Totvs, in talks to buy Linx, eyes other Brazil deals in 2025
Totvs has shown interest in Linx since 2020, when StoneCo won a bidding war by paying 6.7 billion reais ($1.22 billion) for the retail software developer. In April, Totvs entered exclusive negotiations with StoneCo to acquire the unit.
Herszkowicz said those talks were ongoing and an acquisition would be beneficial, given Linx's leading position in providing software for Brazilian retailers. But he said closing the deal was not essential for the company's growth.
"Totvs is very broad. And our portfolio is very wide. There isn't one acquisition that solves everything we want to solve," Herszkowicz told Reuters in a Tuesday interview.
He said accelerating trends in artificial intelligence, cloud computing and other digital technology had created several opportunities where acquisitions offered effective shortcuts.
Totvs is present in several Latin American countries, but the company is focused on deals in Brazil, which represents the "overwhelming majority" of its business, the CEO said.
Herszkowicz declined to give details on the timing or transaction values under negotiation for Linx or other assets.
He said Totvs had not hired an advisor to sell its stake in financial technology firm Dimensa, a joint venture with Brazil exchange operator B3 (B3SA3.SA), opens new tab, again denying a local media report.
Any acquisitions by Totvs this year will not rely on capital from divestitures, which the company doesn't need to finance deals, according to Herszkowicz.
"Like any company, at any moment, we always have the possibility to evaluate anything. Now, there's nothing (related to Dimensa) effectively happening at this moment," he said.
($1 = 5.49 reais)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
Brazil consumer coffee prices fall in July for first time in 18 months
RIO DE JANEIRO, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Brazil's consumer coffee prices fell 1.01% in July, the first drop in 18 months, according to data from the country's Broad National Consumer Price Index (IPCA) published on Tuesday. During the preceding year and a half, coffee was one of the main drivers of inflation in Brazil, the world's second largest coffee market, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The retail price drop followed a decline in prices paid to farmers after the harvest of the 2025 crop, which is now in its final stages in Brazil. The reported decline in consumer coffee prices in Brazil for the month of July follows volatility in international markets, driven by issues such as the decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods. While products such as orange juice were exempt from the measures, others including coffee, eggs and beef were not. Last week, coffee futures in New York rose 8% as investors grew concerned that the tariffs could hinder trade between the world's largest coffee consumer, the United States, and the globe's biggest producer and exporter, Brazil. It is too early to tell if Trump's decision to hike tariffs against Brazilian goods could lead to lower prices of staples including coffee, IBGE manager Fernando Goncalves told Reuters. "It could be an effect of increased supply, and it's not possible to say or confirm that it's related to the tariff hike. The tariff hike only began this month," he said.
The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
Samsung reveals 115-INCH mega TV with jaw-dropping price tag and ‘world first' new screen
SAMSUNG has unveiled a whooper new TV - but the size isn't the only shocker. The staggering 115-inch display has an eye-watering price tag. 3 In Samsung 's home turf, South Korea, the new Micro RGB TV will set you back £24,000 (KRW 44.9 million). It's the world's first Micro RGB, a new premium TV technology that Samsung says brings "exceptional" colour accuracy. This is made possible thanks to a micro-scale RGB LED backlight with an ultra-fine pattern behind the panel. It also uses AI processing to boost both picture and sound. There's Glare Free technology too, designed to reduce reflections from bright light conditions that can sometimes make it hard to make out the picture. "Micro RGB achieves unprecedented precision in the control of micrometer-sized RGB LEDs, raising the bar for color accuracy and contrast in consumer displays," said Taeyong Son, Executive Vice President and Head of the R&D Team of the Visual Display (VD) Business at Samsung Electronics. "With this launch, we're setting the standard in the large-sized, ultra-premium TV market and reinforcing our commitment to next-generation display innovation." The TV isn't on sale beyond South Korea yet. But there are plans to release it in the US next. And there will be a global roll out with "a variety of sizes to meet customer needs", Samsung said. Samsung – a brief history Here's what you need to know... Samsung is known locally as a "chaebol", which means "business conglomerate" It was founded by Lee Byung-chul in 1938 as a trading company But over several decades, it branched out into food processing, insurance, textiles and retail It wasn't until the late 1960s when Samsung entered the electronics industry – for which it's best known in the west today It also launched businesses in construction and shipbuilding in the 1970s Today, Samsung's most important sources of income are its smartphones and computer chips More than 262,000 staff are employed by Samsung globally Image credit: Getty
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Can AI deliver economic nirvana? Only if workers can monitor and shape how it's used
One person I wish was on the Treasurer's roundtable guest list is the reigning Nobel Economic prize winner Daron Acemoglu, whose work lays out a compelling roadmap for the adoption of so-called 'artificial intelligence'. The rapid rollout of these predictive search bots, agents, companions and synthesised creators is being evangelised by the tech industry and our own Productivity Commission as a fast track to prosperity (replace 'AI' with the word 'God' and the latest PC report reads like a call to prayer). But Acemoglu's work shows that when a new technology simply replaces human labour it may well deliver higher profits but few broader economic benefits. It is only when technology augments human capability that genuine productivity is achieved. To reap that collective dividend, he argues workers must be given the opportunity to not just use the new technology but to shape it: designing new tools, new connections, new markets and new capabilities. UTS's Human Technology Institute has tested Acemoglu's theory with stark results: nurses embrace AI to manage their crippling paperwork but draw the line at patient intervention; retail workers welcome smarter inventory while seeking to preserve customer relationships; gun-shy public servants seek the confidence the technology won't be used against citizens in another Robodebt. The Australian Council of Trade Unionsis calling for stronger protections on AI work replacement, including veto rights. I think Acemoglu would say this is not ambitious enough: if we want AI to add to national wealth rather than extract wealth for tech rent-seekers and lazy cost-cutters we need to assert democratic control over the technology. So the big reform idea I'd put forward in Acemoglu's absence is the mandating of 'worker councils' to oversee, monitor and shape the introduction of machine learning and large language models. Regardless of whether the government ends up pursuing a standalone AI act, it should expand the general duty of care employers discharge under workplace safety to include the introduction of new technology. To discharge that general duty, employers (either individually or as an industry) would need to show they had actively engaged their workers in the technology and had given them the opportunity to test, refine, propose guardrails and enforce red lines. The workers councils would be democratic and representative, provided with the information needed to understand the technology, the remit to observe its use in the workplace and an ongoing role in monitoring its impact. Where a union is active this could be through existing consultative processes; where there is no union, it would be incumbent upon employers or broader industry bodies to establish genuinely accountable processes. This needs to be part of the broader discussion about the way AI is regulated, rather than looking for specific rules for future use cases establishing that a general duty of care creates ongoing accountability for when things go wrong, (as they inevitably will). Employers would cry foul about more 'red tape' or a worker takeover of business operations; but actively involving workers is not about giving up power; it is harnessing existing knowledge. Let's be honest: most tech transformations are complete failures. Not because the tech itself is bad, but because it's just not suited to the realities of how people work. To think that AI is somehow different in this regard is what the vendors want, but it's madness. A broader pushback will come from the tech industry, which is pitching the narrative that we need to 'win' the race to AI before other countries get ahead of us, meaning any move to impose friction around change risks 'stifling innovation'. If democracy wasn't facing collapse, if our kids weren't falling prey to exploitative algorithms, if the models weren't built on the stolen labour of creators, if the same companies pushing AI hadn't abrogated their responsibility with social media platforms, maybe we would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they have not earned this. There may be advantages in stepping back and not racing headlong into a future driven by self-interested and increasingly bad faith actors; refusing to allow our workforce to be their canary in the coalmine, with government expected to step in when things go pear-shaped. Rather than be the naive accomplice of Big Tech, workers, through AI councils, can become part of a hard-headed economic response to a technology that is still being developed, with models and structures that are still in a state of flux. We know Australians are deeply sceptical of AI. There is a growing sense that it is outside of our control and being imposed on us for some ill-defined greater good. Imagining new sorts of democratic structures would give us a modicum of agency in determining how these tools should evolve and how the core resource driving them – our data – should be collected, refined and how we should be compensated for its use. Indeed, the same structures that would govern AI in the workplace could be developed to give citizens a broader voice in the development of technology that is still highly contested. Our tech future is not pre-determined; ensuring we all have an informed say in these hugely consequential decisions will not just define the technology, but the sort of nation we become. And if the apostles of AI are right and this really is godlike technology that will deliver economic nirvana then embedding these democratic structures in their development will help earn the trust of a public that has been over-sold on tech utopia before. Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential, a progressive strategic communications and research company that undertook research for Labor in the last election and conducts qualitative research for Guardian Australia. He is also the host of Per Capita's Burning Platforms podcast
