Singapore Private Home Sales Fall to Six-Month Low Before Curbs
Developers sold 272 units last month, data from the Urban Redevelopment Authority showed on Tuesday. That's lower than the 312 homes sold in May, but higher than the sales reported in June 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sino Biopharma spends $951m to acquire China-based LaNova Medicines
Hong Kong-listed Sino Biopharmaceutical will acquire China-based oncology specialist LaNova Medicines in a deal that will not exceed $951m, representing one of the largest transactions within the Asia-Pacific pharmaceutical arena this year. Sino already owns a 4.91% stake courtesy of an investment in November 2024, with the company now seeking to purchase the remaining 95.09% it does not own. At the time, Sino spent 142 million yuan ($19.80m) to initiate its ownership involvement with the biotech. The net payment made by Sino to acquire LaNova will be approximately $500.9m, a figure that excludes the estimated cash and bank deposits, according to a company document outlining the terms of the transaction. Following the completion of the nearly billion-dollar deal, LaNova Medicines will become an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Sino. A timeline of 30 business days has been set by the companies to finalise the deal. Sino revealed the acquisition agreement after trading hours on 15 July. The share price in the company had climbed 3.6% by market close. LaNova's drug development focuses on tumour immunity and the tumour microenvironment. The company has particular emphasis on antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and has built several platforms within this modality. Sino stated the acquisition would strengthen its research and development capabilities, subsequently enhancing competitiveness and innovation in the oncology market. LaNova's pipeline has already been raided twice by US big pharma companies. In 2023, AstraZeneca licensed LM-305, a G-protein targeting-ADC, for $600m. A year later, MSD outlaid more than $3bn to secure global rights to LM-299, an anti-PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibody. According to Sino, LaNova Medicines has two projects in the registration clinical stage, six projects in the Phase I/II clinical trial stage, and more than ten projects in the preclinical research stage. In a statement, Sino said: 'Through the in-depth synergy and integration of the advantageous resources of both parties, not only will the potential value of LaNova Medicines be fully released, but also [Sino's] innovation capability will be comprehensively enhanced." The company added that the transaction will help towards its 'strategic goal of advancing towards a world-class innovative pharmaceutical enterprise'. China's economy grew 5.2% year-on-year in Q2, defying the lingering effects of US President Trump's trade war and reinforcing its position as the world's top exporter. This economic resilience is mirrored in China's growing role in the global oncology market. Despite economic pressures, licensing promising drug candidates from Chinese biotechs is becoming a well-trodden path for many US big pharma companies. Licensing deals between US and Chinese biopharma companies hit record highs last year, a 280% increase from 2020, according to analysis by GlobalData. Across big pharma, transactions rose 66% from $16.6bn in 2023 to $41.5bn in 2024, demonstrating that China is still the go-to place to discover pipeline candidates. For deals specific to US companies, the analysis found that total deal value rose from $15.7bn in 2023 to $21.3bn in 2024. GlobalData is the parent company of Pharmaceutical Technology. "Sino Biopharma spends $951m to acquire China-based LaNova Medicines" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, 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
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
BlackRock Shares Tumble After Big Client Redemption Blunts Quarterly Results
BlackRock's BLK -5.36%decrease; red down pointing triangle shares tumbled more than 6% Tuesday after the investing giant said a large client pulled money during the second quarter. The investment firm's $5.42 billion in quarterly revenue fell short of analysts' average estimates, driven in part by lower net inflows. A key culprit of the shortfall was a move by a single institutional client in Asia to pull $52 billion from the firm's index funds.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Why 'Acquihires' Are Reshaping Silicon Valley AI Investments
TOKYO, JAPAN - FEBRUARY 3: Open AI CEO Sam Altman speaks during a talk session with SoftBank Group ... More CEO Masayoshi Son at an event titled "Transforming Business through AI" in Tokyo, Japan, on February 03, 2025. SoftBank and OpenAI announced that they have agreed a partnership to set up a joint venture for artificial intelligence services in Japan today. (Photo by) The artificial intelligence gold rush has created a new playbook for tech acquisitions, one that's raising uncomfortable questions about corporate consolidation, employee equity, and the future of innovation. The latest example arrived last week when Google swooped in to hire Windsurf's CEO and key talent after OpenAI's three billion dollar acquisition deal collapsed, marking the fourth major "acquihire" in the past year that has left startup employees empty-handed while tech giants walk away with the crown jewels. The Windsurf Wreckage Alphabet Inc.'s Google struck a deal to pay about $2.4 billion for top talent and licensing rights from artificial intelligence coding startup Windsurf following the collapse of Windsurf's agreement to be bought by Google rival OpenAI. The failed OpenAI deal, initially valued at three billion dollars, unraveled amid concerns about Microsoft's access to Windsurf's intellectual property through its partnership with OpenAI. What makes this story particularly revealing is not just the dollar figures, but how it played out for different stakeholders. Google DeepMind is hiring Windsurf CEO Varun Mohan and key team members for agentic coding projects, while Google negotiated a separate licensing deal with early investors that included dividend payments. Meanwhile, Windsurf will continue to operate as an independent company – but the employees who stayed behind face an uncertain future with a company that has just lost its leadership and most valuable assets. The Acquihire Assembly Line The Windsurf deal follows a disturbing pattern that has become Silicon Valley's new normal. Google's acquihire deal with Character AI was the third for Big Tech in six months, after Microsoft's agreement with Inflection and Amazon's deal with Adept. Each deal follows a similar playbook: hire away the founding team and key talent, license the technology, compensate early investors, and leave the remaining employees with little to show for their contributions. Google's deal provides the clearest example of this new model. In August 2024, Google signed a $2.7 billion agreement with Officially, the deal granted Google a non-exclusive license to use the startup's generative AI technology. The deal brought back Noam Shazeer, who had left Google in 2021 after the company refused to release his chatbot technology, in what industry observers called a "reverse acquihire." Amazon's approach with Adept was even more surgical. The company hired most of Adept's team, including CEO David Luan, while licensing the startup's technology. Microsoft followed a similar playbook with Inflection AI, bringing in CEO Mustafa Suleyman and most of his team while leaving the original company as a shell. The Antitrust Workaround Industry experts and regulators aren't buying the coincidence. The unusual structure of deals like the one Google made to hire Character's founders has prompted some tech insiders and federal regulators to suggest they may be designed to try to evade antitrust pressure. The Federal Trade Commission is already investigating whether these structures are designed to circumvent merger review processes. The Justice Department is probing whether Alphabet Inc.'s Google violated antitrust law with an agreement to use the artificial intelligence technology of a popular chatbot maker, specifically targeting the deal. Antitrust regulators want to know more about Microsoft's Inflection deal and Amazon's Adept arrangement. The regulatory scrutiny makes sense. Traditional acquisitions would face months of review, public disclosure, and potential blocking by antitrust authorities. But by structuring deals as talent acquisitions with separate licensing agreements, tech giants can achieve similar outcomes with less regulatory friction. The Employee Equity Earthquake The human cost of these deals is becoming impossible to ignore. While founders and early investors walk away with substantial payouts, rank-and-file employees often receive nothing. The Windsurf case illustrates this perfectly: Google negotiated dividend payments for early investors while hiring away the CEO and key team members, but the remaining employees face an uncertain future with a company that has lost its core leadership and competitive advantage. This represents a fundamental shift in how startup value is distributed. Traditionally, successful exits – whether through IPOs or acquisitions – provided returns to employees through stock options and equity participation. The new acquihire model concentrates returns among a small group of key personnel and investors while leaving the majority of employees behind. John F. Coyle, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, said he believes that Amazon hiring Adept employees without buying the company is clearly a move to avoid antitrust problems. But the antitrust implications are just one part of a broader transformation in how Silicon Valley's biggest companies compete for talent and technology. The Competitive Landscape The acquihire trend reflects the intense competition for AI talent and the astronomical valuations being placed on early-stage companies. With OpenAI valued at one hundred and fifty billion dollars and other AI startups commanding billion-dollar valuations despite minimal revenue, traditional acquisition prices have become prohibitive even for tech giants. The model also reflects the unique nature of AI competition, where breakthrough capabilities often reside in the minds of a small number of researchers and engineers. By hiring key talent, companies can acquire capabilities without paying for the entire corporate structure, customer base, and operational overhead of a traditional acquisition. Google's recent moves demonstrate this strategy in action. After missing early opportunities in generative AI, the company has become increasingly aggressive in acquiring talent from competitors. The Windsurf deal follows Google's earlier acquisition of the team, suggesting a systematic approach to closing AI capability gaps through targeted talent acquisition. The Innovation Paradox The acquihire model creates a paradox for innovation. On one hand, it provides an exit path for AI startups that might otherwise struggle to compete with well-funded giants. Founders can secure significant personal returns while joining companies with the resources to scale their innovations globally. On the other hand, the model concentrates AI development within a small number of large companies, potentially stifling the diverse, distributed innovation that has historically driven Silicon Valley's success. When promising startups are systematically dismantled for their talent, the ecosystem loses the variety and competition that produces breakthrough innovations. The Stakeholder Calculation The question facing policymakers, investors, and employees is whether this new model serves the broader interests of innovation and economic growth. For tech giants, acquihires offer a path to acquire capabilities while avoiding regulatory scrutiny and the complexity of integrating entire companies. For startup founders and key employees, the model can provide substantial personal returns and the resources of major tech companies. Early investors often receive favorable terms in licensing deals, protecting their returns even when traditional exits fail. But for the broader workforce, customers, and innovation ecosystem, the implications are more troubling. Employees who helped build these companies often receive nothing, while the concentration of AI capabilities in a handful of large companies raises questions about competition and consumer choice. The Road Ahead The regulatory response to acquihires will likely shape the future of AI industry consolidation. If antitrust authorities succeed in blocking or restricting these deals, we might see a return to traditional acquisitions or new models that better distribute value to all stakeholders. The Windsurf case, with its failed OpenAI deal and subsequent Google acquihire, illustrates both the opportunities and risks of the current model. While Google succeeded in acquiring valuable talent and technology, the deal's structure raises questions about whether the current system truly serves the interests of innovation, competition, and the thousands of employees building the AI future. As the AI industry continues to mature, the tension between talent acquisition and traditional competition will only intensify. The question isn't whether these deals will continue – they're too valuable to the companies involved to stop. The question is whether regulators, investors, and employees will demand a more equitable distribution of the value being created. The answer will determine not just the fate of individual startups like Windsurf, but the future structure of the AI industry itself. In a field where talent truly is the most valuable asset, the rules governing how that talent moves between companies will shape the innovation landscape for decades to come.
