You know, there's certainly people who say, oh, like, you know, I never use that website or, you know, I'm not downloading that app. I say off it. And I think people don't realize or maybe unaware that even if you're not using sheen or T-move, they've probably changed the way that you're shopping.
I'm Ricky Mulvey and that's Timothy McLaughlin, a contributing writer for The Atlantic who's got a story titled, The Mysterious Meteoric Rise of Sheen. Sheen is a fast fashion company that's taken off in the US, selling long sleeve t-shirts for $7 and jeans for under 20 bucks. The website is packed with flash sales and offers that almost sound too good to be true. And even if you haven't shopped there, Sheen has changed the landscape for online commerce. Even Amazon has launched a competitive offering.
My colleague Mary Long caught up with McLaughlin to talk about his reporting and the questions surrounding this mysterious company.
So you wrote an article that was published in the Atlantic a couple of months ago about the mysterious and meteoric rise of Xi'in. As company started in 2012, though, there are some sources that cite actually 2008 as the founding date. Today, over a decade later, little is still noted about the company, especially its financials. It is privately held. But it's estimated that, okay, this is a company that brings in over $30 billion in revenue, over $2 billion in profits. Its latest valuation said that the company was worth more than $60 billion.
Tell us about this meteoric rise. How did she get its start and how did it get to be the behemoth that it is today?
So what we do know from the reporting that I did, that many other people have done on the company, Chinese language media, about its early start is that Chris Hsu, the founder, who also goes by a few other names, originally worked in search engine optimization and kind of used those skills that he had after graduating from university to start some smallish kind of e-commerce websites.
Now, there was two other founders at the time. And this part of the history, I think, is a bit kind of fuzzy because two of the other founders who used to speak to the media have now stopped talking to the media. So there is some of their telling of what happened out there. But in short, they said that Chris took the company that they built together that was selling products online and kind of seized the company that they had worked to kind of build up.
And he took control of kind of the company accounts, locked them out of the office, and then kind of continued on and ended up building the company into what it is today. I think one of the key things is that at first, this was essentially kind of dropshipping sort of. They were just selling products from other companies, only sort of later on, dig in and pursue, start making their own products under their own brand and selling them. And so there are
A few still sort of spots where it's unclear kind of exactly what happened. That's because the founder has, to my knowledge, never given an interview about kind of how this started. Now they cite the company as having three other founders. We do know that the three other quote unquote founders are
The four people kind of make up the core members of the team that they all handle sort of different aspects of the company. One of them has talked a little bit to the media. The other three kind of remain a bit of a mystery. You know, I think Chris, you, there are, as I pointed out, my story, photos that
It purport to be him out there. They're not him. They're a photo from a professor at Cornell University who told me that he regularly gets emails from people complaining about products, wanted to talk to him about the website. He's actually an extremely accomplished professor at Cornell. I think he works in biomechanical engineering. He's won a heap of awards. He has nothing to do with the website.
you can even if listeners are interested, you can look at the Wall Street Journal story that calls them kind of like the most anonymous CEO in the world. And notice that there's no photo with that picture, with that story, it's illustrated. And I spoke to the illustrator in Brazil, and he was provided photos from the newspaper of Chris Hsu to base those drawings off of. But there's no actual photo of him that ran with the story. So I think they go to great lengths to kind of
keep him, I guess, out of the spotlight under wraps. There's a huge debate, or there was a huge debate on the internet in China, of where he went to university is where he really said he went to university because there are photos of him at graduation. Some people think he's standing in front of buildings at a different university rather than one that he said. So yeah, there's a huge amount of speculation, of intrigue, of rumors floating around about him. And I think a lot of that is because he's just exceedingly
low-key and kind of under the radar. Like I said, there's not even really a good photo of him out there on the internet at the moment. There's this obvious juxtaposition to be made because at least in the US, right, but elsewhere as well, we can venerate like tech CEOs. And why, especially with that in mind, why is it that do you think that Chu chooses to keep
such a low profile to call it a low profile is also a bit of an understatement, like to remain so deeply anonymous.
I think part of it is the political climate in China right now. We've seen financiers, tech entrepreneurs, high-flying individuals in the business world in China didn't slap down pretty hard by the government. Jack Ma, I think is probably the one that most people know, sort of vanished from the scene for a while during the crackdown on the tech sector in China a couple years back. That's not, I guess,
common that these people sort of kind of go off the radar for a while, whether the, you know, what the state's involvement in that is, I think is difficult to know. But I think there is now a desire to stay pretty low key. I think, you know, the age of wanting to be the high flying Chinese executive wanting to be kind of on the billionaire list or things like that. I think people would much rather avoid all of that because there are, there is a lot of attention that comes with that.
We do know from other reporting on the company that the Chinese government is interested in what they're doing, but they do keep tabs. I don't want to say keep tabs, but they're certainly watching what the company does given its size and the attention that's attracted, especially again, because of the geopolitical climate.
I think that there is a desire to stay very low key. I think that leads into the reason why the company is in Singapore. They go to great lengths to present themselves as a Singaporean company, even though we know most of the productions in China, most of the sales are happening outside of China.
You know, again, something that has become sort of a trend in the past couple of years, probably again, people mostly know by dance, TikTok, moving their headquarters here and talking about being a Singaporean company, Singapore washing a term that some of the more hawkish people in DC use for the practice now. I think all of that is wanting to sort of stay off the political radar, continue business as usual without, you know, stepping on the toes of the state.
Shein is certainly sits at the intersection of lots of different geopolitical issues, and I want to touch more on those a bit down the line. But it also sits at the intersection of the conversation about fast fashion. That said, it is not the world's first fast fashion company. Before Shein came onto the scene, when did fashion first become fast?
Certainly the brands that people would be aware of, that kind of get mentioned is the first generation of this would be like H&M, I think would come to mind, Primark for British consumers, Zara, that sort of first wave, I think that people are aware of.
And I think what she did is obviously the difference, one of the major differences, they don't have brick and mortar operations. It's all online, which is hugely beneficial during the pandemic. They were not shuttering places, paying rent, laying off employees, because they were all online. In that moment, it was very helpful to their business. So I think those are sort of the first, or not first, but maybe the ones that people are familiar with. I think the argument that people will make is that she and kind of
when from fast fashion to hyper fast fashion or ultra fast fashion is something that some people use to kind of describe it. I don't think people have settled on a term just quite yet, but certainly something I guess new and faster as you mentioned in the intro there, the number of products that they're producing of designs that they're putting out hugely exceeds those kind of, you know, more traditional fast fashion brands that people might be aware of.
And how exactly is she unable to take fast fashion from fast to hyper fast and beat even Zara and H&M at this fast fashion game?
Right. So I guess I touched on this a little bit of the intro, you know, a bit of it is still unknown. They talk about and they have offered or begin to offer up their technology to other companies. They announced that a few months back, it is still, I think, a challenge to know exactly kind of what's going on, but we do know sort of the basics.
I think the basics are that they are producing much smaller batches of products than traditional fast fashion. They don't do runs of 10,000 items. They're producing a couple hundreds of items spread across
dozens and dozens and dozens of really small producers, primarily in Shenzhen in China. And what that does is it allows them to keep down their overhead and their warehousing fees. And I think those are two things that are very important in the fashion industry. When you have an excess of clothes, two things happen. Not only, say you make a t-shirt, it's terrible. The style doesn't really catch on. You have 10,000 pieces of clothing.
you have the issue of one, you have to pay to store it, takes up space where you could be storing other stuff. Two, you might end up selling that at an end of your sale at like a huge discount. So what Sheen's argument is, is that they produce smaller batches and they can do this because of again, a sort of unknown tech advances that they've made that allow them to sort of predict or guess a little bit of what people's styles or trends might be based on shopping data and things like that. And then they can make smaller runs.
which saves them money, ultimately saves the consumer money and gets the products out to the market faster. And there are certainly questions around where a lot of the artwork and designs are coming from. You know, the company is facing, I mean, I haven't checked recently, but any given time, dozens and dozens of lawsuits over copyright issues, you know, taking artists, drawings or designs, slapping them on t-shirts, on phone cases, on things like that.
Generally, what happens in those situations is that the company settles them, pays out the artists, and kind of moves along. We do know from reporting from Wired magazine that I cited in my piece, they just cost them quite a bit of money, and that they are certainly concerned from a monetary standpoint about it. There are, again, questions on how far they're going to regulate it.
You know, there are, like I said, a lot of cases playing out now. And I should say these are not just like independent artists. They've been involved in lawsuits with tons of brands that people probably know, Oakley, Stucy, the list kind of Doc Martin, you know, the list kind of goes on and on and on and on. And so that is also, I think kind of a big issue with the company that people have been looking at.
I want to focus on this technology piece because it kind of sounds like that is in some ways Sheehan's secret sauce. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that Sheehan would start selling its supply chain technology to other brands. If that is a part of Sheehan's secret sauce, why sell it out to potential competitors or existing competitors?
A couple of things. We do know there are Chinese security companies and other companies in China that have gotten a better look. I think what's going on here, there's some interesting pieces in Chinese language media about how this all works. We do know that they're hoovering up a huge amount of data when you're on the website.
What you're clicking on how long you're hovering above items and this goes for the app as well right because the app I think is really important to mention because that's kind of like where this all started and I think the app is, is if we're talking about the tech, not not the production side but the consumer side, you know, I think I do think you know the app is an interesting one to look at because it is really sort of.
Gamified the shopping experience, you know, there is a lot of interactive stuff. It is kind of keeping you on the app for a while. And it's like part social media, part shopping, part kind of community discussion on fashion. So it is, I think, a very interesting product that they have there on the phone in terms of the production side.
Yes, the technology and kind of the design center and how they go about kind of producing the stuff. They have started, according to the journal report that you mentioned, though we haven't seen anything, I guess more news on who's taking them up on that. You know, I think there are looking for ways to diversify and they're looking for ways
new ways to make money off of what they have besides just selling the clothes. I think that offers a good opportunity to them. I think that story, and I asked questions about this, again, sort of murky on the extent of what it would be, what exactly it would look like, what companies would have access to, if any of the companies have taken up on that.
I think it's an interesting story. I'm interested to see if there's, you know, follow up or further reporting on kind of like what this all means, you know, because that story was out there. Then we haven't seen much about it kind of sense that when we think about these hyper fast fashion retailers, she kind of plays in the same space as Taimu. And now Amazon is breaking into this space as well. They recently launched Amazon Hall. All three of these sites kind of offer the same idea. Anything you want for
what's effectively pennies or something close to it, right? Interestingly, like the site wide strategy also seems pretty similar. You bombard people with options, emojis, offerings, like all these glittery sparkly things. So they can't really process what's going on. Obviously price is something that brings a person to any of these sites. But what if all three of these are kind of playing the same game and trying to beat each other out
in a game of pennies, and there's so much stuff to choose from. Why is one consumer going to one site over another? Do any of these actually have a moat or a differentiator that distinguishes them from the others in the game?
Yeah. So I think you pointed out something good there. You're very interesting with, you know, Amazon, the halls. People, when I was writing this story, you know, there's certainly people who say, oh, like, you know, I never use that website or, you know, I'm not downloading that app. I say off it. And I think people don't realize, or maybe unaware that even if you're not using sheen or team, they've probably changed the way that you're shopping.
because they are forcing competitors like Amazon to change the way that they're presenting products and bringing them to the market and selling them to consumers. So people could say, oh, I don't use that or this or that it 100% is impacting the way people shop and the way websites work, e-commerce, even if you're not using it, because they have become so successful and they've done so well that they are
forcing the traditional big players like Amazon to adapt and change the way that they're serving customers and also the way that they're dealing with their sellers on their own platforms. So in terms of what's different,
There isn't a huge amount of difference at this point. You know, I think we see for many shoppers the disappearance of brand loyalty, you know, that doesn't seem to matter that much anymore, right? Is the cheapest price, whether it's kind of like from Amazon basics or from kind of an unbranded sheen or just a sheen brand or teamu brand. It doesn't, on certain items, people simply just
seem to no longer care if it's from a brand they've heard of or, you know, like a pack of white t-shirts, whether it's just kind of the cheapest price point possible. I think that what Amazon is likely going for is familiarity. You know, people obviously in the United States very, very familiar with it.
people certainly younger generation more familiar with, you know, Sheen and Timu, it's growing. But, you know, I think that they are hoping Amazon's certainly hoping that people who are already on the website are that are using it for, you know, groceries or, you know, prime deliveries or streaming that they can then, you know, reel those people in with the same sort of cheap options on clothing and other items that are available on the other websites already.
So yeah, I think it's an interesting space to watch to see how the competition continues. Sheen obviously exploded huge, but also seems to be struggling in terms of we see its valuation that has dropped from around 100 million.
down to 66, down to 50, I mean, billion, not million. And so there's been a slide there. There's questions over there listing when that or if that's going to happen. So yeah, I think it's interesting to watch how the three of them kind of compete into space going forward. Once upon a time, Sheen was eyeing an IPO in the US. That idea has kind of died. What happened to that plan?
Yeah, I mean, so for the past at least I think three years, there has been stories that have been leaked or floated that the IPO is coming really soon. It's right around the corner. Now we are definitely in the back half of 2024. We do know that the latest target would be in the UK for a London listing.
Yes, the US was certainly originally the intended location from the reporting that's out there. That didn't happen. I think for a number of reasons, there's just a huge amount of scrutiny on the company in the US. Also, there's scrutiny from the company in China and from authorities there because the production and their most employment continues to happen there that gives the Chinese government a
a level of control over the company and where it can go. So now for the past year-ish or half-year, at least the reporting and the talk has been of the listing in London. Like I said, obviously we're almost into December here and that hasn't happened yet. So I think people are watching that. There has also been floated by people in the kind of financial journalism world that they could always return closer to home and head to Hong Kong. Certainly a city that is
Looking for big listings at the moment that's looking for some good financial economic news, that would be a splash you get for Hong Kong. It would certainly kind of play into Hong Kong's current plan of trying to integrate itself more with the mainland and with the mainland market. That one is just speculation. London seems to be the spot for now.
But yeah, I think a lot of waiting and seeing if and when this thing is going to happen. The company did take on a lot of funding from some big firms who one would assume at some point would like to see returns on the investment that they made. Some of them as early as almost 10 years ago now.
definitely a lot of eyes watching where they go. For London, some people have asked why there. I think the stock market there is in pretty bad shape. It would be a big boom for the UK to get a big listing like this. The IPO would probably be very, very large. It would also maybe help the current, the new government of the UK show that they are willing to do business with China and be a little bit more accommodating on the geopolitical front there.
And we talked about how Xi'an kind of sits at the intersection of not just the fast fashion world, but also kind of right in the middle of a lot of hot geopolitical issues. One of those issues that I didn't fully realize until reading your story is about this loophole in import taxes and import duties that Xi'an gets to pay. So maybe you can walk us through this a bit. What is the Day Minimus clause and how is that relevant to the Xi'an story?
Yes, I should have mentioned to Minimus earlier, it is a piece of legislation or law rather in the United States that I think very few people really paid attention to except sort of trade walks and maybe some people in the freight import export business until very recently because of the connections to China.
What it allows for is for packages, small packages to come into the United States if their value is below $800 is the threshold right now. They are subject to very little inspection entering the United States and they are free from paying taxes and tariffs on those packages.
So with a website like Sheen, where many of the items, as you said earlier, cost a few cents or a couple dollars, you can obviously order a lot of stuff and the company can ship it into the United States with very limited oversight and also avoiding paying taxes and tariffs on the items that are coming in.
Critics call it, you know, a loophole. It was much lower until the Obama administration. It was part of a larger trade package that went through, you know, Congress was signed into law by Barack Obama that raised the threshold. It used to be $200. It raised it up to 800. The feeling at the time was that the countries on the U.S. border, Mexico, and
Canada would also do this. It would facilitate kind of easier trade and it would also allow Americans to travel abroad and bring back gifts and things like that without declaring them and going through paperwork. I should also say there was a huge amount of lobbying to get the number raised to 800 and even higher in some cases by shipping companies like FedEx who obviously benefit from the increased volume of packages that would be moving between, you know, into the United States.
It's sat at $800 for a long time. I don't think a lot of people really, like I said, I think trade blocks and some other people were kind of interested in it. It became a massive issue really kind of during the pandemic when people were at home shopping online a lot and we see this just huge uptick in packages that are coming into the United States using the Dimitimous law. And so they're coming in
this year, probably over a billion packages entering the United States. And that caught the attention of a lot of lawmakers, again, given the tensions and the situation with China, asking, are these companies kind of paying their fair share? I think that
bit of it has been going on for a while now. There's been a lot of legislation that's been introduced, not a lot of it really moved for various reasons. There are big, you know, business groups, again, express shippers who would like to see this stay. Now, I think what happened and why were all of a sudden seeing a lot more movement on it. We saw the White House address it yesterday, the U.S. economic and securities on China, like the commission talked about it as well. I think what has happened
is lawmakers and people who are critics of this have started linking it to the fentanyl trade and saying that, hey, this is how fentanyl is getting into the United States from China. They're bringing in either the product itself or the chemicals to make it is coming in through this means. When you link it to that and then you start having victims' families come and testify and talk to Congress and stuff, now suddenly there's a huge amount of interest in kind of
What is this and how can we change it? So I think for the past couple of years, it's been sitting there. There's been a lot of talk about it. It's gotten a lot of attention. It hasn't really moved. Now all of a sudden, I think we're going to start seeing some changes because of, again, the geopolitical climate and linking this to something that's like very serious. And by the way, this is by no means saying that Timu, Jean, that anyone of these companies are involved in any way in the drug trade. I'm just saying that this is, I think, how lawmakers who are
against this and critics of it have found a much more sort of emotional and motive way to lobby on changing it, and that's gotten a lot more attention. And so I think that we will see, you know, we already saw Biden announce some changes to it, you know, who knows what the Trump administration, how that will go, but certainly seems to be a ton of
cross-party support for doing something to change this, that would be a big blow for Sheen and Timu. Although they're already sort of pivoting, I would point people if they hadn't read it to the rest of a world story that came out I think this week or last week about using family warehouses, which are essentially houses of Chinese immigrants living in the United States and kind of housing the packages there before they go out to shipment.
The other issue here is that a lot of companies are shipping the products from China to Mexico or Canada, where they break the packages up into smaller pieces, then bringing them into the United States. We see, again, lawmakers calling for some regulation on that, on other sides of the border. Certainly an issue that I don't think is going away, again, because it's being linked to fentanyl and the drug trade with China, I think it's going to see some changes coming up at some point.
You've got this newer emotional side to it being brought up. But also in June 2023, just to put some numbers behind it, and you cite these numbers in your reporting, the House Select Committee on the CCP found that in 2022, GAP paid $700 million in import duties. H&M paid $205 million. Xi'an and Taimu paid nothing.
So we've already heard, you know, you mentioned, I don't know what the Trump administration is going to do. We've heard a lot about tariffs recently. I can imagine that certainly being a sticking point moving forward. Tim McLaughlin, thanks so much for the time. Thanks so much for your reporting on this company. Though I'm sure parts of it were frustrating because it is indeed so mysterious. But thanks for coming on and spending some time with us on Motleyful Money. Really appreciate having you here. Yeah, thanks so much. I appreciate it.
We've got a link to Tim's story in the show notes if you want to check it out. As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against small fire cell stocks based solely on what you hear. While personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and are not approved by advertisers, Motley Fool only picks products that it would personally recommend to friends like you. I'm Ricky Mulvey, thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.
