Market Focus Weekly: What Asia's Markets Are Really Reacting To
In this week's Market Focus Weekly from The Business Times, host Emily Liu is joined by Raisah Rasid, global market strategist at JP Morgan Asset Management, to decode the latest round of tariff drama, investor sentiment, and why Japan and Malaysia may be more resilient than they appear.
Why listen?
Because tariffs are rising, but fear isn't Despite looming August deadlines and harsh new terms, especially for Vietnam and Japan, investors aren't panicking. Rasid explains why.
Because Japan's deflation era may be ending Wage growth is up, consumer sentiment is steady, and the Bank of Japan is signalling action. The domestic story is finally turning.
Because Malaysia is walking a tightrope With rates cut for the first time in five years, Malaysia is bracing for tech sector headwinds while betting on subsidies and investment to hold the line.
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business
Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Because copper just surged overnight A 50 percent tariff on copper imports shocked markets. Supply is tight, demand is rising, and prices may stay high for longer than expected.
Market Focus Weekly delivers clear, timely insight on the stories shaping Asia's markets. Listen now at bt.sg/podcasts . Have feedback or an episode idea? Email the team at btpodcasts@sph.com.sg.
---
Written and hosted by: Emily Liu (emilyliu@sph.com.sg)
Produced and edited by: Howie Lim & Claressa Monteiro
Produced by: BT Podcasts, The Business Times, SPH Media
---
Follow Market Focus Daily and rate us on:
Channel: bt.sg/btmktfocus
Amazon: bt.sg/mfam
Apple Podcasts: bt.sg/mfap
Spotify: bt.sg/mfsp
YouTube Music: bt.sg/mfyt
Website: bt.sg/mktfocus
Feedback to: btpodcasts@sph.com.sg
Do note: This podcast is meant to provide general information only. SPH Media accepts no liability for loss arising from any reliance on the podcast or use of third party's products and services. Please consult professional advisors for independent advice.
Discover more BT podcast series:
BT Money Hacks at: bt.sg/btmoneyhacks
BT Correspondents at: bt.sg/btcobt
BT Podcasts at: bt.sg/podcasts
BT Branded Podcasts at: bt.sg/brpod
BT Lens On: bt.sg/btlenson
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
26 minutes ago
- Business Times
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay US$243 million in fatal Autopilot crash
[NEW YORK] A Florida jury on Friday (Aug 1) found Tesla liable to pay US$243 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle (EV) company. The verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software. Tesla shares fell 1.8 per cent on Friday, and are down 25 per cent this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, US$129 million in compensatory damages plus US$200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33 per cent of the compensatory damages, or US$42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67 per cent, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. 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 'Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,' Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said. 'Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries,' he added. Tesla said it will appeal. 'Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' the company said. The plaintiffs had sought US$345 million of damages. Their lawyers said that the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. Impact on future cases Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said on Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly. 'It's a big deal,' said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. 'This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology.' The verdict could also impede efforts by Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly US$1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. Driver's role The trial concerned an Apr 25, 2019, incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 100 kph through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 23 metres to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries. 'We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash,' said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. 'The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software,' he added. 'That's a big deal.' Tesla, in its statement, said McGee was entirely at fault. 'To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash,' the company said. 'This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver, from day one, admitted and accepted responsibility.' REUTERS
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Meta to share AI infrastructure costs via US$2 billion asset sale
[NEW YORK] Meta Platforms is pressing ahead with efforts to bring in outside partners to help fund the massive infrastructure needed to power artificial intelligence (AI), disclosing plans in a filing on Thursday (Jul 31) to offload US$2 billion in data centre assets as part of that strategy. The strategy reflects a broader shift among tech giants, long known for self-funding growth, as they grapple with the soaring cost of building and powering data centres to support generative AI. The social media giant said earlier this week that it was exploring ways to work with financial partners to co-develop data centres to help finance its massive capital outlay for next year. 'We are exploring ways to work with financial partners to co-develop data centres,' Meta chief finance officer Susan Li said on a post-earnings conference call on Wednesday. While the company still expects to fund much of its capital spending internally, some projects could attract 'significant external financing' and offer more flexibility if infrastructure needs shift over time, Li said. The company did not have any finalised transactions to announce, she said. The disclosure in Meta's quarterly filing, however, signals that plans are firming up. In its quarterly filing on Thursday, Meta said it had approved a plan in June to dispose of certain data centre assets and reclassified US$2.04 billion worth of land and construction-in-progress as 'held-for-sale'. 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 These assets were expected to be contributed to a third party within the next twelve months for co-developing data centres. Meta did not record a loss on the reclassification, which values the assets at the lower of their carrying amounts or fair value less costs to sell. As at Jun 30, total held-for-sale assets stood at US$3.26 billion, according to the filing. Meta declined to comment for this story. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has laid out plans to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into constructing AI data centre 'superclusters' for superintelligence. 'Just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan,' he said. The Instagram and WhatsApp owner on Wednesday raised the bottom end of its annual capital expenditures forecast by US$2 billion, to US$66 billion to US$72 billion. It reported stronger-than-expected ad sales, boosted by AI-driven improvements to targeting and content delivery. Executives said that those gains were helping offset rising infrastructure costs tied to its long-term AI push. REUTERS
Business Times
2 hours 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.
