GDS Said to Be Considering $500 Million US IPO of Ex-China Unit GDSI in 2025
GDS Holdings Ltd. is considering a US initial public offering of its GDS International business to raise about $500 million, according to people familiar with the situation.
The Chinese data center operator may try to list GDSI, which runs its facilities in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia, as soon as this year, the people said. GDS is in talks with banks about working on the IPO, they added, asking not to be identified discussing a private matter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jim Cramer Says, 'Jensen Makes a Very Compelling Case When He Argues That We Should Let NVIDIA (NVDA) Sell Those Chips to the Chinese'
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) stands against other stocks that Jim Cramer discussed recently. A caller inquired about Cramer's thoughts on NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA). Here is what he said: 'I think Jensen makes a very compelling case when he argues that we should let NVIDIA sell those chips to the Chinese because otherwise China will indeed invest much more heavily in their own semiconductor industry. Wouldn't it be better to blunt China's efforts to leapfrog us and keep them dependent on our chips, the same way we're depending on their rare earth minerals? Sadly, the White House says no. I think it makes a ton of sense.' NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) develops advanced computing, graphics, and networking solutions, offering products and software for AI, gaming, data centers, robotics, and automotive technologies. On May 13, Cramer said that President Trump's policy shift initially hurt the company, but later boosted its stock by opening up major new markets, as he said: 'As those who shorted the market now realize, the President's pivot was wildly bullish for the very companies that had previously been hit the hardest. Take NVIDIA. On the one hand, Trump effectively forced NVIDIA to take a $5.5 billion charge for chips it could no longer sell to China. On the other hand, he's now out there helping NVIDIA sell chips to some of the biggest clients in the world, the Gulf monarchies. NVIDIA stock has made a historic comeback [buy, buy, buy]… It's a big deal for the Saudis because they weren't on the arbitrary, capricious list of 18 friendly countries that President Biden approved to buy NVIDIA's best technology. Now, instead of 18 friends, we got a whole bunch of friends that can buy NVIDIA's top chips. I see many new mini hyperscale or sovereign AI countries developing.' READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's proposed ‘super embassy poses super risk' to security, Tories claim
China's proposed 'super embassy poses a super risk', the Tories have claimed as they warned the project risks compromising communications infrastructure serving the City of London. More than a thousand demonstrators took to the streets of central London earlier this year to protest against the proposed embassy. Ministers are expected to make a final decision on the redevelopment plans at the historic former site of the Royal Mint, after it was rejected by the local council, Tower Hamlets. Speaking in the Commons, shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart accused the Government of being 'too weak' to block the plans. He said: 'The Government's own cyber experts, Innovate UK, have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. 'The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super embassy poses a super risk. 'Yet the Deputy Prime Minister's office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. 'So perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up – is the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist Party or has the Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner) got it wrong?' Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden replied: 'When it comes to both engagement with China and with an issue like this, we will of course engage properly and always bear in mind our own national security considerations.' He also accused Tory governments of opting to 'withdraw' from engaging with China for a number of years after they had previously sought a 'golden era' with Beijing. A spokesperson for Innovate UK said it 'has not raised any concerns', adding: 'Innovate UK does not have responsibility for cyber security.' Comments referred to by Mr Burghart are understood to have been made in a personal capacity. Mr Burghart went on to say: 'At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already knows that this site is a security risk; it's a security risk to the City of London and through it our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London. 'Second, the Government has the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why is this Government too weak to act?' In his reply, Mr McFadden said: 'A decision on this application will be taken in full consideration of our national security considerations. That is always part of this and it is part of our engagement with China and with other countries.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves flew to China in January to meet with the country's leaders and set out a path towards further investment into Britain. Elsewhere in Cabinet Office questions, Mr McFadden said the Civil Service should be more representative of the UK and speak with 'all the accents of the country'. This came in response to Labour MP for Dudley, Sonia Kumar, who said: 'I welcome the relocation of the Civil Service across the country and with a recent study showing that Dudley has high levels of economic inactivity, what reassurances can (he) give me that young people in Dudley want every opportunity to build their career in the Civil Service, whether that's training, apprenticeships, or any mentorships?' Mr McFadden replied: '(Ms Kumar) will not be surprised to hear my strong enthusiasm for greater employment opportunities for young people in the Black Country. 'When we made the announcement last week about the relocation, we also announced a new apprentice scheme because we don't just have to change location, we have to change recruitment patterns too if we're really going (to) get that Civil Service that speaks with all the accents of the country.' Later in the session, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) asked for reassurance that 'no Cabinet Office ministers will be attending Glastonbury this year', because 'controversial Ulster rap band' Kneecap remain part of the festival's line-up. Mr McFadden replied: 'I will not be going to Glastonbury, but I'm very much looking forward to going to see Bruce Springsteen at Anfield Stadium on Saturday night.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: What 'China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the "China shock," that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial "Liberation Day" duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
