CNA938 Rewind - GO-GENIE CEO's Travels to China
In 'Destination Anywhere', Melanie Oliveiro discovers the China travel adventures of Ang Ming Cong, CEO and co-founder of GO-GENIE, a Singapore logistics tech start-up. Ang recalls his sojourns to Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong province, and his experiences walking along the vibrant Shangxiajiu Pedestrian. He'll then describe exploring the Southern city of Guilin by taking the 4-5 hour Li River Cruise. In Zhejiang's capital city Hangzhou, Ang will talk about Lingyin Temple, the city's oldest and most famous temple. Ang will also talk about how GO-GENIE's proprietary AI-powered platform is transforming logistics.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
31 minutes ago
- Business Times
Evergrande to delist in milestone for China housing crisis
[HONG KONG] China Evergrande Group said that its Hong Kong stock will be delisted, marking the end of an era for the former high-flying developer whose demise came to symbolise the country's property bust. The Guangzhou-based company said that the stock exchange has decided to cancel its listing, according to a filing to the Hong Kong bourse on Tuesday (Aug 12). The shares will be removed on Aug 25 and the company will not apply for a review of the exchange's decision, it added. Evergrande's collapse was by far the biggest in a crisis that dragged down China's economic growth and led to a record spate of distress among builders. The company, which first defaulted on a US dollar bond in December 2021, was once the country's largest developer by sales, and was worth more than US$50 billion in 2017 at its peak. In a separate filing on Tuesday, court-appointed liquidators said that Evergrande's debt load is far bigger than earlier estimated, and any 'holistic' restructuring is out of reach. The clock started ticking for the delisting in late January last year, when Evergrande received a liquidation order from a Hong Kong court and trading of its shares was suspended. It has remained halted since then, having failed to meet requirements for a resumption of trading. In Hong Kong, a stock can be delisted if suspension lasts 18 months or longer. The move will further diminish hopes for any recovery for Evergrande's shareholders, who have seen the value of their investment evaporate in recent years. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Tuesday, 12 pm Property Insights Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond. Sign Up Sign Up Shares of Evergrande last traded at less than 20 Hong Kong cents on Jan 29, 2024, giving it a market value of HK$2.2 billion (S$360 million). The stock has had a low free float, with its founder Hui Ka Yan, owning a roughly 60 per cent stake. 'Whether or not there's a delisting, Evergrande's shareholders will likely have to prepare for near-total loss,' Kristy Hung, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst, said before the announcement. 'The developer's liquidation and substantial claims from creditors who are ahead in the order suggests equity holders face a material risk of getting nothing.' Delisting risks Several other Chinese developers face similar delisting risks, according to the latest tally by the bourse. They include mid-sized builders Modern Land (China), which has been suspended for more than 16 months, and Dexin China Holdings, which received a liquidation order in June last year. To resume trading, some of them will have to file more updated audited results, have winding-up petitions withdrawn or dismissed, or have any liquidators discharged. 'The golden era of real estate is gone,' said Glen Ho, Asia-Pacific contingency planning and insolvency leader at Deloitte. 'The business model for builders has totally changed.' Evergrande still has two other units listed in Hong Kong, a property service provider and an electric vehicle maker. China Evergrande New Energy Vehicle Group, which has been suspended since April, could be delisted, Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Andrew Chan and Daniel Fan wrote in a recent note. Following its 2009 listing under the ticker 3333, Evergrande rose to become one of China's hottest stocks in its heyday, powering founder and chairman Hui to become Asia's second-richest person. Much of Hui's known wealth was derived from his controlling stake in Evergrande and the cash dividends he received from the company. Beijing's crackdown on the property sector since 2020 capped the developer's borrowing capacity, effectively cutting it off from credit markets. Following failed restructuring attempts, Evergrande was given a winding-up order in Hong Kong in 2024. Later that year, a mainland Chinese court accepted a liquidation application filed against one of its major onshore units. Evergrande's debt pile amounts to US$45 billion, according to the developer's court-appointed liquidators. The company is facing 187 debt claims, with the total amount far exceeding the US$27.5 billion of liabilities disclosed in its financial statement in December 2022, the liquidators said in a progress report released on Tuesday. The new figure is not to be taken as final since additional claims could emerge and all are subject to formal review. The liquidators said the realisation of assets has so far been 'modest' at US$255 million. Some US$167 million has been 'upstreamed' and linked to Evergrande. Stakeholders should not assume that all of the money will be available to the company due to complex ownership structures, they said. BLOOMBERG
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
CoreWeave revenue beats estimates on AI boom but shares fall on bigger loss
CoreWeave easily topped quarterly revenue estimates on Tuesday as the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence tools boosted demand for its cloud services, but a bigger-than-expected net loss sent its shares slumping 10 per cent after the bell. The company currently operates 33 AI data centers across the U.S. and Europe and offers access to backer Nvidia's chips, which are highly coveted by enterprises to train and run large AI models amid intense competition. CoreWeave reported revenue backlog of $30.1 billion as of end of June, compared with $25.9 billion on March 31. "Demand is humming, but it is the cost of growth that tempered the stock down in aftermarket trading," said Michael Ashley Schulman of Running Point Capital Advisors. Operating expenses jumped to $1.19 billion in the second quarter, from $317.7 million a year earlier. The company posted a net loss of $290.5 million, compared with analysts' average estimate of $190.6 million, according to data compiled by LSEG. "We are scaling rapidly as we look to meet the unprecedented demand for AI," CEO Michael Intrator said in the earnings statement. Investors have also focused on the company's reliance on a few big customers. "The backlog surge to $30B+ suggests demand visibility well beyond 2025, but the concentration in mega-customers like OpenAI means those relationships remain both the crown jewel and the single point of failure," said eMarketer analyst Jeremy Goldman. Meanwhile, CoreWeave executives reiterated the benefits of its $9 billion all-stock deal for crypto miner Core Scientific. The deal, announced in July, is facing opposition. Core Scientific's largest shareholder, Two Seas Capital, has said it would vote against the sale. CoreWeave reported second-quarter revenue of $1.21 billion, beating estimates of $1.08 billion. The Livingston, New Jersey-based company raised its annual revenue forecast to be between $5.15 billion and $5.35 billion. It had previously projected annual revenue of $4.9 billion to $5.1 billion.
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
Why leaders must learn to see beyond the tech hype
AT THIS year's International Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit in Paris, one thing was evident: the pace of technological change is accelerating, but our ability to make informed, strategic decisions about it is lagging behind. This dissonance is already playing out across organisations. Nearly half of employees who use generative AI at work do so through tools that are officially banned by their companies. It's a paradox that speaks volumes, as leaders remain unsure of how to govern tools their employees find valuable. Yet decision-making around technology is still too often driven by instinct, fear of falling behind, or a fixation on what is new rather than what is necessary. Leaders are encouraged to adopt early, automate more and digitise faster. What they are rarely asked to consider is: Where is the real value being created, and what trade-offs come with it? Recent research conducted by Essec Business School seeks to bring greater structure to this uncertainty. By analysing the impact of six emerging technologies (ranging from generative and descriptive AI to blockchain, quantum computing, robotics, and renewable energy) across 11 key economic sectors, the study introduces a matrix-style framework for understanding where genuine disruption is unfolding. It draws on more than 300 global industry publications, academic papers, patent activity, and the sentiments of 1,000 professionals across industries, offering a data-driven lens to look past the noise. Technologies that drive value Some of the findings are intuitive. Others are deeply revealing. The most striking is the dominance of generative AI, ranked highest in perceived disruption with a score of 89.45 out of 100, reflecting its explosive growth in academic and patent literature as well as industry excitement. But despite its dominance in headlines and boardroom conversations, a closer look reveals that it remains early-stage in implementation. Many firms are still experimenting, and concerns about data governance, content quality and long-term return on investment remain unresolved. By contrast, descriptive AI, encompassing machine learning, analytics, and pattern recognition, received lower disruption scores (49.04 over 100) but is far more integrated into day-to-day operations. It powers logistics, customer segmentation, predictive maintenance and more. Its relative invisibility in public debate belies its foundational role in business value creation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This divergence between attention and adoption invites a more careful reading of what 'disruption' really means. Not all technologies that dominate the conversation are the ones driving value. This becomes even clearer when looking at sectoral variation. Renewable energy and storage, for instance, is championed most strongly not by the energy sector, but by real estate professionals, who view it as both a sustainability imperative and a means of future-proofing asset. An overwhelming 91.1 per cent of real estate professionals express confidence in its value. This enthusiasm is shaped by both external forces – such as sustainability mandates and investor expectations – and internal shifts, such as tenant demand for greener buildings. Other sectors show more ambivalence. The luxury industry, for example, is split on generative AI. Some view it as a creative tool that can extend brand expression; others see it as a threat to authenticity and craftsmanship. Here, the disruption is as much cultural as it is technological. Meanwhile, in automotive, blockchain continues to underwhelm. Despite years of hype around decentralised mobility and supply chain transparency, over 22 per cent of respondents in this sector expressed negative sentiment towards blockchain's potential. Adoption has remained limited, and its strategic relevance is being reassessed. These diverging sectoral responses underscore a crucial truth: no technology is universally applicable. Context is everything. A tool that may be transformative in one sector may be irrelevant or even counterproductive in another. Yet many transformation strategies still rely on blanket thinking, assuming that what works for one industry or geography must work for all. These nuances matter. They show that disruption does not follow a single path. Technologies gain or lose traction based on sector-specific conditions: regulatory frameworks, cost structures, workforce readiness and even consumer psychology. This is why a shift in mindset is needed. Leaders must move beyond digital fluency – being able to talk about technology – towards digital discernment: the ability to evaluate technologies critically, in relation to business needs, strategic goals and sectoral realities. Before asking how a technology works or how fast to deploy it, leaders must first ask why it matters and whether it aligns with what their organisation is trying to achieve. Such thinking is particularly important in economies like that of Singapore, where digital transformation is not just a business priority, but a national agenda. The Smart Nation initiative has placed Singapore at the forefront of global digital experimentation, from mobility to health and finance. But with ambition must come rigour. Calculated investment, guided by both evidence and sectoral insight, will be key to ensuring Singapore's technology ecosystem remains not just advanced, but resilient. Energy: bottleneck to innovation One of the more sobering insights from the Essec research is that energy may soon become a bottleneck to innovation. Many of the most promising technologies, especially those driven by AI and quantum computing, are also among the most resource-intensive. In Singapore's compact, urbanised economy, energy efficiency and infrastructure capacity will play an increasingly central role in determining what kinds of innovation can be scaled sustainably. These are strategic considerations that must be addressed now, not retrofitted later. None of this is to suggest that technology should be approached with fear. On the contrary, innovation holds immense potential to solve the world's most pressing challenges, from climate change to healthcare access and economic inclusion. But realising that potential depends on leadership – not just at the policy level, but within companies, institutions and communities. It calls for decision-makers who are not only open to change, but capable of navigating its complexity with maturity and foresight. Ultimately, the goal is not to win the race for adoption. It is to ensure that the technologies we choose to invest in serve the long-term needs of people, businesses and society. The leaders who will thrive in this new era will not be those chasing the next big thing, but those asking the right questions: questions about purpose, fit, readiness and impact. Understanding what's possible is no longer enough. The future belongs to those who can discern what is truly valuable. Both writers are from the Essec Business School. Jan Ondrus, a professor of information systems, heads the Essec Digital Disruption Chair, and Jeremy Beaufils is the executive director of the Essec Digital Disruption Chair.
