Technology
BGC Group Updates its Outlook for the Fourth Quarter of 2024
Published
2 years agoon
By
NEW YORK, Dec. 31, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — BGC Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: BGC), today announced that it has updated its outlook for the quarter ending December 31, 2024.
Updated Outlook
BGC reaffirmed its previously stated outlook ranges for revenue and pre-tax Adjusted Earnings for the fourth quarter of 2024. The Company’s outlook was contained in BGC’s financial results press release issued on October 31, 2024, which can be found at http://ir.bgcg.com.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
The non-GAAP definitions below include references to certain equity-based compensation instruments, such as restricted stock awards and/or restricted stock units (“RSUs”), that the Company has issued and outstanding following its corporate conversion on July 1, 2023. Although BGC is retaining certain defined terms and references, including references to partnerships or partnership units, for purposes of comparability before and after the corporate conversion, such references may not be applicable following the period ended June 30, 2023.
This document contains non-GAAP financial measures that differ from the most directly comparable measures calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States (“GAAP”). Non-GAAP financial measures used by the Company include “Adjusted Earnings before noncontrolling interests and taxes”, which is used interchangeably with “pre-tax Adjusted Earnings”; “Post-tax Adjusted Earnings to fully diluted shareholders”, which is used interchangeably with “post-tax Adjusted Earnings”; “Adjusted EBITDA”; “Liquidity”; and “Constant Currency”. The definitions of these terms are below.
Adjusted Earnings Defined
BGC uses non-GAAP financial measures, including “Adjusted Earnings before noncontrolling interests and taxes” and “Post-tax Adjusted Earnings to fully diluted shareholders”, which are supplemental measures of operating results used by management to evaluate the financial performance of the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries. BGC believes that Adjusted Earnings best reflect the operating earnings generated by the Company on a consolidated basis and are the earnings which management considers when managing its business.
As compared with “Income (loss) from operations before income taxes” and “Net income (loss) for fully diluted shares”, both prepared in accordance with GAAP, Adjusted Earnings calculations primarily exclude certain non-cash items and other expenses that generally do not involve the receipt or outlay of cash by the Company and/or which do not dilute existing stockholders. In addition, Adjusted Earnings calculations exclude certain gains and charges that management believes do not best reflect the underlying operating performance of BGC. Adjusted Earnings is calculated by taking the most comparable GAAP measures and adjusting for certain items with respect to compensation expenses, non-compensation expenses, and other income, as discussed below.
Calculations of Compensation Adjustments for Adjusted Earnings and Adjusted EBITDA
Treatment of Equity-Based Compensation Line Item for Adjusted Earnings and Adjusted EBITDA
The Company’s Adjusted Earnings and Adjusted EBITDA measures exclude all GAAP charges included in the line item “Equity-based compensation and allocations of net income to limited partnership units and FPUs” (or “equity-based compensation” for purposes of defining the Company’s non-GAAP results) as recorded on the Company’s GAAP Consolidated Statements of Operations and GAAP Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. These GAAP equity-based compensation charges reflect the following items:
Charges related to amortization of RSUs, restricted stock awards, other equity-based awards, and limited partnership units;Charges with respect to grants of exchangeability, which reflect the right of holders of limited partnership units with no capital accounts, such as LPUs and PSUs, to exchange these units into shares of common stock, or into partnership units with capital accounts, such as HDUs, as well as cash paid with respect to taxes withheld or expected to be owed by the unit holder upon such exchange. The withholding taxes related to the exchange of certain non-exchangeable units without a capital account into either common shares or units with a capital account may be funded by the redemption of preferred units such as PPSUs;Charges with respect to preferred units and RSU tax accounts. Any preferred units and RSU tax accounts would not be included in the Company’s fully diluted share count because they cannot be made exchangeable into shares of common stock and are entitled only to a fixed distribution or dividend. Preferred units are granted in connection with the grant of certain limited partnership units that may be granted exchangeability or redeemed in connection with the grant of shares of common stock, and RSU tax accounts are granted in connection with the grant of RSUs. The preferred units and RSU tax accounts are granted at ratios designed to cover any withholding taxes expected to be paid. This is an alternative to the common practice among public companies of issuing the gross amount of shares to employees, subject to cashless withholding of shares, to pay applicable withholding taxes;GAAP equity-based compensation charges with respect to the grant of an offsetting amount of common stock or partnership units with capital accounts in connection with the redemption of non-exchangeable units, including PSUs and LPUs;Charges related to grants of equity awards, including common stock, RSUs, restricted stock awards or partnership units with capital accounts;Allocations of net income to limited partnership units and FPUs. Such allocations represent the pro-rata portion of post-tax GAAP earnings available to such unit holders; andCharges related to dividend equivalents earned on RSUs and any preferred returns on RSU tax accounts.
The amounts of certain quarterly equity-based compensation charges are based upon the Company’s estimate of such expected charges during the annual period, as described further below under “Methodology for Calculating Adjusted Earnings Taxes.”
Virtually all of BGC’s key executives and producers have equity stakes in the Company and its subsidiaries and generally receive deferred equity as part of their compensation. A significant percentage of BGC’s fully diluted shares are owned by its executives, partners and employees. The Company issues RSUs, restricted stock, limited partnership units (prior to July 1, 2023) as well as other forms of equity-based compensation, including grants of exchangeability into shares of common stock (prior to July 1, 2023), to provide liquidity to its employees, to align the interests of its employees and management with those of common stockholders, to help motivate and retain key employees, and to encourage a collaborative culture that drives cross-selling and revenue growth.
All share equivalents that are part of the Company’s equity-based compensation program, including REUs, PSUs, LPUs, HDUs, and other units that may be made exchangeable into common stock, as well as RSUs (which are recorded using the treasury stock method), are included in the fully diluted share count when issued or at the beginning of the subsequent quarter after the date of grant.
Compensation charges are also adjusted for certain other cash and non-cash items.
Certain Other Compensation-Related Adjustments for Adjusted Earnings
BGC also excludes various other GAAP items that management views as not reflective of the Company’s underlying performance in a given period from its calculation of Adjusted Earnings. These may include compensation-related items with respect to cost-saving initiatives, such as severance charges incurred in connection with headcount reductions as part of broad restructuring and/or cost savings plans.
Calculation of Non-Compensation Adjustments for Adjusted Earnings
Adjusted Earnings calculations may also exclude items such as:
Non-cash GAAP charges related to the amortization of intangibles with respect to acquisitions;Acquisition related costs;Non-cash GAAP asset impairment charges;Resolutions of litigation, disputes, investigations, or enforcement matters that are generally non-recurring, exceptional, or unusual, or similar items that management believes do not best reflect BGC’s underlying operating performance, including related unaffiliated third-party professional fees and expenses; andVarious other GAAP items that management views as not reflective of the Company’s underlying performance in a given period, including non-compensation-related charges incurred as part of broad restructuring and/or cost savings plans. Such GAAP items may include charges for professional fees and expenses, exiting leases and/or other long-term contracts as part of cost-saving initiatives, as well as non-cash impairment charges related to assets, goodwill and/or intangible assets created from acquisitions.
Calculation of Adjustments for Other (income) losses for Adjusted Earnings
Adjusted Earnings calculations also exclude gains from litigation resolution and certain other non-cash, non-dilutive, and/or non-economic items, which may, in some periods, include:
Gains or losses on divestitures;Fair value adjustment of investments;Certain other GAAP items, including gains or losses related to BGC’s investments accounted for under the equity method; andAny unusual, non-ordinary, or non-recurring gains or losses.
Methodology for Calculating Adjusted Earnings Taxes
Although Adjusted Earnings are calculated on a pre-tax basis, BGC also reports post-tax Adjusted Earnings to fully diluted shareholders. The Company defines post-tax Adjusted Earnings to fully diluted shareholders as pre-tax Adjusted Earnings reduced by the non-GAAP tax provision described below and net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest for Adjusted Earnings.
The Company calculates its tax provision for post-tax Adjusted Earnings using an annual estimate similar to how it accounts for its income tax provision under GAAP. To calculate the quarterly tax provision under GAAP, BGC estimates its full fiscal year GAAP income (loss) from operations before income taxes and noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries and the expected inclusions and deductions for income tax purposes, including expected equity-based compensation during the annual period. The resulting annualized tax rate is applied to BGC’s quarterly GAAP income (loss) from operations before income taxes and noncontrolling interests in subsidiaries. At the end of the annual period, the Company updates its estimate to reflect the actual tax amounts owed for the period.
To determine the non-GAAP tax provision, BGC first adjusts pre-tax Adjusted Earnings by recognizing any, and only, amounts for which a tax deduction applies under applicable law. The amounts include charges with respect to equity-based compensation; certain charges related to employee loan forgiveness; certain net operating loss carryforwards when taken for statutory purposes; and certain charges related to tax goodwill amortization. These adjustments may also reflect timing and measurement differences, including treatment of employee loans; changes in the value of units between the dates of grants of exchangeability and the date of actual unit exchange; changes in the value of RSUs and/or restricted stock awards between the date of grant and the date the award vests; variations in the value of certain deferred tax assets; and liabilities and the different timing of permitted deductions for tax under GAAP and statutory tax requirements.
After application of these adjustments, the result is the Company’s taxable income for its pre-tax Adjusted Earnings, to which BGC then applies the statutory tax rates to determine its non-GAAP tax provision. BGC views the effective tax rate on pre-tax Adjusted Earnings as equal to the amount of its non-GAAP tax provision divided by the amount of pre-tax Adjusted Earnings. Generally, the most significant factor affecting this non-GAAP tax provision is the amount of charges relating to equity-based compensation. Because the charges relating to equity-based compensation are deductible in accordance with applicable tax laws, increases in such charges have the effect of lowering the Company’s non-GAAP effective tax rate and thereby increasing its post-tax Adjusted Earnings.
BGC incurs income tax expenses based on the location, legal structure and jurisdictional taxing authorities of each of its subsidiaries. Certain of the Company’s entities are taxed as U.S. partnerships and are subject to the Unincorporated Business Tax (“UBT”) in New York City. Any U.S. federal and state income tax liability or benefit related to the partnership income or loss, with the exception of UBT, rests with the unit holders rather than with the partnership entity. The Company’s consolidated financial statements include U.S. federal, state, and local income taxes on the Company’s allocable share of the U.S. results of operations. Outside of the U.S., BGC operates principally through subsidiary corporations subject to local income taxes. For these reasons, taxes for Adjusted Earnings are expected to be presented to show the tax provision the consolidated Company would expect to pay if 100% of earnings were taxed at global corporate rates.
Calculations of Pre- and Post-Tax Adjusted Earnings per Share
BGC’s pre- and post-tax Adjusted Earnings per share calculations assume either that:
The fully diluted share count includes the shares related to any dilutive instruments, but excludes the associated expense, net of tax, when the impact would be dilutive; orThe fully diluted share count excludes the shares related to these instruments, but includes the associated expense, net of tax, when the impact would be anti-dilutive.
The share count for Adjusted Earnings excludes certain shares and share equivalents expected to be issued in future periods but not yet eligible to receive dividends and/or distributions. Each quarter, the dividend payable to BGC’s stockholders, if any, is expected to be determined by the Company’s Board of Directors with reference to a number of factors. The declaration, payment, timing, and amount of any future dividends payable by the Company will be at the discretion of its Board of Directors using the fully diluted share count. For more information on any share count adjustments, see the table titled “Fully Diluted Weighted-Average Share Count under GAAP and for Adjusted Earnings” in the Company’s most recent financial results press release.
Management Rationale for Using Adjusted Earnings
BGC’s calculation of Adjusted Earnings excludes the items discussed above because they are either non-cash in nature, because the anticipated benefits from the expenditures are not expected to be fully realized until future periods, or because the Company views results excluding these items as a better reflection of the underlying performance of BGC’s ongoing operations. Management uses Adjusted Earnings in part to help it evaluate, among other things, the overall performance of the Company’s business and to make decisions with respect to the Company’s operations.
The term “Adjusted Earnings” should not be considered in isolation or as an alternative to GAAP net income (loss). The Company views Adjusted Earnings as a metric that is not indicative of liquidity, or the cash available to fund its operations, but rather as a performance measure. Pre- and post-tax Adjusted Earnings, as well as related measures, are not intended to replace the Company’s presentation of its GAAP financial results. However, management believes that these measures help provide investors with a clearer understanding of BGC’s financial performance and offer useful information to both management and investors regarding certain financial and business trends related to the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. Management believes that the GAAP and Adjusted Earnings measures of financial performance should be considered together.
For more information regarding Adjusted Earnings, see the sections of this document and/or in the Company’s most recent financial results press release titled “Reconciliation of GAAP Income (Loss) from Operations before Income Taxes to Adjusted Earnings and GAAP Fully Diluted EPS to Post-Tax Adjusted EPS”, including the related footnotes, for details about how BGC’s non-GAAP results are reconciled to those under GAAP.
Adjusted EBITDA Defined
BGC also provides an additional non-GAAP financial performance measure, “Adjusted EBITDA”, which it defines as GAAP “Net income (loss) available to common stockholders”, adjusted to add back the following items:
Provision (benefit) for income taxes;Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries;Interest expense;Fixed asset depreciation and intangible asset amortization;Equity-based compensation, dividend equivalents and allocations of net income to limited partnership units and FPUs;Impairment of long-lived assets;(Gains) losses on equity method investments; andCertain other non-cash GAAP items, such as non-cash charges of amortized rents.
The Company’s management believes that its Adjusted EBITDA measure is useful in evaluating BGC’s operating performance, because the calculation of this measure generally eliminates the effects of financing and income taxes and the accounting effects of capital spending and acquisitions, which would include impairment charges of goodwill and intangibles created from acquisitions. Such items may vary for different companies for reasons unrelated to overall operating performance. As a result, the Company’s management uses this measure to evaluate operating performance and for other discretionary purposes. BGC believes that Adjusted EBITDA is useful to investors to assist them in getting a more complete picture of the Company’s financial results and operations.
Since BGC’s Adjusted EBITDA is not a recognized measurement under GAAP, investors should use this measure in addition to GAAP measures of net income when analyzing BGC’s operating performance. Because not all companies use identical EBITDA calculations, the Company’s presentation of Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies. Furthermore, Adjusted EBITDA is not intended to be a measure of free cash flow or GAAP cash flow from operations because the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA does not consider certain cash requirements, such as tax and debt service payments.
For more information regarding Adjusted EBITDA, see the section of this document and/or in the Company’s most recent financial results press release titled “Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income (Loss) Available to Common Stockholders to Adjusted EBITDA”, including the footnotes to the same, for details about how BGC’s non-GAAP results are reconciled to those under GAAP.
Timing of Outlook for Certain GAAP and Non-GAAP Items
BGC anticipates providing forward-looking guidance for GAAP revenues and for certain non-GAAP measures from time to time. However, the Company does not anticipate providing an outlook for other GAAP results. This is because certain GAAP items, which are excluded from Adjusted Earnings and/or Adjusted EBITDA, are difficult to forecast with precision before the end of each period. The Company therefore believes that it is not possible for it to have the required information necessary to forecast GAAP results or to quantitatively reconcile GAAP forecasts to non-GAAP forecasts with sufficient precision without unreasonable efforts. For the same reasons, the Company is unable to address the probable significance of the unavailable information. The relevant items that are difficult to predict on a quarterly and/or annual basis with precision and may materially impact the Company’s GAAP results include, but are not limited, to the following:
Certain equity-based compensation charges that may be determined at the discretion of management throughout and up to the period-end;Unusual, non-ordinary, or non-recurring items;The impact of gains or losses on certain marketable securities, as well as any gains or losses related to associated mark-to- market movements and/or hedging. These items are calculated using period-end closing prices;Non-cash asset impairment charges, which are calculated and analyzed based on the period-end values of the underlying assets. These amounts may not be known until after period-end; andAcquisitions, dispositions, and/or resolutions of litigation, disputes, investigations, or enforcement matters, or similar items, which are fluid and unpredictable in nature.
Liquidity Defined
BGC may also use a non-GAAP measure called “liquidity”. The Company considers liquidity to be comprised of the sum of cash and cash equivalents, reverse repurchase agreements (if any), financial instruments owned, at fair value, less securities lent out in securities loaned transactions and repurchase agreements (if any). The Company considers liquidity to be an important metric for determining the amount of cash that is available or that could be readily available to the Company on short notice.
For more information regarding Liquidity, see the section of this document and/or in the Company’s most recent financial results press release titled “Liquidity Analysis”, including any footnotes to the same, for details about how BGC’s non-GAAP results are reconciled to those under GAAP.
Constant Currency Defined
BGC generates a significant amount of its revenues in non-U.S. dollar denominated currencies, particularly in the euro and pound sterling. In order to present a better comparison of the Company’s revenues during the period, which exhibited highly volatile foreign exchange movements, BGC provides revenues year-over-year comparisons on a “Constant Currency” basis. BGC uses a Constant Currency financial metric to provide a better comparison of the Company’s underlying operating performance by eliminating the impacts of foreign currency fluctuations between comparative periods. Since BGC’s consolidated financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars, fluctuations in non-U.S. dollar denominated currencies have an impact on the Company’s GAAP results. The Company’s Constant Currency metric, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, assumes the foreign exchange rates used to determine the Company’s comparative prior period revenues, apply to the current period revenues. Constant Currency revenue percentage change is calculated by determining the change in current quarter non-GAAP Constant Currency revenues over prior period revenues. Non-GAAP Constant Currency revenues are total revenues excluding the effect of foreign exchange rate movements and are calculated by remeasuring and/or translating current quarter revenues using prior period exchange rates. BGC presents certain non-GAAP Constant Currency percentage changes in Constant Currency revenues as a supplementary measure because it facilitates the comparison of the Company’s core operating results. This information should be considered in addition to, and not as a substitute for, results reported in accordance with GAAP.
About BGC Group, Inc.
BGC Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: BGC) is a leading global marketplace, data, and financial technology services company for a broad range of products, including fixed income, foreign exchange, energy, commodities, shipping, equities, and now includes the FMX Futures Exchange. BGC’s clients are many of the world’s largest banks, broker-dealers, investment banks, trading firms, hedge funds, governments, corporations, and investment firms.
BGC and leading global investment banks and market making firms have partnered to create FMX, part of the BGC Group of companies, which includes a U.S. interest rate futures exchange, spot foreign exchange platform and the world’s fastest growing U.S. cash treasuries platform.
For more information about BGC, please visit www.bgcg.com.
Discussion of Forward-Looking Statements about BGC
Statements in this document regarding BGC that are not historical facts are “forward-looking statements” that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. These include statements about the Company’s business, results, financial position, liquidity and outlook, which may constitute forward-looking statements and are subject to the risk that the actual impact may differ, possibly materially, from what is currently expected. Except as required by law, BGC undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of additional risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see BGC’s Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, including, but not limited to, the risk factors and Special Note on Forward-Looking Information set forth in these filings and any updates to such risk factors and Special Note on Forward-Looking Information contained in subsequent reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q or Form 8-K.
Media Contact:
Erica Chase
+1 212-610-2419
Investor Contact:
Jason Chryssicas
+1 212-610-2426
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bgc-group-updates-its-outlook-for-the-fourth-quarter-of-2024-302340455.html
SOURCE BGC Group, Inc.
You may like
Technology
Truth-seeking: the Turning Point in Zunyi
Published
14 minutes agoon
October 19, 2026By
BEIJING, Oct. 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — An interview from China.org.cn with Wang Xiaohui and David Ferguson on the Long March:
Wang Xiaohui:
When you march toward your ideals but encounter repeated setbacks and failures, do you have the courage to pause, reflect on the path taken, and chart a new way forward?
David Ferguson:
If I continually encountered setbacks on the road to my ideals, I would stop and reflect seriously on whether my methods need adjusted or my direction needs corrected. This is a matter of being honest with oneself and honest about one’s shortcomings. Granted, this requires as much courage as setting out in the first place — because what you have to confront is not only the judgment of others, but your own ingrained reluctance to accept that you might have got it wrong.
Wang Xiaohui:
The waters of the Xiangjiang River ran crimson in the winter of 1934.
To cover the Red Army’s main force as they crossed the river, Chen Shuxiang, then Commander of the 34th Division of the Fifth Army Corps, led his troops to fight against vastly superior enemy forces until they ran out of ammunition and supplies. Severely wounded, Chen was captured alive. On the way to the enemy camp to be paraded for merit, Chen seized a moment of the enemy’s unawareness, tore his own intestines through his abdominal wound, and died a heroic death. He was only 29 years old.
The Battle of Xiangjiang River was the deadliest campaign for the Red Army since the start of the Long March. In less than two months, their troop strength plummeted from over 86,000 to just over 30,000.
At that critical moment, doubts and discontent among officers and soldiers with the military leadership peaked.
During the fights against the previous four Kuomintang (KMT) “encirclement” campaigns, the Red Army adopted Mao Zedong’s strategy of “luring the enemy in deep.” With flexible tactics in mobile warfare, the Red Army worked miracles of defeating superior enemies time and again. Yet, the tide turned completely during the KMT’s fifth “encirclement.”
At that time, the CPC was a branch of the Communist International (Comintern). After 1927, the Comintern instructed the CPC to adopt an urban-centered path in its revolution, for it was how Russia’s October Revolution had achieved victory. Affected by this directive, during the Fifth Counter-Campaign against “Encirclement and Suppression”, Bo Gu and Otto Braun, who held actual command of the Red Army, insisted on launching offensive operations to seize major cities.
Otto Braun also mechanically applied European conventional warfare tactics, forcing the Red Army into rigid positional and fortress battles. In the Battle of Guangchang, the poorly equipped Red Army fought head-on against enemy tanks and artillery on open terrain, resulting in more than 5,000 casualties, about one-fourth of all participating troops.
Successive military defeats forced the Red Army to launch a strategic shift. However, Bo Gu and Otto Braun insisted that everything be evacuated, including heavy equipment: printing presses, currency-making machines, and arms-manufacturing facilities… When crossing the Xiangjiang River, troops were slowed down by these cumbersome supplies, and numerous soldiers even laid down their lives for protecting these assets. Chen Shuxiang and his 34th Division wrote the gravest footnote to this bloody sacrifice.
By the banks of the Xiangjiang River, the spark of hope in the eyes of the Red Army soldiers was nearly quenched by the cold water. Could the rigid foreign doctrines truly guide the Red Army and China’s revolution? What path lay ahead?
History often unfolds in paradoxes: when all hope seems lost, a historical turning point is quietly emerging.
After the Battle of Xiangjiang River, Mao firmly opposed the original plan drafted by Bo Gu and Otto Braun to march towards Hunan. Instead, he proposed to advance to Guizhou where enemy defenses were weak. There, the Red Army broke through the natural barrier of the Wujiang River, and captured Zunyi. On Jan. 15, 1935, the CPC Central Committee convened an enlarged Political Bureau meeting in an old mansion, later known to the world as the Zunyi Conference.
Inside the modest living room on the second floor, a charcoal brazier expelled the winter chill. The CPC leadership sat around a long table to review why the Red Army had fallen into passive positions since 1933. Bo Gu attributed the defeats solely to the enemy’s overwhelming strength, while other leading officials like Zhou Enlai and Zhang Wentian pinpointed flawed military command as the fundamental cause.
Mao Zedong also made a pivotal speech.
As a revolutionary forged in rural base-area practice, Mao always sought truth from real combat experience. Citing victories from the previous four counter-“encirclement” campaigns, he rebutted Bo Gu’s opinions and criticized the flawed strategies of passive defense and abandoning mobile warfare tactics. In plain, incisive language, he pointed out that “the soldiers also needed to march, eat and sleep,” and that Braun’s rigid commands were completely divorced from the realities of China’s revolutionary warfare.
Throughout the whole meeting, Bo Gu remained dejected; Braun sat near the door and lit one cigarette after another. Never had these “true Bolsheviks” faced such rigorous criticism before.
The intensive confrontation lasted three days. In the end, Mao Zedong was elected to the leadership of the Red Army and the CPC Central Committee, putting an end to the wrong guidance. This marked a life-and-death turning point in the history of the Communist Party of China.
The Zunyi Conference freed the CPC from the Comintern’s intervention, enabling the Party to independently master the destiny of China’s revolution. From then on, the Red Army turned peril into safety, and China’s revolution emerged from despair toward new life.
David Ferguson:
When faced with major setbacks, the Communist Party of China was not crushed; instead, it demonstrated the courage to confront and correct its own mistakes, thereby turning adversity into opportunity. For any ruling party, this kind of courage is exceptionally rare.
Throughout history, guided by the principle of seeking truth from facts, the Party has always corrected errors, updated systems and adjusted course. By doing so, it has guaranteed social progress. This is precisely the secret to success that has made the Party resilient and invincible.
Wang Xiaohui:
No grand undertaking advances without setbacks. Faced with obstacles and defeats, the CPC demonstrated extraordinary courage and wisdom. They sought truth from facts, corrected wrong courses, and led the revolution towards triumph.
The Zunyi Conference Spirit, embodied in firm conviction, adherence to truth, independence and self-reliance, solidarity and unity, was forged amid blood and fire. It has shaped the unique spiritual character of the CPC. In the years that followed, these timeless values continued to evolve and sustain the Party in the face of trials and challenges, endowing it with enduring vitality.
China Mosaic
http://www.china.org.cn/video/node_7230027.htm
Faith: The Spark Born by the Yudu Riverside
http://www.china.org.cn/2026-10/17/content_118737624.shtml
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/truth-seeking-the-turning-point-in-zunyi-302912139.html
SOURCE China.org.cn
Technology
Truth-seeking: the Turning Point in Zunyi
Published
14 minutes agoon
October 19, 2026By
BEIJING, Oct. 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — An interview from China.org.cn with Wang Xiaohui and David Ferguson on the Long March:
Wang Xiaohui:
When you march toward your ideals but encounter repeated setbacks and failures, do you have the courage to pause, reflect on the path taken, and chart a new way forward?
David Ferguson:
If I continually encountered setbacks on the road to my ideals, I would stop and reflect seriously on whether my methods need adjusted or my direction needs corrected. This is a matter of being honest with oneself and honest about one’s shortcomings. Granted, this requires as much courage as setting out in the first place — because what you have to confront is not only the judgment of others, but your own ingrained reluctance to accept that you might have got it wrong.
Wang Xiaohui:
The waters of the Xiangjiang River ran crimson in the winter of 1934.
To cover the Red Army’s main force as they crossed the river, Chen Shuxiang, then Commander of the 34th Division of the Fifth Army Corps, led his troops to fight against vastly superior enemy forces until they ran out of ammunition and supplies. Severely wounded, Chen was captured alive. On the way to the enemy camp to be paraded for merit, Chen seized a moment of the enemy’s unawareness, tore his own intestines through his abdominal wound, and died a heroic death. He was only 29 years old.
The Battle of Xiangjiang River was the deadliest campaign for the Red Army since the start of the Long March. In less than two months, their troop strength plummeted from over 86,000 to just over 30,000.
At that critical moment, doubts and discontent among officers and soldiers with the military leadership peaked.
During the fights against the previous four Kuomintang (KMT) “encirclement” campaigns, the Red Army adopted Mao Zedong’s strategy of “luring the enemy in deep.” With flexible tactics in mobile warfare, the Red Army worked miracles of defeating superior enemies time and again. Yet, the tide turned completely during the KMT’s fifth “encirclement.”
At that time, the CPC was a branch of the Communist International (Comintern). After 1927, the Comintern instructed the CPC to adopt an urban-centered path in its revolution, for it was how Russia’s October Revolution had achieved victory. Affected by this directive, during the Fifth Counter-Campaign against “Encirclement and Suppression”, Bo Gu and Otto Braun, who held actual command of the Red Army, insisted on launching offensive operations to seize major cities.
Otto Braun also mechanically applied European conventional warfare tactics, forcing the Red Army into rigid positional and fortress battles. In the Battle of Guangchang, the poorly equipped Red Army fought head-on against enemy tanks and artillery on open terrain, resulting in more than 5,000 casualties, about one-fourth of all participating troops.
Successive military defeats forced the Red Army to launch a strategic shift. However, Bo Gu and Otto Braun insisted that everything be evacuated, including heavy equipment: printing presses, currency-making machines, and arms-manufacturing facilities… When crossing the Xiangjiang River, troops were slowed down by these cumbersome supplies, and numerous soldiers even laid down their lives for protecting these assets. Chen Shuxiang and his 34th Division wrote the gravest footnote to this bloody sacrifice.
By the banks of the Xiangjiang River, the spark of hope in the eyes of the Red Army soldiers was nearly quenched by the cold water. Could the rigid foreign doctrines truly guide the Red Army and China’s revolution? What path lay ahead?
History often unfolds in paradoxes: when all hope seems lost, a historical turning point is quietly emerging.
After the Battle of Xiangjiang River, Mao firmly opposed the original plan drafted by Bo Gu and Otto Braun to march towards Hunan. Instead, he proposed to advance to Guizhou where enemy defenses were weak. There, the Red Army broke through the natural barrier of the Wujiang River, and captured Zunyi. On Jan. 15, 1935, the CPC Central Committee convened an enlarged Political Bureau meeting in an old mansion, later known to the world as the Zunyi Conference.
Inside the modest living room on the second floor, a charcoal brazier expelled the winter chill. The CPC leadership sat around a long table to review why the Red Army had fallen into passive positions since 1933. Bo Gu attributed the defeats solely to the enemy’s overwhelming strength, while other leading officials like Zhou Enlai and Zhang Wentian pinpointed flawed military command as the fundamental cause.
Mao Zedong also made a pivotal speech.
As a revolutionary forged in rural base-area practice, Mao always sought truth from real combat experience. Citing victories from the previous four counter-“encirclement” campaigns, he rebutted Bo Gu’s opinions and criticized the flawed strategies of passive defense and abandoning mobile warfare tactics. In plain, incisive language, he pointed out that “the soldiers also needed to march, eat and sleep,” and that Braun’s rigid commands were completely divorced from the realities of China’s revolutionary warfare.
Throughout the whole meeting, Bo Gu remained dejected; Braun sat near the door and lit one cigarette after another. Never had these “true Bolsheviks” faced such rigorous criticism before.
The intensive confrontation lasted three days. In the end, Mao Zedong was elected to the leadership of the Red Army and the CPC Central Committee, putting an end to the wrong guidance. This marked a life-and-death turning point in the history of the Communist Party of China.
The Zunyi Conference freed the CPC from the Comintern’s intervention, enabling the Party to independently master the destiny of China’s revolution. From then on, the Red Army turned peril into safety, and China’s revolution emerged from despair toward new life.
David Ferguson:
When faced with major setbacks, the Communist Party of China was not crushed; instead, it demonstrated the courage to confront and correct its own mistakes, thereby turning adversity into opportunity. For any ruling party, this kind of courage is exceptionally rare.
Throughout history, guided by the principle of seeking truth from facts, the Party has always corrected errors, updated systems and adjusted course. By doing so, it has guaranteed social progress. This is precisely the secret to success that has made the Party resilient and invincible.
Wang Xiaohui:
No grand undertaking advances without setbacks. Faced with obstacles and defeats, the CPC demonstrated extraordinary courage and wisdom. They sought truth from facts, corrected wrong courses, and led the revolution towards triumph.
The Zunyi Conference Spirit, embodied in firm conviction, adherence to truth, independence and self-reliance, solidarity and unity, was forged amid blood and fire. It has shaped the unique spiritual character of the CPC. In the years that followed, these timeless values continued to evolve and sustain the Party in the face of trials and challenges, endowing it with enduring vitality.
China Mosaic
http://www.china.org.cn/video/node_7230027.htm
Faith: The Spark Born by the Yudu Riverside
http://www.china.org.cn/2026-10/17/content_118737624.shtml
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/truth-seeking-the-turning-point-in-zunyi-302912139.html
SOURCE China.org.cn
Technology
GMIF2026: AI Inference Powers the “Token Factory” and Drives System-Level Rethinking of Memory & Storage
Published
14 minutes agoon
October 19, 2026By
SHENZHEN, China, Oct. 18, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — The 5th GMIF Innovation Summit (Global Memory Innovation Forum 2026, GMIF2026) recently concluded at the Renaissance Shenzhen Bay Hotel. Co-hosted by the Shenzhen Memory Industry Association (SMIA) and the School of Integrated Circuits at Peking University, the summit was themed “The Future Built on AI Memory and Storage.” Now in its fifth edition, GMIF has grown from a regional industry gathering into a benchmark for the global semiconductor memory ecosystem, with diversified programs including keynote sessions, an investment forum, product exhibitions, a global livestream, and a golf friendship match, all centered on the value of memory and storage in the token economy and the AI inference era.
In the opening remarks by Rixin Sun, President of Shenzhen Memory Industry Association (SMIA), GMIF’s growth over five consecutive editions was traced from its early days to today. As a platform for global exchange, GMIF is built around the memory value chain, linking wafer IDMs and players in controllers, modules, packaging and testing, equipment and materials, and end applications to promote technical exchange, supply-demand matching, and ecosystem cooperation.
President Sun noted that as AI evolves from generative to agentic, inference efficiency, data scheduling, and system coordination have become shared priorities. Collaboration across the value chain is no longer a traditional supply-demand relationship, but a deeper partnership built around workload requirements, joint product definition, and scenario validation. Looking ahead, GMIF will pursue a more specialized and differentiated format, connecting memory companies with AI compute and end-application players worldwide.
Capital Meets Technology: Memory & Storage Moves to the Center of AI Infrastructure
As AI shifts from model training to large-scale commercial inference, the token is becoming a new unit of value. Inference demands low latency, high concurrency, and sustained throughput, which places memory and storage bandwidth, capacity, and energy efficiency among the variables that shape overall system efficiency and cost.
Daniel Yen of Morgan Stanley projected that global data center capital expenditure will stay strong in the coming years, with more than half of cloud data center capex expected to go to memory & storage (excluding HBM) by 2027. Yen identified six innovation paths to overcome the “memory wall” challenge: process migration, design changes, advanced packaging, memory peripherals, PIM/CIM, and new materials.
Prof. Yimao Cai, Dean of the School of Integrated Circuits at Peking University, pointed out that HBM remains central to high-end AI compute, but yield, cost, and thermal constraints limit broader adoption. NAND-based high-bandwidth technologies such as HBF have become a major research focus because of their cost advantage, and hybrid multi-media architectures could balance performance, capacity, and cost for deploying models with hundreds of billions of parameters.
Kevin Yoon, CVP & CTO of Samsung Memory China at Samsung Electronics, described how agents are generating massive KV cache demand and driving rapid iteration of tiered storage, citing Samsung’s work on Z-NAND, PCIe Gen6 SSDs, and ultra-high-capacity data center SSDs. Maya Zhang, Senior Director of Product Marketing from Sandisk, called this the first year of the “inference boom.” As inference reaches commercial scale, AI data centers are shifting from cost centers to value and capacity centers, and the evaluation framework is moving from TCO to TVO. NAND is becoming a strategic core component of AI, and the SSD is becoming a “token battery” that greatly improves the economics of the industry through token reuse.
Solidigm and Arm focused on the evolution of system-level design. Benny Ni, GAR Sales VP at Solidigm, noted high-capacity QLC SSDs are being adopted faster, and that memory offloading has moved from an alternative to a core design paradigm for data centers, while liquid cooling has become a prerequisite for unlocking high-end storage performance. John Xavier Lionel, Head of Global Storage Business at Arm, shared competition in the AI era is shifting from simply chasing higher TOPS to building a more efficient system balance among compute, memory, storage, and data movement. Arm’s cloud-edge-device continuum framework balances power, capacity, bandwidth, latency, security, and cost constraints at each tier, so that “the right AI workload runs in the right place.”
Moving from the cloud to the edge, Stanley Huang, AVP of Silicon Motion, stressed that devices are the ultimate carrier of AI experiences and that intelligent storage directly determines real-world device performance. Its PerformaShape technology allocates resources flexibly across different agents and greatly improves read/write consistency.
Sam Sun, Chairman of BIWIN, explained that large-scale AI inference is extending memory demand from data centers to the edge and endpoints, where differing needs in capacity, performance, power, size, and reliability are pushing storage from general-purpose specifications toward deep matching with specific scenarios and platforms. Drawing on full-stack capabilities from media selection and controller and firmware development to advanced packaging, testing, and volume delivery, BIWIN works closely with customers, platforms, and chip makers to tailor products to each use case, shortening development and validation cycles and improving system space, energy efficiency, and performance.
Token Factories Move Enterprise AI from Pilot to Production
As the token becomes the core unit of value, producing tokens efficiently and at low cost has become a shared challenge for enterprise AI adoption worldwide, and the “token factory” is emerging as a new industry paradigm. Tao Zhou, General Manager of the Server Division of Lenovo ISG China, said 80% of enterprises have deployed at least one type of agent, yet fewer than 40% of projects can scale and deliver positive ROI. Lenovo has built a full-stack “token factory” paradigm spanning data governance, compute optimization, and security management to address this.
A solid token factory depends on underlying storage media and architecture. Numbers Law’s PMD (Parallel Magnetic Drive) technology and NEXWISE‘s “KuberCloud” token factory solution contributed to full-stack capability from hardware to compute scheduling and model operations. Infplane, Maxio, and Genstoraige lowered the deployment threshold for large on-device models through AI SSD tiered offloading and memory expansion.
Real-world applications are also deepening. SYNCORE has achieved vehicle-cloud embodied intelligence across the whole vehicle. Dify, with its private agent architecture, and Paratera, with its MaaS compute service platform, are moving AI from basic compute supply toward deeper industry intelligence services, accelerating the industrialization of AI.
40 Companies Showcase the Core of the AI Memory & Storage Chain
The concurrent exhibition brought together 40 companies across the full value chain, from memory chips and controllers to compute servers, AIDC services, packaging and testing equipment, and system applications, presenting the latest advances in AI memory and storage from around the world.
Memory IDMs and controller makers led with new products. SanDisk featured its iNAND AT EU752 automotive UFS 4.1, SN861 enterprise NVMe SSD, and BiCS8 QLC NAND. Silicon Motion introduced the SM8466 PCIe Gen6 16-channel controller and the SM2524XT controller for edge SSDs. Maxio, YEESTOR, and other Chinese controller makers showed flagship PCIe Gen4/Gen5 and UFS controllers with enhanced LDPC, a sign that China’s controller portfolio is taking shape and benchmarking itself against leading international standards.
Compute and token factory solutions were another highlight. Lenovo exhibited its WenTian series of AI training-and-inference integrated servers. NEXWISE presented its full-stack token factory hardware and software, with heterogeneous compute management and token-based billing. Paratera showed its intelligent compute cloud and supercomputing cloud services, and Numbers Law demonstrated its PMD (Parallel Magnetic Drive) technology, aimed at sharply raising HDD IOPS and throughput. Infplane, Genstoraige, and Quanxing introduced KV cache offload and memory-fusion AI SSD solutions that use storage to share the compute load and significantly cut deployment costs.
Module makers and full-scenario solution providers brought a wide range of products. BIWIN exhibited enterprise SSDs, CXL products, wide-temperature industrial storage, and embedded products spanning AI cloud, edge, and device. KingSpec, POWEV, Topdisk, Barycn, Jielong Storage, HIKSEMI, and others presented industrial-grade, automotive-grade, server, and embedded product families, demonstrating strong volume production and reliable delivery.
Equipment, testing, and materials suppliers rounded out the floor. Attach Point, MICROVIEW, and Maxwell Technologies showed die attach and bonding equipment for 2.5D/3D advanced packaging. OKN Technology, Acroview Technology, Hongjingwei, and Tytantest introduced test and burn-in systems covering SSD, DRAM, and NAND that can accurately reproduce high-load AI I/O scenarios. Hemei Jingyi and Silergy brought storage IC package substrates and dedicated power management ICs. From advanced packaging equipment to test validation to core components, this supporting ecosystem lays the manufacturing foundation for volume production of AI memory and storage and for Chinese suppliers expanding overseas.
GMIF2026 Annual Awards Unveiled: Global Memory & Storage Leaders Build an Open, Collaborative Ecosystem
To recognize companies that have made outstanding contributions to the memory and storage value chain, the summit established the GMIF2026 Annual Awards, which cover memory, compute, packaging and testing equipment, test systems, and end applications across AI infrastructure, and were judged on technological innovation, industry contribution, market service, and real-world results.
Honorees, including Samsung Semiconductor, SanDisk, Solidigm, CXMT, Arm, Lenovo, Dify, Silicon Motion, Infplane, Genstoraige, Numbers Law, Paratera, SYNCORE, NEXWISE, Maxio Technology, BIWIN, Topdisk, KingSpec, POWEV, Quanxing Technology, OKN Technology, Attach Point, COMIX, Barycn, LKAUTO, Maxwell Technologies, Hemei Jingyi, Silergy, Heyan Technology, ExTripod Electronics, UNIMOS, GBAT, and Tytantest, were recognized for standout achievements in technology breakthroughs, product deployment, ecosystem building, and the industry chain.
Global Livestream and Golf Friendship Match Extend the Boundaries of Industry Cooperation
To join the global ecosystem and expand international cooperation, the summit featured a special Global Livestream by Memory Brands on LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube. Eight brands presented online: BIWIN, Silicon Motion, Quanxing Technology, OKN Technology, KingSpec, Maxwell Technologies, ExTripod Electronics, and Silergy. They gave overseas audiences a direct look at China’s latest advances in memory chips, advanced packaging, test systems, and other core AI infrastructure components, connecting technology standards, supply chain resources, and market demand across regions.
The momentum carried into the next day. The GMIF2026 “BIWIN Cup” golf friendship match, exclusively sponsored by BIWIN, brought senior executives from across the global memory value chain to the course. After a day of intensive discussion at the main forum, the setting was more relaxed, but the conversations among technology, capital, and markets carried on, helping speed practical cooperation across borders and sectors.
Conclusion
Across the GMIF program, one message stood out: global AI competition is moving beyond the “single-point era” of peak GPU performance into a “system-level era” that integrates storage, compute, networking, and software. In the token economy, memory and storage is shedding its auxiliary role and becoming the strategic foundation of AI inference.
This edition of GMIF brought together capital outlook, frontier technology, product innovation, real-world practice, and ecosystem collaboration, and, with the awards, livestream, and networking events, carried the conversation from ideas to product showcases, overseas exposure, and business deals. Going forward, GMIF will stay focused on the industry’s frontier issues and connect key players across the global memory value chain, promoting joint standards, technology development, and market expansion to open a new chapter for the AI memory and storage industry.
About GMIF
Global Memory Innovation Forum (GMIF) is a premier annual gathering that connects the global memory and storage community. Featuring diverse activities including keynote speeches, roundtable dialogues, supply-demand match-making, product showcases, industry rankings, awards programs, and global livestreaming, GMIF brings together key enterprises across the memory and storage chain, technical experts, terminal companies and investment institutions to exchange insights, build partnerships, and create business opportunities. Learn more about GMIF, please visit https://www.gmif.com.cn/. Follow us on LinkedIn, YouTube and Facebook.
Media Contact:
Carina Gu, wenjing.gu@gmif.com.cn
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gmif2026-ai-inference-powers-the-token-factory-and-drives-system-level-rethinking-of-memory–storage-302912123.html
SOURCE Shenzhen Memory Industry Association (SMIA)
Truth-seeking: the Turning Point in Zunyi
Truth-seeking: the Turning Point in Zunyi
GMIF2026: AI Inference Powers the “Token Factory” and Drives System-Level Rethinking of Memory & Storage
Send Rakhi to UK swiftly with UK Gifts Portal
Whiteboard Series with NEAR | Ep: 45 Joel Thorstensson from ceramic.network
Nullmax and Renesas Forge Strategic Partnership to Deliver Competitive ADAS Solutions for the Global Market
Why You Should Build on #NEAR – Co-founder Illia Polosukhin at CV Labs
Whiteboard Series with NEAR | Ep: 45 Joel Thorstensson from ceramic.network
NEAR End of Year Town Hall 2021: The Open Web World, MetaBUILD 2 Hackathon and 2021 recap
Trending
-
Coin Market5 days ago‘Bunker mode’ won’t protect your crypto, critics say
-
Technology5 days agoSolidion Technology Reaffirms Commitment to Address Growing Energy Storage Needs of AI Data Centers
-
Technology5 days agoTVU Networks to Showcase Connected Live Video Ecosystem at Broadcast India Show 2026
-
Technology5 days agoPEGATRON Brings AI Infrastructure from Design to Deployment at OCP Global Summit 2026
-
Coin Market4 days agoOrganizations join forces to fight Illinois crypto tax, after 6-month pause
-
Technology5 days agoSUS ENVIRONMENT Draws International Attention for Transforming Waste-to-Energy Plants into Sustainable Urban Assets
-
Coin Market5 days agoCan crypto users trust the supply chain behind hardware wallets?
-
Technology5 days agoA $2.1 Trillion Wellness Industry Never Built a Daily Practice for Black Children. So This Atlanta Family Did.
