China's manufacturing activity shrinks as exports drag: S&P PMI
The S&P Global China General Manufacturing PMI fell to 49.5 in July from 50.4 in June, undershooting analysts' expectations of 50.4 in a Reuters poll. The 50-mark separates growth from contraction.
The reading, combined with Thursday's official survey, bodes ill for growth momentum at the start of the third quarter, following robust growth in the first half of the year.
Amid a trade truce with Washington, economists say the support of exports front-loading ahead of higher US tariffs to the world's second-biggest economy may fade over the remainder of the year.
According to the S&P Global survey, new export orders contracted for a fourth straight month and at a faster pace than in June.
After rising in June, manufacturing output declined in July. Firms looked to utilise their current stock holdings for the fulfilment of orders, which contributed to a second successive monthly decline in post-production inventories.
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
Falling production together with a stable backlog prompted factory owners to lower their headcount in July. Firms also said cost concerns had underpinned decisions to shed staff.
However, business sentiment improved at the start of the second half of 2025 but was still below the series average. Manufacturers expected better economic conditions and promotional efforts to spur sales in the year ahead.
As Beijing started to tackle 'price wars' among manufacturers, average input prices increased for the first time in five months.
Firms nevertheless lowered their selling prices again as competition for new business intensified. But export charges increased at the fastest pace in a year due to rising shipping and logistics costs.
Top leaders on Wednesday pledged to support an economy that is facing various risks, by managing what is viewed as disorderly competition in the second half of the year.
Markets expected that Beijing may be about to start a new round of factory capacity cuts in a long-awaited but challenging campaign against deflation.
From July, Caixin no longer sponsors the S&P Global China PMI. REUTERS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
15 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Rwanda, Congo agree on outline for economic integration framework as part of peace deal, US says
WASHINGTON/PARIS - Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo on Friday agreed on an outline for the regional economic integration framework, according to the U.S. State Department, as the two countries take steps toward delivering on a peace deal signed in Washington last month. The tenets agreed on Friday summarize the framework, which includes elements of cooperation on energy, infrastructure, mineral supply chains, national parks and public health. Rwanda and Congo signed a peace deal in Washington in June at talks held by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, which aims to bring an end to fighting that has killed thousands and attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. As part of the deal, Kinshasa and Kigali agreed to launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said. A source familiar with the matter said a preliminary draft of the framework has been agreed to and there would now be an input period to get reaction from the private sector and civil society before it is finalized. The framework is planned to be signed at a meeting of heads of state at the White House. No date has been set yet for that meeting, the source said. In the Friday statement, Rwanda and Congo affirmed that each country has "full, sovereign control" over the exploitation, processing and export of its natural resources and recognized the importance of developing mineral processing and transformation capacity within each country, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump deploys nuclear submarines in row with Russia World 'Optimistic' Bessent says US has makings of a deal with China Asia Asia-Pacific economies welcome new US tariff rates, but concerns over extent of full impact remain Singapore Man in SAF custody after allegedly vaping on bus while in army uniform Asia 'Like me? Approach me directly, okay?': Inside a matchmaking event for China's wealthy Opinion America is tearing down another great public institution Opinion Quiet zones in public spaces can help people recharge in the city Tech Reporting suspected advanced cyber attacks will provide a defence framework: Shanmugam Kinshasa views the plundering of its mineral wealth as a key driver of the conflict between its forces and Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in eastern Congo. Reuters reported in May that Congolese minerals such as tungsten, tantalum and tin, which Kinshasa has long accused neighbouring Rwanda of illegally exploiting, could be exported legitimately to Rwanda for processing under the terms of the deal being negotiated by the U.S., according to sources. The two countries are committed to ensuring that the minerals trade no longer provides funding to armed groups and to create a world-class industrial mining sector in the region, as well as to ensure better cross-border interoperability on mineral supply chains, according to the statement. They also agreed to connect new infrastructure to the U.S.-backed Lobito Corridor, underscoring Washington's aim of greater access to resources in the region and efforts to counter China. The Ruzizi III hydropower project and Lake Kivu methane exploitation were the only specific projects mentioned in the statement, despite U.S. emphasis on critical minerals. The countries said they intended to prioritize financing for Ruzizi and work together to exploit the methane gas sustainably. REUTERS
Business Times
15 minutes ago
- Business Times
AI washing: signs, symptoms and solutions for investment stakeholders
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in finance has brought real innovation but also misleading marketing claims. Many financial services firms feel pressure to appear tech-savvy to stay competitive. Although some firms genuinely apply machine learning (ML) and AI to improve investing, others make claims that do not match reality. These firms may use buzzwords such as 'AI-driven' or 'machine learning-enabled' without truly integrating these tools into their investment processes. Consequently, clients and investors may be misled into believing they are investing in innovative, cutting-edge strategies when they are not. This phenomenon is known as 'AI washing' – the act of falsely or overly inflating claims about the use of AI in financial products or services. The CFA Institute recently published AI Washing: Signs, Symptoms and Suggested Solutions – a report that examines what AI washing is, why firms engage in it, how it affects clients and the broader development of AI, touching on the ethical, regulatory and technical measures that can help address it. It also offers guidance to asset owners on how to spot both genuine AI use and inflated claims in the marketplace. According to Nvidia's State of AI in Financial Services: 2025 Trends report, 57 per cent of respondents in a global survey of financial professionals are using or considering AI for data analytics, and generative AI usage has risen sharply to 52 per cent from 40 per cent in 2023. 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 In addition, 37 per cent report AI-driven operational efficiencies, and 32 per cent believe AI offers a competitive advantage. The use of AI in trading and portfolio optimisation has increased to 38 per cent from 15 per cent, while its application in pricing, risk management and underwriting has grown to 32 per cent from 13 per cent. Barriers to AI adoption True AI in finance involves systems that process large data sets, learn patterns and make decisions – such as predicting asset prices or optimising portfolios. These efforts require serious investment in talent, technology and time. Many investment firms, however, either lack the resources or are unwilling to overhaul their existing processes to meaningfully incorporate AI. Instead, they may add small AI elements (such as using a chatbot or large language model) but advertise their strategy as 'AI-powered', which is deceptive if these tools do not play a central role. Barriers to real AI adoption in investing are high. Financial data is often messy, sparse and hard to predict. Unlike other industries where data is more abundant and easier to model, investment forecasting requires handling noisy, volatile and complex inputs. Consequently, many firms hesitate to disrupt their existing models that already perform well. AI washing is particularly dangerous because it undermines explainable AI – a movement focused on making AI systems more transparent, understandable and trustworthy – especially for non-technical users. If firms exaggerate or hide how they use AI, it becomes harder for stakeholders to assess the real value or risks of these tools. The CFA Institute report asserts that investors deserve transparency about what technologies are being used, how they work and whether they deliver value. Firms should avoid overhyping their use of AI just to attract clients or compete with rivals. Instead, they should be transparent about how they use AI, what it adds to their process and what limitations exist. Asset managers or asset owners must be able to provide sufficient detail regarding why and how they implement AI technology in their process, what specific frameworks they use, and what results or improvements they observe from using AI. This recommendation is in line with the ethical principles of transparency and duty to clients as set out in the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. Asking the right questions to spot AI washing To help stakeholders – especially asset owners and prospective clients – spot AI washing, the CFA Institute report suggests a range of questions that asset owners and prospective clients can pose to asset managers that claim to use AI. Some of these questions demand some level of technical familiarity with AI and ML, which speaks to the fact that asset owners themselves must develop some minimal competence in AI methodologies. Below is a list of pertinent questions for consideration: Can you specify what type of algorithm or combination of algorithms you are using and how it enhances the forecasting of asset returns? How does your AI-driven model outperform simpler models? Can you provide a quantitative comparison of relevant performance metrics? What data sources are you using to train your model(s), and how do these sources integrate with the rest of your process, if at all? Are you using alternative data, such as satellite imagery or sentiment analysis of earnings calls? What preprocessing and feature selection techniques are used to prepare the raw data for input into your model(s)? Do you use fundamental features, such as earnings surprise, price momentum, or other signals and indicators? Do you standardise or normalise the input features, and what techniques do you use to handle missing data, outliers and limited data sets? How do you maximise model interpretability? Is it through model choice or post-implementation communications? If the latter, can you give some concrete examples? Can you provide an example of a recent investment decision that was influenced by the model's output? How was the rationale for that decision explained to the investment team? How do you validate the robustness of the models you develop? What precautions do you take to guard against overfitting? For example, how do you tune hyperparameters in your models? How do you monitor model drift, and what mechanisms are in place to retrain the models and/or adapt to shifts in the market landscape? What governance structures are in place to ensure the responsible use of AI firmwide? Do you have an internal AI audit process, and how often are the models reviewed for compliance with generally accepted standards and protocols? If you use outsourcing for some or all of your AI technology needs, what processes are in place to ensure the quality and robustness of the services and products used in your investment process? Transparency is non-negotiable Firms selling financial products should conform to the same standards of transparency that stakeholders demand from other types of products. This idea applies to the use of AI technology as well. Unfortunately, because of AI's headline-grabbing popularity, some investment firms may rush to exaggerate their success in applying AI technologies to their investment processes. Such instances of AI washing have increasingly become the subject of heightened scrutiny from the investment community, including regulators. By understanding and learning to detect AI washing, stakeholders can help minimise and eventually eliminate this phenomenon, resulting in better investment outcomes. The writer is a senior affiliate researcher with CFA Institute and author of the report AI Washing: Signs, Symptoms and Suggested Solutions. He is currently the co-editor of The Journal of Financial Data Science, on the editorial board of The Journal of Portfolio Management and a member of the board of directors of the Financial Data Professional Institute. This content has been adapted from an article that first appeared on the CFA Institute Research & Policy Center's website.
Business Times
15 minutes ago
- Business Times
How FairPrice is deepening consumer relevance through Own Brands
Private labels and own brands now dominate supermarket shelves, appearing in almost every product category. As stubborn inflation and economic uncertainty persist, demand for such products continues to rise. House brand products are seen as cost-effective alternatives for daily essentials. Recent reports found that nine in 10 Singapore shoppers bought house brands in 2024, and private label sales accounted for 8 per cent of global fast-moving consumer goods growth between 2024 and 2025. As Singapore's largest retailer, we have seen this first-hand. Our Own Brands business, comprising FairPrice house brand products and private labels, was first established 40 years ago to provide Singaporeans with affordable daily essentials like rice and oil. As stubborn inflation and economic uncertainty continue to persist, demand for our Own Brands products continues to rise – in 2024, nearly half of all FairPrice shoppers had an Own Brands product in their basket at checkout. What consumers first perceived as cheap or low-quality options, most now see as sensible, pragmatic and value-for-money. Supermarkets have grown their portfolio of house brands and private labels by leaps and bounds in recent years – our Own Brands range comprises more than 3,500 products today. House brand and private label product ranges are moving beyond meeting necessity-driven needs, but the question for retailers is: Where do we go from here? 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 Own brands offer retailers an incredible advantage in meeting rapidly evolving consumer expectations for not just value, but quality and excitement. Affordable indulgence and excitement Singapore consumers today have more adventurous and sophisticated preferences than ever before. From kunafa chocolate to ramyeon featured in the latest K-drama or hawkerpreneurs with a fresh new take on a local classic, global, regional and local trends are becoming increasingly significant drivers for diverse retail offerings. Own brands could enable retailers to more directly capitalise on this demand – the key is in expanding house brand or private label product ranges beyond necessities while still delivering on value. For example, consistently investing in launching new flavours and maintaining the affordability of our house brand chips and nuts have resulted in them being the most popular with customers in their respective categories. Retailers can also elevate their own brands by introducing affordable indulgences. This could include launching products that customers perceive as 'premium' options, like truffle chips, for example. Delivering on evolving essential needs Own brands have a history of meeting essential needs, but essentials have taken on a very different meaning for consumers today compared to 50 years ago. Now, customers want value for money, but they also want to engage with retailers that consider the health and wellness benefits of their offerings, their customers' age-based preferences or requirements, and the sustainable production of products. This is a key tenet of our Own Brands expansion strategy – providing options that address the wide and evolving variety of consumer necessities today, from low-sodium soya sauce to Omega-3 eggs, sustainably packaged vegetables and everything in between. Consistent access and value While consumers' palates continue to expand, the same cannot be said for their wallets, and with good reason. Global economic uncertainty is at an all-time high, and rising costs continue to be a top concern for everyday Singaporeans. This has also had a significant impact on retailers. Many continue to struggle with mitigating the ripple effect of increasing operating costs and not passing this on to their customers. Own brands – and their clear value-driven proposition for consumers – offer retailers a way to bridge this gap. The challenge lies in finding creative ways to maintain easy-on-the-wallet price points in today's operating environment. What we have found to be an effective solution is moving more and more upstream with our sourcing and production of our Own Brands products. This might entail acquiring a stake in a producer of pork products, investing time to understand the ins and outs of salmon farming directly from a source, or finding vertical integration synergies for products and suppliers across categories. The end goal is to keep our Own Brands prices affordable, while gaining better oversight on quality and building a resilient supply chain. A strategic lever Singapore's retail landscape is becoming increasingly complex, as is the global economic environment in which we operate. The remarkable growth of house brands and private labels in recent years underscores the critical role they play for retailers today. Own brands have proven their ability to meet consumer needs, especially in times of uncertainty. By investing in understanding fast-evolving needs and preferences, prioritising strategic sourcing, and integrating excitement and innovation into the development process, retailers can continue leveraging own brands as a powerful vehicle to navigate complexities and thrive in the years to come. The writer is the group chief executive officer of FairPrice Group
