutting emissions and investment plans on how to do so, initially focused on 2030.

The petrostate has consistently said it wants to bring fossil fuel producers into the heart of efforts to tackle climate change.

At the Petersberg climate talks in Germany in the past week, attended by more than 40 country representatives, Jaber said fossil fuels would “continue to play a role in the foreseeable future”, and emphasised the use of carbon capture and storage to collect emissions from highly polluting industries, a technology yet to be proven at scale.

An official summary of the talks from Berlin said there had been “much debate” among the representatives about the extent to which carbon capture and storage should be deployed in the energy sector. “Caution” was voiced by some about “the cost, unclear timescales, potential to delay the transition, and environmental impacts” of pairing CCS with fossil fuels, it said.

In discussions about increasing renewable energy, “some” countries had stressed the need to “substitute” fossil fuels for clean sources of power, the summary noted.

The Daily Beast : Have you heard about the ‘other wall’ in the Cold War?

Have you heard about the ‘other wall’ in the Cold War?


Gorizia, a small city on the Italy-Slovenia border, is one of the most interesting places in Europe: a late-Habsburgian netherworld, peppered with Balkan eccentricity that has somehow smuggled its way into Italy, pizza and all. It’s fabulously weird, intriguingly beautiful, and home to some of Europe’s quirkiest footnotes. In 1947, the city was divided between Italy and Yugoslavia – a Solomonic judgment that left a Cold War border running through houses, streets, cemeteries and – most evocatively – a square called Piazza Transalpina. This was the “other wall” in the Cold War – and one that remains surprisingly little known.

The Yugoslav side gradually grew into a new settlement called Nova Gorica, now Slovenia’s ninth-largest city. The two were reunited in 2004 when the barrier on Piazza Transalpina, “the last wall dividing East and West”, was symbolically torn down.

Of course, unlike Berlin, these are technically still two different cities belonging to two different states, but it makes sense to think of them as a single unit – and not just for historical reasons. Today, the border is largely invisible (often the only indication you’ve switched countries is the language on road signs) and both states use the Euro as their currency. Many people will live in one country and work or send their kids to school in the other. When Slovenia chose Nova Gorica as its candidate for European Capital of Culture 2025, it made perfect sense for them to invite Gorizia along for the ride. The success of their joint bid can be seen as a vindication of their (post)historical model, and a tribute to the Schengen Agreement, now in its twenty-eighth year, which has made the dream of a borderless Europe possible.

Alex Sakalis

At Piazza Transalpina – today a peaceful square with a line in the ground to denote the otherwise indiscernible border – I meet up with David Kožuh, a local tour guide. The Slovene half of the square is dominated by the majestic Nova Gorica railway station, inaugurated by Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1906. As well as hopping on a train to perennial favorites, Lakes Bohinj and Bled, the station also hosts the State Border exhibition, one of a number of “museums on the border” which have sprung up in Nova Gorica in the past few years.

“The Yugoslavs were the first to enter Gorizia,” David tells me. “They occupied the city for 40 days before withdrawing. For Slovenes, this was 40 days of freedom. For Italians, it was 40 days of hell. This is one of a number of places where the historical record must bend a little to account for different points of view.”

Gorizia was a puzzle. The city was mostly Italian, but with a large Slovene minority, which became a majority as the city petered out towards its semi-rural suburbs and hilltop villages. Both Italy and Yugoslavia felt Gorizia was rightly theirs. How to solve this?
Alex Sakalis

Enter the Inter-Allied Commission, composed of experts from the Big Four Allies. They arrived in Gorizia on 3 March 1946 and had one day (yes, one day) to decide on the border. The result was suitably Solomonic: Italy got around 80% of the urban population and the lion’s share of the centro storico. Yugoslavia got the railway station and nearly all of Gorizia’s eastern hinterland, areas that were sparsely populated but strategically valuable, including the valleys of the Isonzo and Vipava rivers and most of the hills. The border treaty was signed in February 1947 and the following weeks were a flurry of migrations as people vaulted sides before an iron curtain would come crashing down.

The rushed nature of the border created several anomalies. One Italian farmer woke up to discover his stables were now in Yugoslavia and that he needed to cross the border several times a day just to check on his animals. But the most egregious example came in the village of Miren, 4km south of Gorizia. Here the border wall went straight through the cemetery, chopping graves in half. Not even the dead were spared from Cold War geopolitics.

Alex Sakalis

How could this have happened?
“You must imagine that the millimeter line of a fountain pen on a map is equal to about 200 meters on the ground,” says David. “So some irregularities were inevitable. When the soldiers tasked with marking out the border realized it passed through a cemetery which had been overlooked, they just shrugged and built through it. Getting the border demarcated as quickly as possible was the objective.”

These border aberrations remained in place until 1975, when they were resolved through minor land swaps. All of Miren cemetery is now within Slovenia. The Italian farmer got his stables put back in Italy.

The most interesting – and fun – of the border museums is situated in an old customs office. The Smuggling Museum is a patchwork of different exhibits which commemorate (and somewhat celebrate) the illegal cross-border trade in Gorizia during the Cold War.

This may have been Europe’s other wall, but that’s where the comparisons with Berlin end. There were no death strips, no shoot-on-sight orders, and no sense of imprisonment. As the Berlin Wall was going up in the early 1960s, relations between Italy and Yugoslavia were thawing, and the Gorizia Wall, constructed 14 years earlier, was starting to waver. This is reflected in the museum’s exhibit, which presents the history of smuggling here in a playful, at times almost comical manner.

“Those who lived near the border were given special permits allowing them to cross easily and more often,” says David. “And virtually everyone became involved in smuggling.”

Yugoslavs were particularly excited about Italian jeans, usually sending the skinniest person to buy five pairs, wear them simultaneously, and then waddle like a penguin back across the border. Such farcical situations were to avoid bans or taxes on importing, which varied depending on the political climate. Smuggling also produced a new form of currency: coffee.


Alex Sakalis

“Yugoslavia only imported a tiny amount of coffee,” says David. “And it was terrible, almost undrinkable. So coffee became one of the most desired Italian products.”

For 500 grams of coffee, Italians could get 30 Slovenian eggs, 2kg of Slovenian meat or 3 liters of Slovenian spirits. 60 kg of coffee was enough to buy you a Volkswagen Golf. “Many Slovenes paid for their weddings with coffee,” says David.

For their part, Italians were going to Yugoslavia to smuggle back cigarettes (half the price), Cuban cigars and rum (difficult to acquire west of the wall) and meat, which was considered better quality than in Italy (and much cheaper too). This last one still goes on today, much to the chagrin of Italian butchers.

The contraband was hidden in all sorts of places: in or under clothes, in cars or bikes, anywhere a customs officer might not look. But locals soon discovered a loophole: male border guards were not legally allowed to touch women. Lookouts would wait for the female border guard to leave her shift and then give a signal, at which point dozens of women would swarm the border, their clothes concealing all kinds of contraband. The male border guards, unable to properly search the women and overwhelmed by their numbers, would reluctantly let them cross.

But the museum saves the best for last: a specially designed escape room, set in the old interrogation office, where you play the role of a smuggler who has 30 minutes to escape before the border guard returns.

“This is something we devised at the tail end of 2020,” says David. “We wanted to add some kind of game for groups to play, so they could treat the museum as a fun day out.” The escape room is available in Italian, Slovenian and English, and the museum asks you give them 3 days’ notice if you’d like to play it.
Alex Sakalis

After lunch at a charming local place called Madonca, I walk into Italy to check out old Gorizia. It’s an attractive and likable place, surrounded by dense, foggy hills draped in vineyards and crowned by fortified villages that give it the air of a slightly moodier Tuscany. Its position at the convergence of the Latin, Germanic, and Slavic worlds has contributed to its ambiguous, multicultural atmosphere, something reflected in its eclectic architecture, culture and cuisine, which are unlike anywhere else I’ve visited.

It's also full of bizarre Euro-subplots. Who knew, for instance, that Charles X, the penultimate King of France, is buried at Kostanjevica Monastery in Nova Gorica? The last of the Bourbon monarchs ended up here following the 1830 July Revolution, given refuge by the Austrian Emperor. He died of cholera a few years later and was entombed with his family in the crypt of the monastery, becoming the only French king buried outside of France. As control of the monastery passed from Austria to Italy to Yugoslavia to Slovenia, the French have repeatedly asked for the return of the body–but to no avail. It remains here in Nova Gorica as one of Europe’s most curious easter eggs.

The next day, I found myself drawn back to Piazza Transalpina. It exerted a strange pull on me and there was something about it which kept lingering on my mind. Does any square in Europe symbolize the continent’s history more than this one? In the space of a century, it has seen the collapse of empires, the rise of nation states, fascism, war, division and finally unity. Can it tell us something about where Europe is heading next?

At the square I see two young women playing around on the border line, taking selfies of themselves with a foot in each country. They introduce themselves as students from Spain, doing their semester abroad at the nearby University of Trieste.

The Information : Sequoia Capital’s Mighty Struggle

Sequoia Capital’s Mighty Struggle
Year one of Roelof Botha’s tenure as ‘senior steward’ has been remarkably stormy, marked by billions in devalued investments, a Twitter bet gone haywire and a rising cold war over its stake in ByteDance.

One day in March, Sequoia Capital assembled a show of force: a private summit on artificial intelligence hosted at the firm’s airy offices in San Francisco’s Mission District. Around 100 people gathered—a who’s who of tech’s hottest sector, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman; Kevin Scott, Microsoft’s chief technology officer; and Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, a two-year-old generative AI startup recently valued at $4.1 billion.

Roelof Botha, who took over running Sequoia as its “senior steward” (Sequoia-speak for CEO) nearly a year ago, played the role of grinning host, mingling freely in the crowd as partners Sonya Huang, Konstantine Buhler and Pat Grady acted as onstage emcees. With a sweet smell drifting up from the Dandelion Chocolate factory below, a Q&A between Altman and Sequoia partner Alfred Lin anchored the morning’s schedule, followed later that afternoon by a conversation between Lin and Nvidia’s decabillionaire CEO Jensen Huang, clad in his trademark leather jacket. Several startups, including Scenario, a generative AI company offering technology for game developers, gave short demos between the longer sessions, hoping to impress the moguls in attendance. “The energy, the optimism—you could feel it,” said Scenario co-founder and CEO Emmanuel de Maistre.

Those are exactly the vibes Botha and his fellow Sequoia partners want to emanate right now: energy and optimism—business as usual for a firm that has become legendary in Silicon Valley for its unflappable culture and its early investments in Atari, Apple, Electronic Arts and Google. Aiming to prolong the firm’s 51-year run atop venture capital, Botha has set dealmakers Lin, Huang, Grady, Buhler, Stephanie Zhan and others at Sequoia on an aggressive hunt for AI startups. Already the firm has completed roughly 10 AI deals in 2023, a haul that has not been previously reported. These deals include buzzy names like Harvey (AI for lawyers) and LangChain (AI for developers).

Publicly, Botha, 49, is working hard to make it seem like little has changed during the past year. Shortly after the summit, Unity Technologies CEO John Riccitiello met with the Sequoia chief on a sunny Saturday afternoon at Botha’s Los Altos Hills, Calif., estate to discuss AI plans for the videogame software company. (Sequoia initially invested in Unity back in 2009 and still owns shares in the now-public company.) “In the world of AI, you can say you’ve got a plan, but if you’re not paying attention, the world turns itself over every 48 hours,” said Riccitiello. He was pleased to get 90 minutes with Botha, who has “less time than he used to” since taking command at Sequoia.

Despite his efforts to keep up appearances for the company, Botha can’t escape the reality of the situation. As conversations with three dozen people closely connected to him or Sequoia reveal, the past year has exposed the storied firm and its new leader to unprecedented levels of tumult. Falling equity markets have wiped away billions in value from Sequoia’s public portfolio, a decline that comes after a poorly timed, Botha-led change to Sequoia’s fund structure allowing it to hold public stocks longer.


Private markets, meanwhile, have forced even Sequoia’s bluest-chip portfolio companies to accept drastically lower valuations; Stripe’s price tag, for instance, was recently almost halved to $50 billion. Then there’s the $200 million or so gone from the FTX implosion; the $800 million the firm stunningly gambled on Elon Musk’s Twitter, now worth less than half that amount; and the $20 billion-plus stake in ByteDance held by Sequoia Capital China—a paper fortune endangered by a threatened U.S. ban on ByteDance’s highest-profile property, TikTok.

Those who can catch the spotlight-shy Botha in a private setting concede that circumstances are weighing on him. Phil Libin, who has led two companies that have received Sequoia dollars—Evernote and Mmhmm—has watched his longtime friend grow “more serious” over the past year. “He’s got a difficult job,” said the CEO. “He took over right at a time when everything’s not great.”


Until the last 12 months or so, Botha had experienced a remarkably smooth climb to Sequoia’s summit. He joined the firm in 2003—departing from his post as PayPal’s chief financial officer—and had his first major win when he led an investment in YouTube in 2005, shortly after its founding. From 2009 to 2012, he followed up that score with investments in future unicorns Unity, EventBrite, Block (then called Square), Instagram and MongoDB, a database provider. Botha steadily moved up Sequoia’s ranks: He was co-leading the firm’s U.S. venture team by 2009, then named steward of Sequoia’s U.S. and European businesses in 2017, a designation Sequoia reserves for its highest-ranking executives.

Throughout his ascent, Botha cultivated a low profile. “He just wants to keep his head down—do his work, deal with his investments. He doesn’t want any notoriety,” said David Viniar, a former Goldman Sachs CFO who served with Botha on Block’s board of directors. (True to character, Botha declined multiple requests to comment for this story.)

In track record if not in temperament, Botha bore a clear resemblance to his former bosses at Sequoia, billionaires Mike Moritz and Doug Leone. Having succeeded Sequoia founder Don Valentine in the mid-’90s, the duo invested in many of the firms that defined technology over the last two decades: LinkedIn, Stripe, Yahoo and Zappos, among others. They also made an early foray into China ahead of most in Silicon Valley, tapping Neil Shen—co-founder and chief financial officer of Chinese travel site Ctrip, who was then little known outside the country—to set up Sequoia Capital China in 2005. Shen smartly steered Sequoia into more blockbuster investments, including Meituan Dianping, an on-demand services app; Pinduoduo, an e-commerce outfit; and, most pivotally, ByteDance.

Last year, with Sequoia’s U.S. assets valued at $85 billion, Leone, backed by the Sequoia partnership, said he would pass the top job on to Botha. For a brief moment, all seemed rosy. Leone had completed an undramatic handoff to the long-tenured, long-groomed Botha, a rare act of successful third-generation succession planning. Several Sequoia portfolio companies (DoorDash, Unity and Brazilian fintech company Nubank, among others) had just completed initial public offerings; more portfolio standouts, including Stripe, Reddit and Instacart, looked primed for an exit. And U.S. lawmakers had seemingly moved on from President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban ByteDance’s TikTok in 2020, an effort that threatened to strangle Sequoia’s golden goose.

But things have gone south ever since. With inflation high and interest rates soaring, the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped more than 30% in 2022, bringing startup valuations crashing down and blocking the path toward public offerings for Stripe and the others—the worst macroeconomic environment for VC since the Great Recession. The downturn on top of the cash distributed to its limited partners has sunk the value of Sequoia’s assets over the nine months ended in March by 38% to $53.2 billion, according to the firm’s financial filings. This means the value of the firm’s assets are now roughly the same size as those of its younger rival, Andreessen Horowitz. Sequoia returned more than $15 billion to its LPs over the last three years, the firm’s spokesperson said.

Sequoia now faces multiple problems of its own making—some directly tied to Botha’s leadership, some not. The firm’s highest-profile crypto bet, Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX, evaporated overnight last November amid fraud allegations against Bankman-Fried—“a toe-curling embarrassment” for Sequoia, according to Sebastian Mallaby, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future.” The nine-digit wager on Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition has fared poorly, too, with Musk’s own estimate of the company’s value spiraling down more than 50% in the past six months.

A greater detonation could soon emanate from Washington, where lawmakers appear to be set on a collision course with ByteDance over its ownership of TikTok, perceived by members of both parties as a national security threat. Thick storm clouds of doubt now hover over Sequoia China’s more than 10% holding in ByteDance (the stake’s current value: over $22 billion), with LPs increasingly anxious about how much the firm can expect to finally wring from its investment.

Botha’s response to this annus horribilis has been in keeping with his decades of soaking in the Sequoia Way: Stay calm and project strength. He has continued to voice support for his longtime friend Musk and the firm told LPs in a letter that the growth fund backing FTX had actually seen roughly $7.5 billion in “realized and unrealized profits” despite the doomed crypto investment. On the whole, he has maintained a familiar talking point, insisting that Sequoia must hold firm to its long-term investing horizon. “There’s a temptation when you become a leader to change for the sake of change,” he said in October at a Wall Street Journal conference. “I don’t think there’s much we need to change.”

But while Botha publicly projects an air of calm, behind the scenes change may indeed be afoot—especially as it pertains to the firm’s investments in China. In an active acknowledgment of the geopolitical tightrope it is walking, Sequoia last year decided to hire Beacon Global Strategies, a well-connected Washington consultancy, to advise it on China-related issues, The Information first reported last week.

Whether Botha will admit it or not, the firm has encountered what Sequoia executives like to refer to as a “crucible moment.” In a 52-slide presentation first reported by The Information last May, Botha and other firm leaders warned portfolio founders about the headwinds they would likely soon be facing. “This is not a time to panic,” they intoned. “It is a time to pause and reassess.” But soon the situation would only darken further.


The great expectations for running Sequoia must feel like a familiar type of inheritance to Botha. He was born into a prominent South African family, the grandson of Roelof “Pik” Botha, a high-ranking minister in the country’s government for almost 20 years, from apartheid into Nelson Mandela’s presidency. His mother was a teenager when he was born, and his grandparents helped raise him in Pretoria, South Africa’s administrative capital.

Botha had his grandfather’s name but longed to move away from his shadow. Looking for a degree in a field that might have “portability” (his phrase) overseas, Botha studied actuarial science at the University of Cape Town, which also gave him a chance to hone his English after growing up speaking Afrikaans.

Later, Botha started a master’s degree in options pricing—“I thought I’d end up on Wall Street,” he told podcaster Tim Ferriss—but didn’t complete it, instead taking a job as a McKinsey consultant for a couple years before heading to America for a Stanford University MBA. He liked America’s distance from South Africa. “Part of why I came here was to not be someone’s grandson but to just be me,” he said in 2007.

At Stanford, he impressed Garth Saloner, an economics professor and fellow South African. “Even in a class of smart people he stands out,” said Saloner, who today holds a Stanford professorship named after Botha and his wife. “Roelof would just sit back and listen, and when things were very confused, he would finally put up his hand and just nail it.”

In 1999, while Botha was still an MBA student, a friend introduced him to Elon Musk, a fellow South African. The two hit it off, and Musk offered him a job at the company Musk was trying to get off the ground: PayPal. Botha ended up joining part-time just before finishing his degree.

While most PayPal employees wore T-shirts and flip-flops, Botha, then as now, was more buttoned-up, opting for a polo shirt and jeans, a former PayPal colleague recalled. He appeared reserved in other instances, too: When the company developed a boisterous social scene centered around Musk and his first wife, Justine, Botha never seemed interested in joining it, that colleague said.

A year after PayPal’s IPO in 2002, Botha departed for Sequoia, where he promptly plied his connections. A trio of ex-PayPal staff had a hot startup—YouTube—and Botha guided the firm into a seed investment, a year before Google bought the video service for $1.65 billion, an enormous sum for an internet company after the dot-com bubble. A thin stretch of years followed without any comparable wins for Botha—his lowest moment perhaps being his botched chance to invest in Twitter. The period left him struggling to “come to grips” with VC’s low hit rate, a factor “that really eats at your self-confidence,” he recalled in an interview with Protocol last year. “I nearly quit the business.”

Still, he had already impressed his Sequoia higher-ups. When Doug Leone sensed Botha’s confidence had slipped, he showed up at Botha’s home with a jar of homemade pesto sauce, a gesture Leone hoped would show his faith in the young investor. “That’s part of the beauty of this business,” Botha told Protocol. “Even though you could make big mistakes, there’s another at-bat tomorrow.”

Botha soon rebounded, leading Sequoia’s investments in Instagram, Block and MongoDB and established the firm’s much-coveted scouting program, in which Sequoia provides capital to a network of portfolio founders and other people connected to the firm who identify potential investments. This was how Sequoia invested in Uber around 2010—about a year after the ride-hailing app’s start.

While Botha maintained a close relationship with the avuncular Leone, his management style tended to more closely resemble that of the soft-spoken Mike Moritz. “Everyone waited for the thing [Moritz] was going to say in the board meeting. Roelof is the same,” said Ian Small, former CEO of Evernote, which Botha backed in 2010. “He doesn’t say a lot, and when he says something he’s not saying it when it first comes into his head.”

Botha’s tight-lipped nature could be read in other ways, though, and a half-dozen people all separately used the same word to describe him: intimidating. “I’ve observed people who were totally easy to talk to—super eloquent—get in front of Roelof and all of a sudden they’re bumbling and stumbling over their words,” said Colleen Cutcliffe, CEO and co-founder of Pendulum Therapeutics. (Botha led Sequoia’s investment in Pendulum in 2017 and remains a board director.) On several occasions, he has criticized potential Pendulum hires for violating his pet peeve: “Too talkative,” Cutcliffe said.

In the past, Botha has struggled to present himself well in public-speaking engagements, like TechCrunch’s Crunchies Awards around a decade ago. “I remember him being pretty nervous ahead of time,” recalled Libin, who wrote some jokes for Botha to tell onstage at the event. They fell flat. “It was just crickets, like maybe people didn’t realize that there was a joke in there or something.”

Internally, Sequoia sought to bolster its rising star’s profile with “pages and pages” of notes to improve his performance in TV interviews, according to one person who saw the firm’s media-training plan for Botha. Overall, the notes advised him to “pretend to be interested in the other person—try to appear as a human being,” the person said. They then clarified that Botha’s “not a bad guy,” just not someone “you’re dying to go have a beer with.”

While he didn’t sparkle with the same charisma as his bosses, Botha had little trouble connecting with Silicon Valley’s wonkish founders. He established a fluency in the industry’s “dolphin talk,” the person said, “where they squeak at each other in a language that they all understand.”

As Botha worked his connections for deals and rose up Sequoia’s ranks, he had a formidable rival seated at Leone’s other elbow: Shen, head of Sequoia China. Throughout the 2010s, Shen had amassed a stellar run, culminating in 2018, when Sequoia China saw 17 portfolio companies go public, including Meituan and Pinduoduo. Although Sequoia has maintained a profit-sharing arrangement with its China arm, Shen ran his shop with almost total autonomy from the U.S., according to a former high-ranking Sequoia executive. U.S.-based partners like Botha didn’t “have a desire to delve deeply into Neil’s ecosystem,” the person said.

Given Shen’s performance, outside observers thought he might pull ahead of Botha in the race to succeed Leone, The Information reported in 2018. However, internally the contest’s outcome had already been made clear when partner Jim Goetz turned management duties of Sequoia’s U.S. and European business over to Botha in 2017, several ex-Sequoia partners and staffers said. And even if Shen once had a chance, it likely dwindled as the U.S. relationship with China chilled during the Trump administration. The two countries have grown even more adversarial in the following years, their tensions epitomized by the increasingly bipartisan criticism alleging that one of Shen’s top investments—ByteDance—peddles little more than Chinese government spyware. Lawmakers’ suspicions had only deepened after Beijing took a board seat and stock in a key ByteDance entity in 2020, The Information previously reported.

Sure enough, Leone officially handed the top job to Botha last July. Further down Sand Hill Road, Barry Schuler, the former AOL CEO turned investor who met Botha while serving on Unity’s board, found himself nodding in approval at Sequoia’s choice. Botha “has a strong stomach and a good temperament,” said Schuler, who’s now a DFJ Growth managing director. These are all good qualities to have when you undertake a “very important job,” he said, “at a tumultuous time.”


As the tumult has unfolded around Botha since last summer, he has tried to maintain his studied air of steadfastness. In some instances, though, the extraordinary times have pushed him to make small concessions and changes—mostly in private—to Sequoia’s business.

The tempest arrived first in the form of a former colleague, Musk, who needed help funding his $44 billion takeover of Twitter last fall. Sequoia gamely handed Musk $800 million across several of its funds—one of the firm’s largest investments to date. But the deal has quickly proven nightmarish, as advertising revenues plummeted and the company halved its internal valuation.

Sequoia’s LPs were concerned not only by the sheer size of the firm’s investment, but also by its choice not to insist on a director’s seat, according to one LP. In fact, despite writing Musk a massive check, Sequoia hasn’t been actively involved in Twitter’s chaotic reorganization process in the months since, according to a fellow Twitter investor.

While Botha has carefully maintained his distance from the Twitter mess, he couldn’t do the same with FTX. When the crypto exchange failed last fall, prompting Sequoia to write down its stake to zero, Botha knew LPs would want more from him than the usual talking points for crisis communications. So in his fourth month at the helm, he gathered LPs for a conference call and issued a rare apology about the situation Sequoia found itself in. Some LPs remained unsettled about what other shoes might drop in crypto, but Sequoia further assuaged their fears by lowering management fees for its $600 million crypto fund. A Sequoia spokesperson said the firm “voluntarily changed fees” for its crypto fund “in light of the pace of investing following the market correction.”

Over the past year, some LPs have been privately grumbling about the new flagship Sequoia Capital Fund’s strategy to hold public equities for longer, which had sounded more appealing when the fund debuted in October 2021 near the apex of a seemingly invincible bull market, according to one LP. Sequoia in March also allowed investors in the fund to break its two-year lockup rule and withdraw some capital early, according to a Sequoia spokesperson. The firm was cognizant that the broad equities downturn had led to a liquidity crunch among LPs, the person said. The move got LPs some money when they needed it and bought Botha some breathing room with his investors.

With China, Botha faces another high-wire act. Sequoia has made at least one quiet shift to its China strategy by hiring Beacon, the deeply connected Washington consultancy, to advise it on geopolitical issues. Sequoia’s core concerns include the U.S. government’s rapidly shifting views on tech investment in China, as the Biden administration reportedly readies an executive order to limit U.S. investments in the country.

Neil Shen, managing partner of Sequoia Capital China, pictured last November. Photo Bryan van der Beek/Bloomberg
Still, Botha doesn’t seem poised to hasten a retreat out of China. Partly that’s because Shen still calls many of the shots there. “I don’t think Roelof can pick up the phone and tell Neil to do anything,” said a former Sequoia executive. Sequoia Capital China, that person added, “might as well be called Neil Shen Capital.” But a hasty withdrawal from China would also be entirely out of character for Botha, who is the living embodiment of Sequoia’s evergreen philosophy.

Tellingly, even in the face of Twitter’s stumbles, FTX’s failure, public equities in freefall and looming doubts regarding ByteDance, Sequoia isn’t facing an exodus of LPs or anything resembling an internal revolt. This, perhaps, is why Sequoia tapped a partner like Botha to lead the firm in the first place. The institution has built a reputation over the last half-century for being both far-looking and indefatigable; its leader must be made of the same stuff.

“He’s the right steward for the moment,” said Antonio Gracias, founder of Valor Equity Partners and a fellow investor in Musk’s Twitter. “This is the time when you want someone who can separate emotion from logic and fact.”

Vice : What We Know—and Don't Know—About Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein

What We Know—and Don't Know—About Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein
Basic questions remain unanswered years after ties between the two were first revealed.

Four years after the relationship between Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein was first made public, surprisingly little is known about it, largely because Gates and his public-relations team have consistently refused to answer basic questions, concealed information, and said things that aren’t exactly true. Gates has expressed exasperation at being asked questions about Epstein, claiming to have answered them “for the hundredth time,” but never has said how many times the two met, or when. And because much of what he has said has proved to be, at best, misleading, his explanations of the nature of the relationship lack credibility.


All of this has had paradoxical effects on the public’s understanding of the relationship between the one-time world’s wealthiest man and the now-deceased child sex trafficker who was mysteriously close to some of the world’s most powerful people, including former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. A sort of version of Gresham’s Law has been at play, with bad information driving out good. Everyone already knows about Gates and Epstein, even if much of what they know—such as the claim, which periodically goes viral, that Gates visited Epstein’s private island dozens of times—isn’t actually true. This means that genuinely new information, such as that contained in a Wall Street Journal story published this week, doesn’t have quite the impact it might. Gates’ strategy of obfuscation has left him closely associated with the infamous criminal, but also created confusion that diminishes the power of new revelations.


The effect of all this is that the public remains in the dark about the nature of the close association between one of the world’s most powerful men and the financier who sexually exploited dozens of children, which began after Epstein had already been convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution, in 2008, and served just over a year in prison. (Later, the sweetheart deal he obtained from prosecutors would be revealed by the Miami Herald, and a series of reports would lay out the cottage industry that sprang up around Epstein systematically paying off and silencing his victims.)

The Journal’s story is based on calendars the paper’s reporters obtained, and documents one day—September 8, 2014—on which Epstein had arranged to meet with several powerful figures in New York. Among them was Gates, with whom he was scheduled to spend six hours spread across meetings with four different people at four different locations, including Epstein’s townhouse. It also documents four additional days on which Epstein and Gates were, according to Epstein’s calendar, scheduled to meet, at least three of which appear to have been previously unknown. This is extremely significant because it substantially increases the amount of specific, known meetings between the two, and shows that they were meeting on specific dates late into 2014—after, in fact, the relationship had caused conflict between Gates and his then wife, Melinda French Gates, which would ultimately end in their divorce.


“As Bill has said many times before,” a spokesperson told the Journal, “it was a mistake to have ever met with him and he deeply regrets it.” This is the line Gates has gone with for years. To understand just how inadequate an explanation it is requires understanding what we definitely know about his relationship with Epstein, and how we know it.

In August 2019, four days after Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell, CNBC reported that Gates and Epstein had “spoke[n] more than once” and met at least once, in New York, in 2013, after which Gates, according to “people with knowledge of the matter,” flew to Palm Beach on Epstein’s private plane. A spokesperson told the network “Epstein never provided tax, estate or services of any kind to Bill Gates.”

A bit more than two weeks later, Franceinfo reported that according to Epstein’s handyman, Gates and French Gates had been guests at Epstein’s luxury apartment on Avenue Foch in Paris.


“Any hint of a business or personal relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Bill and Melinda Gates,” a spokesperson told the outlet, “is totally false."

Around this time, the Wall Street Journal interviewed Gates, who was promoting a Netflix documentary about himself. Asked to describe his relationship with Epstein, Gates said, “I met him. I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him. I didn’t go to New Mexico or Florida or Palm Beach or any of that.”

A week after that, on September 6, 2019, the New Yorker published a report about the relationship between Epstein and the MIT Media Lab. In October 2014, Gates had donated $2 million to the lab; an email from director Joi Ito the magazine obtained said, “This is a $2M gift from Bill Gates directed by Jeffrey Epstein.” A spokesperson told the magazine that “any claim that Epstein directed any programmatic or personal grantmaking for Bill Gates is completely false.”

Several days later, the Journal interview, which took place before the New Yorker broke the MIT story, was published, carrying a statement from a Gates spokesperson: “Although Epstein pursued Bill Gates aggressively, any account of a business partnership or personal relationship between the two is simply not true. And any claim that Epstein directed any programmatic or personal grantmaking for Bill Gates is completely false.”


On October 12, 2019, the New York Times published what was and remains the most in-depth examination of the relationship between the software tycoon and the criminal.

“Mr. Gates met with Mr. Epstein on numerous occasions,” the Times reported, “including at least three times at Mr. Epstein’s palatial Manhattan townhouse, and at least once staying late into the night.” According to the paper, the two men were introduced by Boris Nikolic, the science adviser for Gates’ multi-billion dollar foundation. The report identified three distinct occasions in 2011 on which the two had met—a party in January at Epstein’s townhouse; a conference in March in Long Beach, California; and a get-together in May, again at Epstein’s townhouse, where they were surrounded by the likes of Nikolic and former Treasury secretary Larry Summers—as well as one occasion in September 2013, when the two met for dinner in New York. It also identified an occasion in March 2013 when Gates flew to Palm Beach on Epstein’s private airplane from New Jersey, though it wasn’t clear if this was the same 2013 flight on which CNBC had reported.


“Bill Gates regrets ever meeting with Epstein and recognizes it was an error in judgment to do so,” Bridgitt Arnold, a spokesperson for Gates, told the Times. She asserted that her client, who had spent decades as the richest or one of the richest men in the world and had the security apparatus of a head of state, had flown on Epstein’s private plane without knowing whose it was. She would not say how many times the two had met.

As of October 2019, then, despite the various carefully-phrased denials of a business or personal relationship he made and that were made on his behalf, reports, which Gates did not dispute, documented at least five distinct meetings between him and Epstein over a period of nearly three years, four in New York and one in Long Beach. It had also been reported that Gates had flown on Epstein’s private plane and visited his Paris apartment.

This all amounted to solid evidence of a substantial relationship of some kind between the two men—and as the person closest to Gates was aware, there was more the public didn’t know.

When the Times published its investigation into the relationship, the Wall Street Journal would report years later, Melinda French Gates held calls with divorce lawyers. One issue that led her to want to end the marriage, the paper reported—accurately, as she confirmed last year in an interview with CBS—was her husband’s relationship with Epstein. She was also aware of another meeting between the two men, in September 2013, which hadn’t been made public and wouldn’t be until the Daily Beast reported it in 2021. She knew about it because she had been at it and, according to the Beast, “soon after said she was furious at the relationship.”

“I wanted to see who this man was, and I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door,” she told CBS. “I had nightmares about it afterwards.”

Two years ago, the Daily Beast reported that Gates and Epstein had in fact met dozens of times, into 2014, and that Epstein had counseled Gates on his struggling marriage. “Your characterization of his meetings with Epstein and others about philanthropy is inaccurate,” a spokesperson told the Beast.

While it’s possible this review inadvertently omits other information, all of this together amounts to about what we knew about the relationship between Gates and Epstein before the Journal published its story this week. We knew they had met at least six times between 2011 and 2013 and perhaps as many as dozens of times as late as 2014; that the relationship played a key role in precipitating Gates’ divorce; and that Gates denied there was any business or personal relationship between him and Epstein before extensive documentation of the relationship caused him to shift to simply expressing regret for meeting with Epstein in an attempt to secure billions of dollars for global public-health projects.

The Journal’s reporting establishes that the two were regularly meeting later than had previously been specifically documented, including in the months leading up to the $2 million gift to MIT Media Lab that MIT’s internal records show as having been “directed” by Epstein. (Due to opaque labeling of a graphic, it’s not clear if the earliest meeting documented in the calendars was in September 2013, and if so whether it’s one of the two meetings that month that was previously reported on, so it isn’t clear exactly how many new meetings were revealed.)

In the years since his ties to Epstein were first reported on, Gates has repeatedly addressed them in public. In 2019, at a DealBook conference, he described the relationship as “a mistake in judgment.” In 2021, he told CNN ““It was a huge mistake to spend time with him.” This year, he told Australia’s ABC “I shouldn’t have had dinners with him” and expressed exasperation at having to answer questions about the subject for “the hundredth time.”

There are many open questions about the exact nature of the relationship between Gates and Epstein. Saying so doesn't imply that the answers must be untoward, or that Gates’ explanation that he met with Epstein to discuss philanthropy and ended the relationship after it became clear that continued dialogue would prove fruitless is untrue. Given the Journal’s reporting this week, though, the most basic and easily answered questions, which Gates could address with one number and two dates, seem more important than ever: How many times did he meet Jeffrey Epstein, and when did he do so for the first and last time? It can’t be a surprise that in the absence of such basic information, conspiracy theories, some ridiculous and some less so, would thrive.

Business Of Fashion : Why Fashion Is Becoming a Major Flashpoint in US-China Ten

Why Fashion Is Becoming a Major Flashpoint in US-China Tensions
This week, US lawmakers ratcheted up pressure on some of the industry’s biggest names as the relationship between Beijing and Washington continues to deteriorate.

For decades, Chinese manufacturing has underpinned America’s apparel industry. But those once vital trade links are increasingly becoming a liability.

This week, US lawmakers queried whether some of the world’s largest clothing brands are complying with a 2022 ban on imports of products that could be linked to Xinjiang, where a substantial proportion of the world’s cotton is grown, and the Chinese government is accused of conducting a campaign of detention and forced labour against Uighur Muslims and other ethnic minorities.

Sportswear giants Nike and Adidas and Chinese-owned ultra-fast-fashion e-tailers Shein and Temu were all sent letters from Congress’s House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party asking for detailed information on the steps they’ve taken to ensure their supply chains are free from links to Uighur forced labour.

That wasn’t the only front where fashion was caught in the crosshairs this week. On Monday, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers called for the Securities and Exchange Commission to verify Shein does not use forced labour before allowing the company to go ahead with reported plans for a US IPO this year. US lawmakers have previously raised concerns that Shein and Temu are exploiting trade loopholes, violating intellectual property rights and exposing consumers to hazardous products.

Shein said it has no suppliers in the Xinjiang region and that it takes a zero-tolerance approach to forced labour. Most of its cotton comes from the US, India, Brazil and Australia, according to the company. Nike, Adidas and Temu did not respond to requests for comment.

The moves illustrate how fallout from the deteriorating political relationship between the two countries is expanding across trade and business. So far, concerns about data security have meant Chinese-owned tech giants have faced the biggest squeeze in the US — most recently with moves to ban TikTok. But Shein and Temu’s explosive growth in the American market and fashion’s extensive and opaque links to Chinese manufacturing have drawn the sector deeper into the fray.

Meanwhile in China — where the government has consistently denied the use of forced labour — many consumers are either unaware of Western reports on Xinjiang due to censorship, or don’t believe them because Beijing’s state-run media outlets deem them to be anti-China propaganda. The perception of bias has fuelled the market for domestic brands at the expense of international competitors, often stoked by Chinese officials and influential celebrities who have cut ties with “disrespectful” brands.

For its part, the Chinese government has cracked down on international companies involved in corporate due diligence, a service that has become increasingly critical for Western companies looking to continue working with Chinese supply chains.

A Risky Business

For fashion brands there is no neat way to guard against the shifting political currents.

Shein and PDD Holdings, which owns Temu, have sought to build more international profiles, shifting their headquarters to Singapore and Ireland respectively. Shein has also ratcheted up spending on lobbying in Washington and building out its international supply chain. But it remains the focus of heavy criticism and scrutiny. In March, an anonymous coalition known as “Shut Down Shein” launched a campaign against the company in DC and with the American public.

Many Western brands have already made moves to seek out new suppliers and invest in new risk management tools, from blockchain-based traceability platforms to DNA markers to identify the origination of materials like cotton. “Friend-shoring” — moving manufacturing to politically friendly countries — is gaining currency as a new industry buzzword.

But fashion’s supply chains are deeply entrenched in China and most brands have limited visibility over where raw materials like cotton come from. In a sign of just how complicated the challenge is, most of the apparel and footwear shipments held up in the second quarter under the US ban on imports from Xinjiang came from Vietnam, where a large volume of garments are sewn using Chinese cotton.

At the same time, major brands including Adidas and H&M are still fighting to regain their standing in China’s hugely important market after Western regulators’ initial crackdown on Xinjiang cotton prompted a consumer backlash.

It’s too soon to say how this all shakes out for the industry, but pressure is only likely to increase with US-China tensions continuing to rise and more Western markets considering moves that would tamp down on products seen to be linked to forced labour.

Business Of Fashion : Smartwatches No Longer a Threat to Pricey Swiss Timepieces

Smartwatches No Longer a Threat to Pricey Swiss Timepieces, Morgan Stanley Says

Sales of smartwatches, including Apple’s top-selling version, have plateaued and are no longer a significant threat to the pricier end of the Swiss watch industry, according to Morgan Stanley.

That’s because the Swiss watch sector has significantly refocused on higher-end products over the past decade, boosting prices of the best timepieces to offset an overall decline in volumes, analysts led by Edouard Aubin said in a report.

When the Apple Watch launched in 2015, it was viewed as an existential threat to an industry which couldn’t compete with the range of health and wellness features that smartwatches can offer.

Smartwatches are still outselling the Swiss watch market by a wide margin, with Apple selling more during one quarter than the Swiss industry does in a year. Yet volumes are starting to decline for the first time since the launch of the Apple Watch, with smartwatch unit sales down 17 percent year-over-year in the fourth quarter and Apple units falling 16 percent.

“Overall, going forward we think the incremental negative impact of smartwatches on the Swiss watches industry will now be relatively immaterial, with the exception of some brands such as Tissot, Rado,” the Morgan Stanley analysts said.

Compound annual growth rate in the Swiss watch industry is likely to gradually converge toward about 7 percent in time, mirroring the personal luxury goods sector, they added.

The industry enjoyed its best year ever in 2022 by value, driven by a renaissance in demand for mechanical timepieces, particularly in the US, with overall exports climbing by 11.8 percent to 24.8 billion Swiss francs ($28 billion)

Morgan Stanley expects Swiss watch export volumes to rise by as many as 1 million units this year, though the majority of the increase will come from the Swatch Group’s MoonSwatch — the highly successful collaboration — between the Omega and Swatch brands. Morgan Stanley expects about 1.8 million MoonSwatches to be sold in 2023, up from 1 million in 2022.

Now priced at about 270 Swiss francs, the MoonSwatch is breaking the cycle of declining volumes for cheaper, quartz-driven Swiss watches.

While the number of mechanical watches exported is down by 2.1 million units since 2014, the contraction of quartz watches is far more severe. There were 10.7 million fewer Swiss quartz watches exported in 2022 compared to 2014, Morgan Stanley estimates.