FT : EU will lose ‘race to the bottom’ on regulation, says competition chief

EU will lose ‘race to the bottom’ on regulation, says competition chief
Teresa Ribera says Europe’s competitiveness depends on resisting calls to roll back rules

Europe must defend its regulatory system more forcefully in order to remain globally competitive, the EU’s competition chief has said in a call to resist pressure from Donald Trump and those lobbying for change at home.

Teresa Ribera, the European Commission’s second-in-command, told the Financial Times that the EU was destined to lose a “race to the bottom” as she championed tough Brussels oversight of Europe’s economy.

Her remarks, as the leading socialist at the EU’s executive arm, come amid a drive by the bloc’s centre-right leadership to appease both Washington and European industrialists with a bonfire of regulations.

“It’s not by chance that it’s the green and digital agenda that are under threat. They are the main drivers of competitiveness,” the commission’s executive vice-president told the Financial Times.

Ribera said the EU needed to stand behind its digital rule book and green standards while deepening the single market to ensure the EU remained competitive in a global economic race.

Turning to the US administration, Ribera said the EU should listen but never bow to demands from Washington to ditch laws on sustainable supply chains, deforestation and social media regulation. The Trump administration has threatened tariffs and penalties against European companies if its requests are not met.

“If we lose our identity, our values, the confidence of our people, we will not be in a position to negotiate anything or to bridge anything,” she said, without naming the US president directly.

Europe must be more effective next year to ensure the “competitiveness, security, values that are very much the blood of this mandate”, Ribera said.

Appointed in December 2024, the former Spanish deputy prime minister positioned herself as a firm defender of the EU’s digital rule book and green regulations even as her boss, Ursula von der Leyen, moved to dismantle some rules she had previously championed.

“There have been moments that we have needed to, where I have needed to, stand up and say: sorry, but we’re not going to undo our regulation just because you don’t like [it],” Ribera said.

In recent months, Ribera and her colleagues in the commission have stepped up enforcement of its digital rules.

Brussels has opened probes into the dominance of Amazon and Microsoft in the cloud sector, launched investigations into the artificial intelligence models of Google and Meta’s WhatsApp, and handed out a €120mn fine to Elon Musk’s X for breaking digital transparency rules.

Ribera said the EU should continue to position itself as a global standard-setter, despite the external pressure.

“As Europeans, we cannot bet on a race to the bottom. We know that through the regulation we create these high standards,” she said. “And there is no single business player in Europe that doesn’t understand or denies the fact that through these high standards they can improve their competitive situation.”

Her comments come as some European socialists grow increasingly alarmed that von der Leyen’s simplification agenda risks going too far, amid a backlash against the EU’s climate agenda and pressure from the US.

While acknowledging the case for streamlining existing rules, Ribera said the bloc needed “to stick to our values” and be consistent.

The commission was holding “ongoing discussions on how we can improve the working methods”, Ribera said, adding that she felt more time was needed to properly assess the bloc’s simplification drive.

Ribera also pushed back against calls from industry to loosen merger control as part of an industrial strategy aimed at building “European champions”, particularly in sectors such as telecoms and banking.

The commission, the bloc’s antitrust enforcer, is at present updating its merger guidelines. The process has become even more politically charged after von der Leyen in September publicly called on Ribera to speed up the work — a statement Ribera said “surprised” her.

She stressed the guidelines would offer companies more clarity and would take future innovation into account more. But the rules would not simply be loosened to give companies a free pass, Ribera said. “If there is someone expecting that, they will be disappointed,” she added.

FT : How weight-loss jabs are changing life in the City

How weight-loss jabs are changing life in the City
Tailors, restaurants, dating services and other businesses are affected by the trend

At Copperfield Tailors near Moorgate Tube station, father-and-son duo Chris and Dean Coleman have been taking in a lot of trousers.

The rise of weight-loss jabs among City workers has been a boon for the clothing alteration business. “They come in with suitcases of stuff,” said 45-year-old Dean. “You even lose [weight] off your neck and your wrists. It’s an all-over reshape.”

Seventy-three-year-old Chris said he had his own trousers adjusted following a stint taking the drug.

“I’m in the fortunate position where I can bring them in myself,” he added, although he admits he only lasted three months on the medication due to gastrointestinal discomfort.

Unpleasant side effects aside, the rise of drugs such as Mounjaro and Wegovy has slowly begun to change life in the City of London.

From business attire to gym habits to singles mixers, weight-loss drugs are having perceptible impacts, as they spread from the world of celebrities and the ultra-rich to ordinary office workers.

“Pretty much since the start of 2025 we’ve really seen an uptick in prescription volume,” says Gaurav Sabharwal, founder and medical director at One5 Health, a private GP which has offered weight-loss assessments for several years.

Originally developed as a treatment for diabetes, weight-loss drugs mimic the GLP-1 hormone, acting as an appetite suppressant by releasing insulin into the bloodstream.

The bar for prescribing GLP-1s within the NHS remains high, but online sellers and private clinics have contributed to the proliferation of the drug.

A YouGov poll in May found that 6 per cent of Londoners had used weight-loss jabs.

In September, pharmaceutical data company IQVIA estimated that around 2.4mn people across the UK were using Wegovy and Mounjaro, the vast majority of whom paid for the drug out of their own pocket due to limited coverage on the NHS.

Some offices have started to offer weight-loss drugs as part of employment benefit packages and private healthcare coverage through insurers such as Vitality.

Stylist Lisa Gillbe says her clients, primarily female executives, lawyers and tech professionals in the City, have started rethinking their workplace image after being prescribed GLP-1s. 

“ We call them ‘Ozempic shops’,” she says, referencing the brand name for semaglutide — also the active ingredient in Wegovy — which is specifically approved for type 2 diabetes management and not weight loss.

“They’ve gone on the weight-loss drugs and they suddenly need a whole new wardrobe,” says Gillbe. “It’s a really considerable amount of work.”

She added that GLP-1 weight loss was “a huge moment in someone’s life” which had a “massive impact on how people view themselves”.

Weight loss jabs have also had an impact on after-work socialising. 

It’s a Date, a speed dating service that holds events in the City, says it has seen dramatic weight-loss transformations among some of their attendees. “They just bring a different energy into the room,” says co-founder Ricardo Gato.

But the roaring demand for weight-loss medication has also raised concerns about counterfeits and the potentially damaging knock-on effects of rapid loss of body weight.

In August, the City of London Police released details of a seizure of fake weight-loss drugs that were being advertised online. 

Earlier this year, NHS England’s medical director cautioned that weight-loss drugs were being used “inappropriately” as a “quick fix”.

For those taking jabs from an authorised source, there is still the risk of muscle loss and rapid gains in weight if they come off the medication. 

“ The rebound is quite significant for most people,” says Sean Murphy, global chief personal training officer at Ultimate Performance, a high-end gym with locations near Liverpool Street and St Paul’s. 

Murphy also warned that a significant reduction in calorie intake can result in muscle loss, which can be dangerous for older people.

“You’ve got to control your nutrition and make sure you don’t lose muscle. You’ve got to be having enough protein and you’ve got to resistance train,” he said.

Murphy added that better awareness about the effects of the drug had led more people to pair their weight-loss medication with regular trips to the gym. 

Sabharwal, the founder of One5 Health, said he was also beginning to see positive public health effects of GLP-1s.

“ We’re definitely seeing a shift in mindset towards preventive health, which is ultimately what the country needs,” he said. 

For tailors Chris and Dean at Copperfield, the shift has been most perceptible in the way people act when they come into their shop.

“They can enjoy themselves and actually get something that fits off the rack or have it made-to-measure,” said Chris. “That’s good for them.”

FT : Raids and recriminations: how luxury’s ‘Made in Italy’ label came unstitche

Raids and recriminations: how luxury’s ‘Made in Italy’ label came unstitched
Sweeping crackdown on alleged labour abuses in nationally cherished industry poses big questions for fashion elite

The “Made in Italy” label has long been a byword for sophisticated craftsmanship and a means of selling some of the most expensive dresses, handbags and shoes money can buy. In 2025, its reputation as a mark of quality for luxury goods has come under unprecedented threat. 

Labour issues in Italy’s fashion supply chain have been an open secret for years. But neither the brands, nor their customers, appeared to pay much attention to media reporting on allegations that some of the workers producing haute couture were being paid a pittance.

But a recent series of probes instigated by Milanese prosecutor Paolo Storari — targeting some of the most powerful names in the industry, including Loro Piana, Dior, Tod’s and Armani — has turned a fringe issue into a national scandal.

Senator Adolfo Urso, the minister of enterprise and Made in Italy, declared in October that “the reputation of our brands is under attack”.

In court documents filed last year, prosecutors said they uncovered a system of exploitation “so entrenched and proven [that it could] be considered part of a broader business policy exclusively aimed at increasing profit”. 

The authorities’ inquiries are ongoing. Prosecutors this month named 13 luxury brands, including Gucci, Versace and Yves Saint Laurent, it suspected of subcontracting to manufacturers that exploited migrant workers in Italy. None of those brands is under formal investigation. 

“What has been happening in the Italian supply chain is nothing new. What is different now is the presence of a determined prosecutor working in a systematic way to work out what has been going on, a luxury industry which is loudly fighting back and a real escalation in tensions between the two,” said Michael Posner, professor of ethics and finance at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

As the number of investigations, raids and charges mount, most brand executives are either on the defensive or refusing to comment at all.

But industry association Confindustria Moda said it was “gravely concerned” about the growing media spectacle, which risked inflicting “an unjustified and profound damage” on the Italian luxury sector. 

While the fast fashion industry has become synonymous with allegations of labour exploitation, the high prices charged by luxury brands has created an assumption that their wares are made by highly skilled, fairly paid artisans.

But like fast-fashion retailers, luxury brands outsource some production — whether that be a zip for a bag or the stitching on a dress — to third-party manufacturers.

Strong demand for luxury goods over the past two decades, especially from Chinese consumers, has placed increasing strain on manufacturers, pushing some of them to outsource more of their production. Those underlying pressures were then exacerbated by a fresh surge in demand during the pandemic-era boom.

In Italy, where there is no national minimum wage, workers are at particular risk of being exploited. Under Italian law contractors are required to obtain companies’ written permission to subcontract, but the brands embroiled in the investigations all say they did not give consent and errant suppliers went behind their backs.

Diego Della Valle, founder and chair of luxury shoe and bag maker Tod’s, said in October that it was the supplier’s responsibility to inform them “if it hands off parts of production to subcontractors, but if they hide it from us . . . that will escape our [audits]”.

Italy’s luxury suppliers are often small, artisanal businesses based in the countryside and working to exacting deadlines.

Deborah Lucchetti, national co-ordinator of the Clean Clothes Campaign in Italy, said suppliers “are at the mercy of big brands that impose commercial conditions, starting with prices that are too low to cover all costs”.

“That, in turn, fuels a system in which first-tier suppliers turn to subcontractors, imposing ever more stringent terms, which leads to labour abuses, most often against migrants. It’s a chain of exploitation,” she added.

Dior and Armani said the relationships uncovered between their suppliers and Chinese-owned subcontractors that were found to have exploited workers were rare glitches in otherwise robust systems of control.

Investigations found that workers at a supplier to Loro Piana were paid as little as a few euros a day and forced to work up to 90 hours a week in unsafe, unsanitary conditions.

The LVMH-owned cashmere brand, which said it had cut ties with the supplier on the basis that it violated its labour code by subcontracting, was placed into a one-year court administration to address shortfalls in its supply chain.

Loro Piana is not under criminal investigation and the order will be lifted if it complies with legal requirements before the 12-month deadline given by the court. Dior and Armani had similar restrictions placed on them lifted early.

At a breakfast event during Milan Fashion Week in September, many luxury executives complained that the investigations had blown small issues in their supply chains out of proportion.

Less than a month later, Della Valle broke cover to attack Storari personally, saying that the prosecutor “should be ashamed” of the damage he was inflicting on the country’s luxury industry. 

“It is absolutely inexcusable for the prosecutor to wake up one day and tarnish [our] reputation, treating us like criminals and spreading falsehoods,” Della Valle said. “This is the sixth investigation by the same prosecutor targeting the luxury sector. The whole system is in peril.”

Only weeks later Storari placed Tod’s and three of its executives under investigation for suspected labour abuses.

At the breakfast event Carlo Capasa, president of industry lobby group Camera Della Moda, said that “only” 30,000 workers out of the 600,000 employees in the Italian luxury supply chain were “irregular”, meaning that they were working without a legal contract.

Capasa added that he and other senior industry figures had been working on new protocols to help brands ensure they were working with suppliers certified annually by a third party.

Industry moves come alongside politically initiated reforms. The Italian Senate approved a first package of measures for the fashion sector in October, including the establishment of a production chain certification system to help improve traceability.

“We are taking concrete measures to firmly defend Italian fashion,” Urso, the minister, said in October. “We have a duty to protect the Made in Italy label and to make it stronger, including in terms of legality,” he added.

The Prefecture of Milan, a local branch of the interior ministry, has also been looking to formulate a common framework of best practice and to establish a centralised database where suppliers can upload certification documents.

But participation is optional. Critics say that voluntary pacts will do little to combat the structural issues that give rise to labour abuse.

“A database or system in place is good, but at the end of the day that’s ultimately a smokescreen that protects the companies,” said Posner, the Stern professor. “The brands want to say they are doing the right thing without fundamentally changing their business model.”

Two luxury executives said the main problem was that the inherent limitations of audits meant that if a supplier was determined to outsource without telling them, it was very difficult to stop.

Some luxury companies, such as Zegna, Chanel and Hermès, have tried to insulate themselves from subcontracting by buying some of their suppliers outright. Others, like Brunello Cucinelli, pay suppliers above-average rates, arguing that accepting a lower margin is the only way to limit supply chain risks.

The spotlight has now turned on Storari, the combative prosecutor going after the leading lights in a nationally cherished industry — for whom reputation is paramount.

Storari has led important investigations, notably into Mafia infiltration of football hooligan groups, for which he ended up under police protection, and takes a particular interest in labour exploitation cases.

He has criticised the business models of food delivery platforms and taken on the likes of Amazon over alleged tax evasion.

His approach to his work makes him a divisive figure in Italy: some commentators have commended Storari’s initiatives, while others say he is pursuing an aggressive political agenda.

Last month the prosecutor struck a defiant note, telling a Milan conference that “the state should be proud” of his work rooting out bad actors in the luxury world, as he signalled he had no intention of backing down.

“Some may say we have [gone overboard] or that we make up the rules . . . but carta canta.”

FT : Solar power surplus in Spain triggers ‘discount season’ for plants

Solar power surplus in Spain triggers ‘discount season’ for plants
Power producers pivot to battery storage to save unprofitable solar farms

Spanish solar power is going through a shake out after a plunge in electricity prices left the owners of weak projects in one of Europe’s top renewables markets searching for exits.

The country has become a solar champion thanks to abundant sunshine and the government’s pro-renewables policies. But a surge in power production has outpaced demand, depressing electricity prices and profits for generators.

Some power producers are struggling to offload plants whose valuations have plunged as executives talk of solar “saturation”, creating a contrast between Spain and other places — China, India, Gulf states and European neighbours — where solar arrays are being built apace.

“It’s discount season,” said Carmen Izquierdo, co-founder of nTeaser, a deals marketplace. “Spain remains a dynamic market, but there is greater scrutiny of assets.”

Other producers are pivoting to installing batteries, which can complement and potentially save unprofitable solar projects.

Operational solar plants were valued at an average of €916,000 per megawatt in early 2024, but have now dropped to €648,000 per megawatt, according to nTeaser.


From 2022-24 there was a vibrant M&A market for Spanish solar portfolios, including those of mixed quality, but sellers are now having to strip out the weakest parks to close deals.

“They are willing to sacrifice part of the portfolio to move the rest forward,” Izquierdo said.

While cheap electricity is a boon for users, the gloom is even greater over so-called ready-to-build projects, where land, permits and grid access have all been secured, but construction has not begun.

A senior executive at an owner of Spanish solar plants said: “The market is flooded with ready-to-build projects that developers want to sell since they’re no longer good enough in the current market.”

Some projects were up for sale for just €1, the executive said, reflecting developers’ desperation to avoid further spending, and potential government penalties for not executing agreed construction plans.

The least attractive ready-to-build projects are often far from power grid nodes, requiring investment in expensive power lines.

As a solar downturn began in the past year, some Spanish companies sold existing plants to foreign investors. Utility group Endesa offloaded 50 per cent stakes in two solar power portfolios for a combined €1bn to Masdar, the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned clean energy company.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Socialist-led government says cheap electricity is a good thing, and is already attracting new industrial investments that will bolster the economy.

But low prices are painful for producers. When they fall below zero, as they have for more than 500 hours in Spain this year, producers can end up having to choose between paying wholesale customers to take excess power off their hands or switching off.

Many producers insulate themselves by selling electricity through long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs), which they sign at fixed prices with corporate clients for 10-20 years.

Last month, Zelestra, an independent power producer, signed two PPAs with Microsoft in the Aragón region where the tech group plans to build data centres.

But negative prices are even clouding the market for PPAs, pulling down contract prices and prompting buyers to demand clauses that let them benefit from ultra-low rates in the spot market.

Andrés Acosta, innovation director at LevelTen Energy, a clean energy marketplace, said PPA prices that buyers are willing to pay are generally lower than what developers need — about €30 per megawatt hour — to make projects “bankable”.

“That has dramatically reduced the number of PPAs signed and means the majority of solar projects are not viable anymore unless they are hybridised with batteries,” Acosta said.


Adding battery storage to solar plants helps to limit price plunges by enabling generators to store electricity when prices drop during the day, then sell it in the evening when demand and prices are higher.

Killian Daly, executive director of Energy Tag, a non-profit group, said: “Storage should be the natural cure for the woes of the PPA market, but it’s not scaling as fast as it should do.”

The UK, Germany and Italy are far ahead of Spain in terms of existing and planned battery installations, according to data from the European Commission.


Following a nationwide blackout in Spain in April, the government took steps in November to remove some regulatory barriers to adding battery storage.

One key change eliminated a requirement for a new environmental impact assessment when installing batteries within an existing solar plant, said Pablo Martínez, Iberia lead at Modo Energy, a data provider.

That would reduce the time it takes to complete a battery project from three or four years to less than 18 months, he said.

FT : AI boom adds $500bn to net worth of US tech billionaires in 2025

AI boom adds $500bn to net worth of US tech billionaires in 2025
Elon Musk stays on top as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang powers up the rankings on an AI-fuelled surge in fortunes

America’s wealthiest tech billionaires added more than $550bn to their combined net worth this year, as they benefit from an investor frenzy around leading artificial intelligence companies.

The top 10 US tech founders and chief executives possessed more than $2.5tn in cash, equity and other investments at the close of trading in New York on Christmas Eve, according to Bloomberg data.

The figure is up from $1.9tn at the beginning of this year and comes as the S&P 500 climbed more than 18 per cent.

Silicon Valley’s leaders have profited from the hundreds of billions of dollars spent globally on AI chips, data centres and products, even if some of their gains were trimmed in recent months over concerns about an AI-fuelled investment bubble.

“This is all speculative and correlated to the success of AI,” said Jason Furman, an economics professor at Harvard University and consultant for start-up OpenAI. “There’s a huge question mark over whether this is all going to pay off, but investors are betting that it will.”


Elon Musk remains at the top of the list with a net worth that has risen nearly 50 per cent to $645bn, having only briefly slipped from the position in September when Oracle founder Larry Ellison eclipsed him.

The billionaire’s wealth soared in a year that he secured a $1tn pay deal with Tesla shareholders and the valuation of his rocket company SpaceX surged to $800bn.


Another winner from the AI boom is Jensen Huang, the founder of AI chipmaker Nvidia, which has rapidly grown to become the world’s biggest listed company with a market capitalisation above $4tn. He ranks as the eighth wealthiest US tech executive with a net worth of $156bn.

Securities filings show Huang disposed of more than $1bn worth of shares this year as he benefits from Nvidia’s ascent as the world’s leading maker of advanced AI chips.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos also sold $5.6bn worth of shares this year, while Michael Dell disposed of more than $2bn worth of shares in his eponymous tech company.

Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg fell down the rankings following a recent slump in the social media’s share price, as investors grew wary of its vast expenditure on AI infrastructure and pay deals with top AI researchers.

Ellison saw his net worth soar on the back of Oracle revealing a $300bn data centre deal with OpenAI three months ago. However, fears over how the group is financing its data centre build-out has led Oracle’s share price to fall 40 per cent from its September peak.

Zuckerberg and Ellison were overtaken by Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, whose net worth grew by $270bn and $255bn respectively, as the search giant makes strides with its in-house AI models and chips.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates was the only individual among the roster to end the year with a lower net worth than at the beginning as he continued to sell his stock in the software giant to finance his philanthropic efforts.

SCMP : China’s rising biotech clout on show in flurry of billion-dollar licensin

China’s rising biotech clout on show in flurry of billion-dollar licensing deals
A burst of overseas licensing pacts is spotlighting China’s biotech sector, as Jacobio, Coherent Biopharma and Harbour BioMed land deals

Chinese drugmakers have signed a late-year burst of out-licensing agreements with overseas partners, underlining China’s growing role as a source of novel medicines as multinational pharma groups hunt for new assets.
Jacobio Pharmaceuticals said it expected to receive an upfront payment of US$100 million from AstraZeneca, according to a filing to the Hong Kong stock exchange on December 21.

The British-Swedish drugmaker was paying for exclusive rights to research, develop, register, manufacture and commercialise Jacobio’s experimental cancer therapy JAB-23E73 in markets worldwide, excluding mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

Jacobio could also earn up to US$1.92 billion in milestone payments linked to development, regulatory and commercial targets, and would receive tiered royalties on sales.

JAB-23E73 is an oral pill designed to inhibit KRAS, a mutated protein that can fuel tumour growth, while sparing closely related “good” proteins – an approach intended to reduce side effects.

The drug is currently in Phase I human trials in China and the United States.

Coherent Biopharma, meanwhile, had also struck a cross-border partnership, signing an exclusive licensing deal on December 22 with US-based MultiValent Biotherapies for CBP-1018, a prostate cancer candidate.

Under the agreement, MultiValent gained exclusive rights to develop and commercialise CBP-1018 outside Greater China, while Coherent would receive an upfront payment of US$20 million and a 20 per cent equity stake in MultiValent.

The deal also included potential milestone payments of up to about US$2 billion and tiered royalties on future sales.

The latest transactions reflect a broader pattern of multinational drugmakers turning to Chinese biotechs for pipeline replenishment, particularly as the industry grapples with pricing pressure and looming patent expiries.

“We remain bullish on China’s biotech out-licensing trend, though sizeable deals may be light over the next six to eight months, as biotechs accumulate more clinical data or await assets to enter later stage,” said Cui Cui, head of Asia healthcare research at Jefferies, in a recent note.

“Multinational drug corporations face mounting pressure from drug pricing and patent cliffs, while Chinese firms continue to prove quality and efficiency after a decade of effort,” she added.
Earlier this month, Harbour BioMed also teamed up with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) in a multi-year global partnership focused on discovering and developing next-generation multi-specific antibodies – drugs engineered to bind to more than one target on cancer cells to enhance therapeutic effect.

Under the agreement announced on December 17, Harbour BioMed would work with BMS to advance multi-specific antibody discovery programmes in return for US$90 million in upfront payments, potential milestone payments of up to US$1 billion, and tiered royalties if BMS elected to pursue the programmes.

China has been rolling out policies aimed at bolstering homegrown biopharmaceutical groups as out-licensing activity gathers pace.

Authorities have identified biomanufacturing as a future economic pillar, and the country has also introduced its first commercial insurance “innovative drug list”, part of an effort to improve access and affordability for a population of more than 1.4 billion.

SCMP : China’s new quantum computer hits stability milestone, beating Google on

China’s new quantum computer hits stability milestone, beating Google on efficiency
Chinese team is first outside the US to cross key threshold that determines whether practical quantum computers can work reliably at scale

Chinese researchers have taken a major step in the global race to build practical quantum computers, becoming the first team outside the United States – and the second in the world after Google – to cross a key threshold that determines whether these machines can work reliably at scale.
A team led by Pan Jianwei at the University of Science and Technology of China said their superconducting quantum computer, Zuchongzhi 3.2, had reached the fault-tolerant threshold – a point where fixing errors made the system more stable rather than less, overcoming a long-standing problem in which the very process of error correction introduces new mistakes.
Their research, published last week in the journal Physical Review Letters, relied on microwave-based control rather than the hardware-intensive error-suppression methods used by Google. The Chinese approach “could offer a more efficient route than Google’s” to building large, fault-tolerant quantum computers, the team said in a statement on Monday.

Joseph Emerson, a physicist at the University of Waterloo in Canada who was not involved in the research, said the study tackled one of quantum computing’s most difficult problems: qubits drifting out of their intended states and quietly spreading errors through the system.

Writing in the American Physical Society’s Physics magazine, Emerson described the experiment as “an impressive feat”, while cautioning that it remained far from the scale needed for practical, real-world applications.

Quantum computers work by harnessing the laws of quantum physics rather than the simple on-off logic used by ordinary computers. In theory, this allows them to tackle certain tasks – such as optimising complex systems or simulating molecules – in minutes that would take today’s machines thousands of years to complete.

In practice, however, quantum computers face a fundamental obstacle: instability. Their building blocks, known as qubits, are extremely sensitive to heat, noise and tiny disturbances from their surroundings, causing errors to appear constantly during normal operation.

To manage this, scientists developed quantum error correction, which spreads information across many qubits and repeatedly checks for problems. But this creates a paradox: each extra qubit and each additional check also introduces new sources of error.

For years, attempts to correct mistakes made systems less reliable, not more.

That is why researchers focused on a critical tipping point known as the error-correction threshold. Below this threshold, error correction backfires and creates more mistakes than it removes. Above it, the balance flips and error correction delivers a net benefit, allowing systems to become more stable as they grow.

China and the US both began investing early in surface code quantum error correction, one of the most widely studied methods for protecting quantum information. In 2022, Pan’s team used an earlier processor, Zuchongzhi 2, to achieve a minimal error-correcting unit, known as a distance-3 surface code logical qubit, as an initial proof of principle.
The following year, Google pushed the technique further by achieving distance-5 surface code error correction. But in both cases, relatively high error rates in the underlying qubits prevented the systems from truly crossing the threshold.

That changed in February, when Google reported a breakthrough using its Willow quantum processor. By suppressing a particularly harmful class of errors known as leakage using direct current pulses, Google became the world’s first team to achieve a distance-7 surface code logical qubit operating below the threshold.
This approach, however, places tight constraints on chip design and requires increasingly complex wiring in ultra-low-temperature environments as systems scale up, according to Pan’s team.

In the new study, the Chinese researchers took a different path. Working with the 107-qubit Zuchongzhi 3.2 processor, they developed an all-microwave method to suppress leakage errors, using carefully timed microwave signals instead of additional hardware controls.

Combining this approach with surface code error correction, Pan and coworkers were able to build a distance-7 logical qubit, matching the scale of Google’s most advanced demonstrations. They found that as the system grew larger, the overall error rate fell rather than rose.

The researchers measured an error-suppression factor of 1.4, meaning each increase in the size of the error-correction code reduced errors instead of amplifying them, which was clear evidence that the system was operating below the threshold.

They said that the all-microwave approach could offer practical advantages as quantum computers grow larger. Because microwave signals can be multiplexed, allowing multiple signals to travel along a single wire, the method might reduce wiring complexity and hardware overhead, two major obstacles to scaling quantum processors.

Taken together, they said, the results pointed to a more flexible and potentially more scalable route towards fault-tolerant quantum computers with hundreds of thousands or even millions of qubits.

CrunchBase : Are We Repeating The Mistakes Of The Last Bubble?

Are We Repeating The Mistakes Of The Last Bubble?
In December 2021, I highlighted the dangers of tech startups raising capital at inflated revenue multiples between 40x and 70x. At the time, it was clear that valuations were being driven more by hype than by financial fundamentals.

The warning signs were there. Now, years later, the consequences are materializing.

Many of those companies raised at sky-high valuations without ever achieving profitability. As cash reserves dry up, they are facing a harsh reality. Market multiples have contracted significantly, and those inflated valuations from 2021 are now a liability.

The consequences of inflated valuations
  • Burning cash without a safety net: Companies that raised during the 2021 frenzy often expected follow-on funding at similar or higher valuations. But when that capital never came, they were left with aggressive burn rates and unsustainable cost structures. Many are now out of cash and scrambling to sell, often for a fraction of what they once claimed they were worth.
  • Fire sales are replacing funding rounds: I now meet founders regularly who are exploring M&A not as a strategic exit, but as a last resort. These are not healthy companies looking to grow through partnerships. These are distressed startups trying to recoup whatever value remains. The market has corrected, but their cap tables haven’t. The result is a mismatch between seller expectations and what buyers are willing to pay.
  • Unit economics were ignored for growth: In the rush to grow fast and raise bigger rounds, many companies neglected the unit economics basics. Gross margin, CAC payback, dollar retention and profitability were sidelined in favor of valuations and top-line revenue. Now that the market is focused on sustainable growth, companies with weak unit economics are struggling to survive.

The AI wave is showing the same patterns
What worries me is that we are seeing the same dynamic play out today in the AI sector.

Early-stage companies are raising at valuations that assume future dominance, long before product-market fit or revenue. The technology is exciting and the potential is real, but history tells us that not all companies will emerge winners.

When the hype settles, those with sound business models and disciplined financials will remain standing. Others will be left dealing with down rounds, layoffs or worse.

What founders should focus on now
  • Raise at a valuation that reflects your business, not the market trend: A modest, well-structured round sets you up for sustainable growth and realistic expectations in future financings. Chasing the highest number on your term sheet may feel good in the short term but often leads to long-term challenges.
  • Plan for profitability, not perpetual fundraising: The best companies today are those that have built paths to breakeven. Founders should be laser-focused on extending runway, improving efficiency and demonstrating clear financial discipline.
  • Avoid relying on momentum to carry you forward: Momentum helped companies raise easily in 2021. But when market sentiment shifts, only the fundamentals matter. Those who focus on building strong products with clear value and repeatable sales will be in the best position to raise, grow or exit at an attractive valuation.

WSJ : Even the Companies Making Humanoid Robots Think They’re Overhyped

Even the Companies Making Humanoid Robots Think They’re Overhyped
Despite billions in investment, startups say their androids mostly aren’t useful for industrial or domestic work yet

Makers of humanoid robots seek to temper expectations, citing significant technical challenges and unreliability for complex tasks.
The cost of installing robots is a major deterrent; only 20% of deployment costs go to the machine, with 80% for human safety systems.
While some predict widespread adoption, others argue that specialized robots, not humanoids, offer greater efficiency for factory tasks.

Billions of dollars are flowing into humanoid robot startups, as investors bet that the industry will soon put humanlike machines in warehouses, factories and our living rooms.

Many leaders of those companies would like to temper those expectations. For all the recent advances in the field, humanoid robots, they say, have been overhyped and face daunting technical challenges before they move from science experiments to a replacement for human workers.

“We’ve been trying to figure out how do we not just make a humanoid robot, but also make a humanoid robot that does useful work,” said Pras Velagapudi, chief technology officer at Agility Robotics.

Agility currently has hundreds of its Digit robots working with customers, including Amazon.com and auto-parts company Schaeffler. They perform tasks including picking up items and moving them around a warehouse.

As robots like Digit have begun to find niches of demand, some analysts and technology executives have begun to predict a looming humanoid robot wave.

Velagapudi is skeptical. Getting human-shaped robots into warehouses or industrial sites to move boxes is one thing, he said; building a robot butler is beyond the industry’s current capabilities, with current robots too unreliable to perform complex tasks.

Then there is safety. According to a survey of executives, the cost of installing robots is the biggest reason companies avoid deploying robots, said Ani Kelkar, a partner at McKinsey. For every $100 spent on deploying robots today, only around $20 is the actual machine, with the rest being spent on equipment and systems designed to protect humans from injury, Kelkar said.

In theory, a humanoid robot won’t need the same safeguards as an industrial arm that might weigh thousands of pounds and operate at high speeds. Tesla’s Optimus robot stands approximately 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighs 125 pounds; Unitree’s G1 is even smaller at 4 feet and 77 pounds.

But the gulf between the promise of the technology and what it can do today is wide, Kelkar said. “We’re doing a big extrapolation from watching videos of robots doing laundry to a butler in my house that can do everything,” he said.

At the recent Humanoids Summit in Mountain View, Calif., touted as the world’s largest gathering devoted to the subject, Isaac Qureshi used a virtual-reality headset to control an early prototype of a robot designed to clean office spaces.

The chief executive of the recently formed company that makes it, Gatlin Robotics, followed behind the robot as it attempted to scrub a brick wall.

“Slowly, we’re going to teach the Gatlin robot more things, like starting with dusting, surface cleaning, trash bins and then the toilet,” said Qureshi. “Toilet’s a big North Star.”

On stage at the summit, one startup founder after another sought to tamp down the hype around humanoid robots.

“There’s a lot of great technological work happening, a lot of great talent working on these, but they are not yet well defined products,” said Kaan Dogrusoz, a former Apple engineer and CEO of Weave Robotics.

Today’s humanoid robots are the right idea, but the technology isn’t up to the premise, Dogrusoz said. He compared it to Apple’s most infamous product failure, the Newton hand-held computer.

Launched in the 1990s amid a wave of hype about personal digital assistants, the Newton was a commercial failure that was canceled after only a few years. Just a decade later, however, hand-held computers would become ubiquitous with the launch of the iPhone.

“Full bipedal humanoids are the Newtons of our times,” Dogrusoz said.

Weave is building laundry-folding robots, which are being used in some San Francisco laundromats. But even the founders whose robots are finding some market traction see risks in encouraging the notion that the technology has arrived.

“I think we have to have this sense of responsibility about the timelines we are talking about, the adoption timelines,” said Nicolaus Radford, CEO of Persona AI, in a keynote address at the summit.

Company leaders say there is a narrow set of roles where humanlike robots make sense today, including performing simple, repetitive tasks such as moving boxes. Persona is building a welding robot for a shipbuilding company, a function Radford said is ripe for roboticization because the danger involved makes labor hard to find. For something like robot butlers, the market is farther off, he said.

The cautious, if not downright gloomy, outlook by leaders and engineers of humanoid robot companies stands in contrast to forecasts made by some of the biggest names in technology.

Elon Musk predicts that demand for humanoid robots will be “insatiable” and has said that Tesla aims to produce one million of the company’s Optimus robots a year by 2030. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has said he believes the world is on the cusp of making everything that moves robotic. “Humanoid robots, the technology that makes it possible is just around the corner,” Huang said on a podcast in January.

Optimists like Musk and Huang see a confluence in trends behind their predictions. Billions of dollars are being spent on data centers to train the artificial-intelligence models that will power future robots. The aging of populations in many countries means there will be fewer workers as well as a growing cohort of elderly people in need of care. Governments also see robots as a way to win manufacturing jobs back from overseas.

Beyond the macroeconomic trends, improvements in battery and motor technology mean that robots are becoming more adept at mimicking human motion and can work for longer periods. Earlier this month, the CEO of one of the hottest robot startups, Figure AI, posted a video of the company’s latest humanoid bot jogging in a manner eerily similar to a human.

Dozens of robot startups are attracting huge investments, with around $5 billion being invested in humanoid robots this year, said Kelkar of McKinsey.

FEV Consulting, which advises many robotics companies, predicts that by 2035 there will be around one million humanoid robots at work. Holding back the expansion is a lack of training data for robots, with many startups using humans wearing virtual-reality headsets to train robots. Others are experimenting with 3-D models of workspaces to speed up the process.

But no one is sure how much training is required before robots can move from folding shirts to doing multiple household chores, said Dominik Boemer, a manager at FEV.

“Humanoids perhaps solve some specific problems, but it might not be as big of a market in the near term as everyone thinks it is,” Jeff Mahler, chief technology officer at Ambi Robotics, which makes package-sorting robots.

Ultimately, there is a more fundamental question to answer: Do we even need a robot with arms and legs?

There are downsides to the human form: Robots that look like us are prone to tipping over and engineers struggle to create a mechanical version of the human hand. We rely on sensations from our skin to know how much pressure to apply, something robot builders struggle to replicate. Some engineers say the future isn’t in replicating the human shape but in improving on it, with four hands instead of two, or suction grippers instead of fingers.

“My point of view is that we are sticking to the humanoid form too much,” said Max Goncharov, the chief technology officer at RemBrain. “In the factories, it’s all about efficiency, and efficiency means more specialized robots.”

“I think humanoids will do a tiny layer of tasks in factories in the future,” Goncharov said.

WSJ : Family Offices Have Become the New Power Players on Wall Street

Family Offices Have Become the New Power Players on Wall Street
Wealthy families are launching offices to manage their money at a record clip and are getting a seat at the table in significant deals

  • Family offices, recently managing some $5.5 trillion in wealth, are expected to increase and top $9 trillion by 2030, according to Deloitte.
  • The number of single-family offices globally has grown by about one-third since 2019 and now exceeds 8,000.
  • The offices supply extensive services, from investment management to personal affairs, and can compete with large institutional investors.

Family offices are the new power players on Wall Street.

A growing number of wealthy Americans are launching family offices, firms that do everything from investing money for the superrich to managing their personal affairs. They are huge and secretive, and their influence on Wall Street and Main Street is only growing.

Families with these offices recently oversaw about $5.5 trillion in wealth, a 67% jump from five years ago, according to Deloitte. The firm expects that figure to rise to $6.9 trillion this year and top $9 trillion by 2030. It estimates that in coming years, these offices will manage more money than hedge-fund firms.

Banks and other firms are hungry to cater to family offices’ every need, while entrepreneurs and investment managers are clamoring to land a slice of these families’ immense wealth.

“It’s not just growing, it’s exploding,” said Hendrik Jordaan, a partner at Nelson Mullins who works exclusively with family offices. “I really think about the family office world being the next private equity.”

Launching a family office is in vogue. While the biggest ones have long managed billions of dollars on behalf of titans such as Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell and Bill Gates, many families with hundreds or tens of millions of dollars in wealth are launching them, too, or turning to so-called multifamily offices to manage their fortunes. There are more than 8,000 single-family offices globally today, up roughly a third from 6,130 in 2019, according to Deloitte. The firm expects that figure to top 10,000 by 2030.

“It’s kind of become the word for ultrahigh-net-worth families. Do you or don’t you have a family office?” said Justin Flach, managing director of wealth strategy for Ascent Private Capital Management at U.S. Bank, who typically works with families with net worths topping $75 million.

“There’s some status assigned to that. You’re at a cocktail party talking about it,” Flach said.

How the superrich deploy their firepower has vast implications for the fortunes of businesses in almost every U.S. industry, global philanthropy and the broader economy. As this money trickles through the economy, it stands to transform the fate of businesses tied to everything from artificial intelligence and data centers to dental offices and medical spas.

Given the sums they can invest, big family offices can sometimes compete against large institutional investors on deals, putting them up against behemoths such as Apollo Global Management and Blackstone.

Family offices can find their way into public-company merger deals, too. The offices of late Pequot Capital founder Arthur Samberg and Addison Fischer are among the backers of fusion-energy company TAE Technologies, which struck a deal this month valued at $6 billion to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group.

Unlike public pension-fund managers, who answer to local teachers and firefighters, or hedge-fund firms, which regularly provide financials to investors, family-office leaders don’t answer to anyone but themselves. That gives them vast latitude to hold investments for decades and ride out periods of stomach-churning volatility, or make large and concentrated wagers. Traders and advisers say that family offices often have little interest in hedging their bets through tools such as derivatives.

That willingness to hold on to bullish bets on particular stocks or sectors makes them an attractive source of funds for many businesses.

“We get pitched a lot,” said entrepreneur and philanthropist Vinod Gupta, who started his family office, Everest Group, more than a decade ago with more than $100 million, after selling one of his companies. “I bet I get three emails a day. Of course, I just delete them.”

Gupta employs about seven people, including two who oversee investments. His donations to organizations such as the University of Nebraska and schools in India have been done through the office, he said.

Family offices are often the centerpieces of wealthy families’ financial lives. Many handle mundane tasks such as paying thousands of bills a year for wealthy individuals and their offspring so they never have to glance at a credit-card statement. They help staff individuals’ estates around the world and liaise with advisers to pick out, and finance, toys such as planes and yachts. They can oversee teams of assistants who do everything from booking travel to managing packing suitcases and making restaurant reservations.

Some employ just a handful of individuals to help with estate planning and investing, while others have dozens or hundreds of employees. Staff can include everyone from household managers to psychologists. More than a fifth of family offices with more than $500 million in assets have art advisers, according to a Citi survey of more than 300 family offices this year.

Betsy Bickar, head of art advisory at Citi, recently took a wealthy Latin American family to the Guggenheim Museum in New York City while its doors were closed to the general public. They roamed the museum while it was virtually empty, viewing artwork by the Brazilian artist Beatriz Milhazes and Rashid Johnson, who is known for monochromatic, textural wall works made from a concoction of soap and wax.

Big banks and money managers are offering family-office services for investors who aren’t quite billionaires, and might have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. (Sorry, these aren’t for the moderate millionaires.) There are now about 800 registered investment advisers who call themselves multifamily offices, meaning that they can oversee wealth for dozens of families, an estimated 30% increase in the past 10 years, according to Schwab Advisor Services.

Running an individual office can cost millions a year. Firms such as Mercer Advisors and Corient provide these family-office services to clients with more than $25 million in assets. Some firms require minimums of just $10 million.

Ultrarich investors are often nosy about what their peers at other family offices are up to, and which deals they are getting a peek at. They can move in packs, getting in on the same investment after one of them gets a whiff of a particularly attractive opportunity. An office connected to a network of families might be able to secure more attractive deal terms, and clubs of families that invest together have emerged, lawyers and advisers say.

“Family offices love to talk to other family offices,” said Dino De Vita, who works with more than 550 of Northern Trust’s richest clients within its global family and private investment offices group.