Iron Ore Falls With BHP Results, Soft China Demand in Focus
The steelmaking ingredient lost as much as 0.6% in Singapore, declining for a fifth straight session.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dongfeng Motor to offload Honda JV stake amid EV market shift
Chinese state-owned automaker Dongfeng Motor Group is reportedly preparing to divest its 50% share in a joint venture (JV) with Honda Motor, signalling a strategic move amidst the country's rapid transition towards electric vehicles (EVs). The JV, Dongfeng Honda Engine, established in 1998, has historically produced engines for Honda's vehicles in the Chinese market. Switch Auto Insurance and Save Today! Affordable Auto Insurance, Customized for You The Insurance Savings You Expect Great Rates and Award-Winning Service The sale was announced on the Guangdong United Assets and Equity Exchange's website, with the listing yet to determine a reserve price, according to Bloomberg report. Interested buyers have until 12 September 2025 to submit their bids. According to the listing's audited results, the JV, which employs 827 individuals, was valued at 5.4bn yuan ($752m) in 2024 but suffered a loss of 227.8m yuan and is carrying debts of 3.3bn yuan. This move underscores the intense competition within China's automotive sector, particularly with the swift industry-wide pivot to EVs. Japanese automakers like Honda, Nissan Motor, and Toyota Motor have struggled to adapt quickly and are now striving to regain market share from local competitors, including the leading EV manufacturer BYD, noted the publication. Earlier in the year, Honda reduced the production capacity of its Guangzhou engine plant by half, as reported by Japanese media. Concurrently, Honda has been expanding its EV footprint in China, having initiated an EV production line in Guangzhou with a different Chinese automotive partner, which commenced operations in the latter part of the previous year. Dongfeng Motor Group itself is said to have faced challenges, with its annual vehicle deliveries plummeting from 3.8 million in 2016 to just 1.5 million last year, data from the China Automotive Technology and Research Center shows. Last year, Honda began operations at its inaugural dedicated global EV manufacturing facility in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. This plant, part of the Dongfeng Honda JV, has an estimated annual production capacity of 120,000 units. As of October 2024, it employs roughly 800 associates. "Dongfeng Motor to offload Honda JV stake amid EV market shift" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Rival XPeng Deliveries Growth Accelerates To 103,181, Margins Expand
Chinese EV maker XPeng (NYSE:XPEV) reported its fiscal second-quarter results on Tuesday. The company reported quarterly sales growth of 125.3% year-on-year (Y/Y) to 18.27 billion Chinese yuan ($2.55 billion), topping the analyst consensus estimate of 17.92 billion Chinese yuan. The Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) rival's quarterly vehicle deliveries increased 241.6% Y/Y to 103,181, up 9.75% from 94,008 in the first physical sales network had 677 stores, covering 224 cities as of June 30, 2025. XPeng's self-operated charging station network reached 2,348 stations as of June 30, 2025, including 1,304 XPENG S4 and S5 ultra-fast charging stations. Revenues from vehicle sales increased 147.6% Y/Y to 16.88 billion Chinese yuan ($2.36 billion) due to higher deliveries. Gross margin was 17.3% versus 14.0% a year ago. Vehicle margin was 14.3% versus 6.4% a year ago, primarily attributable to the cost reduction and improvement in product mix of models. View more earnings on XPEV Operating loss for the quarter was 930 million Chinese yuan ($130 million). Adjusted net loss per ADS was 0.41 Chinese yuan versus the analyst consensus loss estimate of 1.06 Chinese yuan. In USD terms, the adjusted EPADS was a loss of 6 cents. The company held $6.64 billion in cash and equivalents as of June 30, 2025. Chairman and CEO Xiaopeng He said the company completed upgrades to its next-generation smart and electrification technology platforms. Vice Chairman and Co-President Hongdi Brian Gu noted that vehicle margin improved for eight consecutive quarters, climbing 3.8 percentage points sequentially to 14.3%, while overall gross margin reached a record 17.3%. Outlook XPENG projects third-quarter vehicle deliveries between 113,000 and 118,000 units, reflecting a surge of 142.8%-153.6% Y/Y. The company anticipates revenue of 19.6 billion Chinese yuan to 21.0 billion Chinese yuan, versus the analyst consensus estimate of 20.2 billion Chinese yuan. XPeng stock gained over 68% year-to-date despite intense rivalry from the likes of Tesla and Nio (NYSE:NIO). Price Action: XPEV stock is trading lower by 0.15% to $19.87 at last check Tuesday. Image via Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Tesla Rival XPeng Deliveries Growth Accelerates To 103,181, Margins Expand originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Looming October CMMC Deadline Is America's Y2K Moment
At the turn of the millennium, the business world braced for disaster. The Y2K problem, also known as the Millennium Bug, was expected to cause computers worldwide to malfunction when the calendar rolled from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000. Governments, banks, airlines, utilities and Fortune 500 companies spent years and billions of dollars preparing. The United States alone spent an estimated $100 billion on remediation efforts, according to the Department of Commerce. Globally, the figure exceeded $300 billion. Preparation did not stop at internal systems. Companies went up and down their supply chains, demanding proof of Y2K compliance from vendors, partners and software providers. That full-spectrum effort made the difference. When the clock struck midnight and the feared chaos did not occur, critics dismissed Y2K as overhyped. In reality, the absence of disaster was proof of success. The threat was real, but the response was stronger. Because leaders set a date certain, funded remediation, tested recovery, verified outcomes and ensured that their suppliers were equally prepared, the world passed through the transition quietly. Y2K remains a textbook case of operational discipline preventing systemic failure. Today, the Department of Defense's Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, known as CMMC, is shaping up to be America's new Y2K test. It is not about a date on the calendar. It is about whether our defense supply chain can rise to the occasion of building lasting cyber resilience against real adversaries. Why The Analogy Works Both Y2K and CMMC take an abstract risk and convert it into a concrete, measurable program with accountability. In the 1990s, companies had to identify where two-digit year fields existed, remediate code, test systems and prove results. They also demanded evidence of compliance from every link in their supply chain, recognizing that one weak partner could bring down the whole enterprise. In the 2020s, defense contractors must demonstrate that they meet rigorous cybersecurity practices tied to NIST Special Publication 800-171. Like Y2K, the challenge does not end at the company boundary. Every subcontractor and supplier that touches sensitive defense data must be held to the same standard. CMMC, like Y2K remediation, forces cross-functional alignment. Legal, IT, compliance and security must collaborate. No single function can deliver the outcome in isolation. Both initiatives demand proof, not promises. Y2K demanded that systems survive the transition test. CMMC requires that contractors demonstrate working controls, not just written policies. The Big Difference: An Opponent Who Punches Back There is one key distinction. Y2K ended at midnight. Once January 1, 2000 arrived without disaster, the problem was solved permanently. CMMC is different. Cyber adversaries do not stop on January 1. They adapt, probe and retaliate. The United States faces persistent threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and transnational cybercriminal groups. The FBI reports that state-sponsored cyber intrusions against critical infrastructure have more than doubled over the past five years. Unlike Y2K, where the risk was fixed in code, today's risk landscape is dynamic and intelligent. Some companies have even outsourced work to adversaries like China. As Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently stated, 'This is obviously unacceptable, especially in today's digital threat environment… We have to ensure the digital systems that we use here at the Defense Department are ironclad and impenetrable.' His comment highlights the gravity of the challenge and the direct connection between contractor readiness and national defense. That is why a CMMC certificate on the wall is not the victory. The real win is sustained operational maturity, especially in light of evolving AI- driven cyber threats. That means identity rigor, least privilege, network segmentation and practiced recovery. The goal is to shrink the blast radius when controls inevitably fail. Regulatory And Timeline Facts The DoD has now finalized rules and set clear milestones that remove any doubt about CMMC's inevitability. As DoD Deputy CIO for Cybersecurity David McKeown stated, 'We are moving forward. We're hoping by the first quarter of calendar year 2025 we'll be able to start enforcing this and putting this in contracts as we go forward.' That first quarter has now come and gone, and we are already approaching the fourth. The DoD is not backing down, and history shows they rarely do. They are fighters, and Hegseth brings that fighter ethos into the cyber arena. The momentum is accelerating. On July 23, 2025, the DoD submitted the final CMMC rule to the Office of Management and Budget), removing any doubt about its inevitability. This move followed a DoD memo highlighting supply chain cybersecurity risks, particularly around cloud and IT infrastructure vulnerable to adversary influence. These developments are not abstract. They are real regulatory actions that create immediate urgency for contractors. What Y2K Got Right, And How To Apply It To CMMC Y2K succeeded because executives treated it as a business risk, not a technical issue buried in IT. The same must apply to CMMC. Set A Date Certain, Then Back-Plan CMMC assessments are rolling out now, with all defense contractors expected to fully comply within the next 14 months or so. Leaders should not wait for the last possible deadline. They should pick an internal readiness date well before their contractual requirement and back-plan milestones for identity controls, logging, backup immutability and third-party attestations. In Y2K, the deadline was immovable. For CMMC, it is flexible, but leaders who procrastinate will be caught unprepared when audits arrive. Tie funding to milestone proof. If a team cannot demonstrate that a control works under stress, it is not done. Most new contracts will soon require CMMC Level 1 or Level 2 certification under the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement clause known as DFARS 204.7503. Enforcement could begin as early as October 2025. For contractors, that means the window to prepare is closing rapidly. The Defense Department's recent memo and the OMB submission are decision triggers. Contractors cannot afford to wait for the final contract language. By then, it will be too late to play catch-up. Make It About Outcomes, Not Artifacts Too many organizations treat compliance as paperwork. During Y2K, success was measured by whether systems functioned on January 1, not by whether binders were full. CMMC must follow the same principle. Outcome evidence matters most. Can you revoke a compromised administrator account in minutes? Can you rebuild a domain from clean media? Can you restore a case-management system without re-infecting it? Can you notify stakeholders with clarity and speed? These outcomes, not documents, are the true measure of security maturity. Five Numbers That Prove Readiness Every leadership team should be able to answer these five numbers without reaching for a binder: If these numbers are unknown, then CMMC work has not yet translated into real security outcomes. The Vendor Multiplier May the SolarWinds attack always be a reminder that the weakest vendor defines your security boundary. In Y2K, organizations demanded proof from suppliers and subcontractors that they had tested their systems. Companies worked up and down the supply chain to ensure readiness. The same approach is required today. In CMMC, organizations must require that suppliers handling sensitive data prove identity rigor, segmentation and recovery. Shared tabletop exercises and testing plans are more valuable than supplier attestations on paper. Contractors should reward partners that reduce attack surface and replace those that will not step up. After The Certificate: Sustain Or Backslide One of the temptations after Y2K was to declare victory and disband programs. That must not happen with CMMC. The certificate is only the starting line. Organizations need to bake drills into calendars, keep dashboards live, rotate incident commanders and tie executive compensation to measurable outcomes such as time to detect and time to recover. Katie Arrington, who helped spearhead CMMC during her first tenure at the DoD Defense, put it bluntly: 'If you go on LinkedIn one more time and tell me how hard CMMC is, I'm going to beat you… That ship sailed in 2014.' Her point is clear. The time for excuses is over. Execution is what matters now. If CMMC devolves into checkbox compliance, America's defense supply chain will remain fragile. If CMMC becomes operational discipline, then the country will have built resilience that endures. A Race Against Adversaries, Not Time Y2K was a triumph of planning, testing and execution, reinforced by rigorous supplier accountability. CMMC can deliver the same outcome if leaders take it seriously. The difference is stark. Y2K was a race against a calendar. CMMC is a race against adversaries who are already inside the wire. Set a date. Own the work. Test for truth. Sustain the gains. Y2K proved that disciplined preparation across entire supply chains can avert disaster. CMMC will determine whether America's defense industrial base can learn that lesson again under live fire.
