Tag Archives: news

US/China AI Wars Escalate as China Effectively Bans Major US Developers.

Posted on by Leave a comment

By Michael Fennell

Prior to the economic, cultural, and seemingly unending prominence of Artificial Intelligence, the US had unequivocal control in chip development. American companies like Intel and AMD dominated the space. But the industry has changed. A company once known for making graphics cards for gaming PCs is now a multi trillion dollar empire on the cutting edge of the most burdening industry in the world.
Nvidia chips have been viewed as an industry flagship with the ability for massive parallel processing, a crucial part of training AI and the execution of AI prompts. What once lay in the gaming PCs now lines server warehouses across the world. And the country of the company who makes them has a big say in who can buy them and when.


China’s Interest in the AI Industry
AI has undoubtedly become a gigantic industry, one which many speculate is not just here to stay, but to change the world. China wants to be the major player in this space for a number of reasons. Most notably the economic growth; if anything akin to the tech boom of the early 2000s, this has the potentiality to create trillions in GDP growth, tens of thousands of jobs, as well as international esteem. Not only is there a positive ambition, but a defensive one too. A reliance on the US in these tumultuous times with fluctuating relations could cause serious trouble for China. But if the roles were reversed, they would have serious bargaining power.


China Battling US Strategy
Despite the excitement around AI, China has a dilemma on their hands. Unfortunately for them the new major chip manufacturer in the space, Nvidia, is another American company. Almost all cutting edge AI technology is being developed and operated with Nvidia at their core. For China, this means that in order to compete in the present, they need to depend on the United States, who are controlling and regulating Nvidia and their exports.


In July the US Commerce secretary took to the media to explain that the US plan to both profit off of China and prevent any AI leapfrogging from them. He stated the only chip they’d be able to buy was the H20, an inferior chip which he repeatedly referred to as the “fourth best”. He said China would become “addicted to the American technology stack” and that this would stifle their domestic innovation, keeping them from the AI mantle both in terms of chips and software.


Whether it was the interview in which the US Commerce secretary made the US economic strategy abundantly clear, or the Chinese government seeing the writing on the wall, they immediately sought to ban all US chips as quickly as possible, preventing all Chinese companies from the future purchase of Nvidia chips. This was something that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang referred to as “disappointing” in a BBC interview, a comment which was not surprising considering the potential profits Nvidia could have made from a US China arms race with Nvidia in the middle. Now China seeks to develop their own Nvidia, with companies such as Cambricon, one which is working closely with Chinese AI powerhouse Deepseek.

While undoubtedly sub the standard of Nvidia, the prospects of a new chip making powerhouse in the AI space excited investors, thus skyrocketing stock prices. Now seemingly cash rich, it would appear as though the Chinese chip industry is well armed in their race against the US. Even prior to the banning, the Chinese technology company Huawei seemed desperate to catch up to Nvidia in the AI race, massively ramping up funding by billions in the AI chip space.


Consequences for China and the US
In the immediate future, China’s inability to obtain top of the line chips will undoubtedly stifle their ability to adapt and evolve in this ever-emerging industry. Despite backing domestic manufacturers, Deepseek too may take a hit with less access to domestic chips for servers and AI training. Although with their seemingly relentless pursuit from the Chinese government who are providing deregulation to fuel innovation and massive capital investments, a catch up in some way is not out of the realm of possibility. The US opium wars style tactics of dependency against China have failed, but they themselves are also investing heavily in AI both with huge sums of private capital and through the federal government through shared data factories, US AI is being fostered for world domination.


Despite their failure to export to China, the rest of the world seem eager to embrace the top of the line tech, including the UAE who recently secured a billion dollar a year investment agreement with the US for the securing of Nvidia chips.

The Collins Aerospace Cyber Attack – Valuable lessons to be learned in Business Continuity Planning

Posted on by Leave a comment

Jessica Weld

A recent cyber-attack on aerospace giant Collins Aerospace, has caused widescale outages of its MUSE Software, a check in system used by some of Europe’s largest airports including Dublin Airport and London Heathrow has caused mass disruption, resulting in stranded passengers and endless flight delays, ultimately resulting in mountains of manual work for ground staff.

The EU’s Cybersecurity Agency has since confirmed that this was a malicious ransomware attack. Hackers have deliberately knocked out Collins Aerospace systems for potential monetary gain.

In a time where large ransomware attacks on vital networks and systems are becoming increasingly common, organisations must not only strengthen cybersecurity measures, but it’s becoming increasingly imperative that they also have adequate plans in place for if and when crises like this arise. 

Industry Specific View – Commercial Aviation

The Commercial Aviation industry operates on a tightly coordinated supply chain which in recent decades, has become heavily automated. An issue with one link in the chain can cause a catastrophic domino effect which can, as a result, affect many flights and thousands of passengers. 

Within the European Union, airline passengers are heavily protected against such delays under EU 261 regulations. These regulations entitle passengers to compensation for events such as delays, cancellations and missing luggage. 

Compensation agency Skycop revealed that in 2024 alone, airlines owed passengers €6 billion under EU 261 regulations. One can only imagine the cost of passenger compensation with the amount of flights and passengers affected by this cyber-attack. Alongside this, airlines will have to factor in staff overtime, the cost of repositioning crews and aircraft and additional airport fees. (EU flight delays in 2024 may cost airlines over €6 billion).

For the airline industry, the financial risks associated with such an attack are far too high to not have a robust contingency plan in place. 

The Airline Response  

The Dublin Airport Authority’s Head of Media Relations, Graeme McQueen, informed RTÉ that both Ryanair and Aer Lingus test their manual check-in processes on one flight per week.

While regular testing is useful to familiarise staff with manual processes, it is not sufficient in testing the airline’s capacity to cope with a wide-scale outage. For if the system were to fail, it’s unlikely that it does so for one flight. More often than not, outages are widescale. 

The system outage caused Aer Lingus to revert to fully manual check-in processes for all scheduled flights. As a result, queues for check-in were taking 30 to 40 minutes at times. This caused multiple flight delays and as many as 13 Aer Lingus flights were cancelled on the second day of the outage, Tuesday, September 23rd. 

Better Business Continuity Planning Practice

A fit-for-purpose business continuity plan first and foremost must require a comprehensive risk assessment of potential threats. The instructions of the business continuity plan should comprehensively respond to all of these potential threats so that the organisation is fully prepared for any eventuality.

Secondly, resilience measures are vital to business operations and must be incorporated into business continuity planning. These are the measures taken to ensure that when an incident like this occurs, the recovery time is as quick as possible. A common resilience measure would be the use of backup systems to ensure downtime is minimised. 

Regular testing of business continuity plans is vital to ensure their success in the event of an incident. Testing is important to raise staff awareness of crisis procedures so that response time is quick. Testing is also beneficial to spot any weaknesses in planning and processes so they can be rectified. 

Capacity planning is very important in business continuity planning. As previously noted, outages are usually widespread and rarely occur in single iterations. Organisations need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario and must ensure that their entire business operation can be supported by the business continuity plan in the event of an incident.

Lessons to be Learned by Airlines 

While it is known that airlines had regularly tested contingency plans in place to deal with an issue like this, it is clear that capacity was an unfortunate downfall of the incident response. This flaw wouldn’t appear in testing as usually conducted by Ryanair and Aer Lingus as they only tested on one flight a week. It is apparent that the airlines didn’t account for manpower requirements to handle manual procedures for all scheduled flights.  

Resilience measures also appear to be lacking as there is no back-up system available to assist the recovery effort. Improvement in backup systems would reduce the risk posed by such incidents and in this particular event, would prevent the enormous financial losses. 

Finally, as it almost goes without saying, tightening of cybersecurity measures should be top priority for the airlines, airports and suppliers like Collins Aerospace. In the current climate, ransomware attacks pose detrimental risks to vital, fast-moving industries like commercial aviation. In an ever developing and increasingly automated world, organisations need to prioritise investment in cybersecurity to reduce risk. 

Fiscal vs Monetary Policy: The UK’s Dilemma.

Posted on by Leave a comment

“In this jittery environment – there could be no reasons for more jitters”

Despite the IMF chief’s call for no “more jitters”, the sacking of the UK’s Chancellor on Friday (14/10), alongside a further fiscal policy U-turn, dashed their hopes of steady progress. But, how did we get here?

Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget announcement in mid-September had a ‘pro-growth,’ ‘expansionary’ headline, but caused concern due to its financing and lack of approval by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The potentially unsustainable budget deficit, and the expansionary fiscal stance which conflicted with the Bank of England’s (BoE) deflationary policies led markets to price in higher interest rate rises, therefore reducing the price of gilts (government bonds).

However, panic spread due to pension funds’ heavy collateralisation through gilts, leading to calls for more collateral, and a mass sell-off of gilts by these funds. This sparked a downward spiral, causing further falls in gilt prices and igniting fears of a ‘run.’

Therefore, to prevent mass defaults on pension funds, and safeguard the finances of connected banks, the BoE stepped in and purchased these gilts, reducing the yield (i.e. the interest rate). But, like many G20 Central Banks, the BoE is tightening monetary policy to ward off inflation. Hence, this move served to undermine their credibility and muddy their inflation-targeting objectives. The announcement that the BoE would stop this bond-buying procedure on Friday should have re-established their policy tightening strategy and credibility, ultimately helping to re-stabilise market expectations. However, the sacking of Kwarteng, and the U-turn on the mini-budget, including a backtrack on the proposed decline in corporation tax, meant that a gilt sell-off re-started and prices fell, while currency markets remained turbulent. Truss’ fragile position as Prime Minister is likely to continue driving financial instability.

Alleviating This Uncertainty Via Communication

There are multiple issues stemming from this crisis in policy, but some uncertainty could be resolved through communication. Despite having no other option, Andrew Bailey (Governor of BoE) put himself in a difficult position on Wednesday by announcing the termination of gilt-buying on Friday. As long as the action was taken, the power of strong communication is illustrated here, as this helped stabilize expectations, and shore up BoE credibility as an inflation-targeter. On the other hand, Kwarteng’s failure to pre-warn business leaders about the mini-budget scared markets, unraveling the negative shocks. Furthermore, these shocks were amplified as he reportedly did not communicate certain elements with cabinet ministers, and failed to include the OBR.

Until Friday, there appeared to be coherence between No. 10 and No. 11, however Bailey’s “you’ll have to ask the Chancellor,” response to questions regarding Kwarteng’s absence from an IMF meeting, and early departure from the conference on Thursday, highlighted growing tensions between the BoE and UK politicians; giving further insight into the conflict between fiscal and monetary policy in the UK.

The Blame Game: Not So Independent.

While the past few weeks have seen monetary and fiscal policy work in opposite directions, Georgieva’s comments that fiscal policy should not undermine monetary policy illustrated the importance of the latter. That said, the Bank of England’s actions following unreasonable fiscal policy illustrates the opposite of this, unbalancing the see-saw of whether fiscal policy should support monetary policy (or vice-versa). Meanwhile, the independence and credibility of the BoE has been threatened, both by fiscal policy, and the risking of moral hazard through its recent buying of gilts. This illustrates a need for strong communication from monetary and fiscal policy makers in order to regain stability and transparency. Ultimately, if we are to learn from the 1970s, monetary policy needs to be allowed to lead, with politics stepping in to support those who will be hurt. This forces a dilemma for myopic politicians regarding the seemingly correct (in the long-run), but unpopular action to take.


Yesterday’s (Monday 17/10) events seemed to be taking this route, with financial markets stabilizing. On the other hand, some argue that the new Chancellor went too far, and that through tearing up Truss’ entire ‘manifesto,’ he is now the de-facto Prime Minister. Furthermore this has led to calls for a general election and stemmed questions of whether credibility can ever be restored to Truss’ leadership. Again, the lesson may be one of communication, but only time will tell whether trust can be regained once this breaks down – and until that point, political instability will continue to undermine the financial and monetary stability of the UK.

Big Four: Potential Audit and Advisory Split 

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Big Four accounting firm EY are only one step away from restructuring the firm. Their audit and advisory services would be separated as a result of the restructure. All that remains is for the 13,000 EY partners throughout the world to vote in favour of or against the split. It would be the biggest change in the accounting industry in decades. 

First of all, in case you’re unfamiliar, the Big Four accounting firms are PWC, KPMG, EY, and Deloitte. They are the top accounting firms worldwide, providing tax, consulting and auditing services in over 150 countries. In 2021, they earned a combined worldwide revenue of $167.2 billion. 

EY managers have finally accepted a plan to split their audit and advising businesses after months of discussion about a split in the audit and advisory services. The plan would potentially see the audit division retaining the EY name and the advisory division becoming its own company with a new name. However, it will not be as easy as it may sound. The distribution of the tax division, which is essential to both the audit and consultancy services, is one of the key concerns of the split.

So why are they splitting? The primary goal of the division is to prevent conflicts of interest from limiting the growth of the audit and advisory divisions. This stems from when one division is not allowed to work with the clients of the other division. The split would open up many more potential clients to the new advisory company and would help the advisory sector’s expansion.

A statement released by EY on the 8th of September states: 

“EY leaders have reached the decision to move forward with partner votes to separate into two distinct, multidisciplinary organizations. We expect this phase to continue through the end of the year, with voting expected to begin on a country-by-country basis in late 2022 and conclude in early 2023.”