China's new EV startups — Byton

The iPhone captivated us with its large screen and introduced us to the charm of multi-touch interaction, sparking a disruptive revolution in the mobile phone market. Look at the smartphones in our hands today—can you still picture phones from a decade ago, with their tiny screens and physical keypads? At that time, Nokia—once at the peak of its dominance—was effectively swept into the dustbin of history. The iPhone truly ushered in the era of mobile intelligence. Byton harbors a similarly 'modest' ambition. Dr. Daniel Kirchert, FMC’s President, declared at the launch event: 'Byton aims to become the next-generation intelligent terminal—and ultimately, a personal assistant.' He envisions using this disruptive 'large screen' to reinvent in-vehicle design, transforming the cabin into a personalized digital experience bridging humans and autonomous driving. Carsten Breitfeld, FMC’s Co-Founder and CEO, stated that FMC resembles a hybrid of a traditional automaker and a technology company, dedicated to building a 'smartphone on wheels.' Their vision is to turn vehicles into entirely new intelligent devices—equipped with wireless connectivity, autonomous driving capabilities, smart human-machine interaction functions and interfaces—and eventually cultivate an automotive app ecosystem. Holding up an iPhone on stage, he explained: 'Consumers don’t see dramatic external changes across successive generations of iPhones—but they eagerly anticipate each new iOS update.' He emphasized that this software-driven-hardware philosophy will also define Byton’s future vehicles, enabling continuous product upgrades via over-the-air (OTA) updates. FMC’s Origins and Evolution Let’s now turn to FMC—the company behind Byton—and explore where it truly came from. From its inception, FMC carried an aura of prestige. It originated from 'Harmony Foxconn Tencent' (a very down-to-earth name for 2015), an electric vehicle joint venture established in 2015 by Harmony Auto (China’s second-largest luxury car distributor), Foxconn, and Tencent. Left to right in the photo above: Daniel Kirchert, Feng Changge (Chairman of Harmony Auto), Terry Gou (Chairman of Foxconn), Carsten Breitfeld Thus, Harmony Foxconn Tencent brought together industrial design and manufacturing expertise (Foxconn), brand power and marketing channels (Harmony Auto), and smart product development plus internet platform construction (Tencent). Later, due to shareholder withdrawals and other reasons, the venture split into two EV companies: FMC and Aiways Yiwéi. FMC was led by former Infiniti China CEO Daniel Kirchert; Aiways Yiwéi was headed by Fu Qiang, former Volvo Cars China President. In March 2016, under the leadership of COO Daniel Kirchert and CEO Carsten Breitfeld—alongside other executives who reinvested—FMC formally spun off from Harmony Foxconn Tencent to establish itself as an independent company. Daniel Kirchert, formerly Infiniti China’s General Manager, and Carsten Breitfeld, formerly Vice President at BMW AG and overall project lead for the BMW i8, became FMC’s core leaders. Below is a brief introduction to FMC’s two co-founders: Daniel Kirchert and Carsten Breitfeld. Daniel Kirchert’s publicly available LinkedIn profile: Daniel Kirchert is one of China’s most experienced executives in luxury automotive sales, operations, and brand building—and is widely recognized within the industry as a 'China expert.' Since August 1998, when he began studying Chinese language at Nanjing University, he has lived and worked in China for over two decades. He speaks fluent Mandarin and is married to a woman from Jiangnan. In 2003, at the founding of Brilliance BMW, Kirchert assumed control over three core business areas: marketing, sales, and branding.

ICIS Global Chemical Top 100: Who’s Truly Strong, Who’s Just Bloated? What Will Define Future Competition in the Chemical Industry?

After all, there are few remaining tailwinds for the chemical industry—and the old model of winning purely through scale has already lost its effectiveness. Friends of Wanhua Chemical, feel free to discuss where Wanhua’s next breakthrough lies. III. The Largest Company Is Not Necessarily the Most Profitable Another notable trend revealed in this year’s ranking data is the stark contrast between size and profitability. Among the global top 10, eight companies disclosed both revenue and EBIT figures. Collectively, their revenues totaled approximately USD 366.2 billion, while their combined EBIT amounted to only about USD 2.66 billion—yielding a weighted EBIT margin of just ~0.7%. In contrast, among the 83 companies ranked 11th–100th that disclosed EBIT, the weighted EBIT margin stood at ~4.2%. Wanhua and Rongsheng did not disclose EBIT, so the 0.7% figure does not represent the full profitability picture for the entire top 10—and financial reporting standards and business scopes vary significantly across companies. Although these figures may not be perfectly precise, the disparity is real and unmistakable: the world’s largest chemical enterprises are not necessarily those with the strongest profit-conversion capability. BASF serves as the quintessential example: in 2025, its revenue reached USD 70.004 billion—ranking #1 globally—while its operating profit stood at USD 1.917 billion. Shin-Etsu Chemical reported revenue of USD 16.413 billion—less than one-quarter of BASF’s—yet generated an operating profit of USD 4.05 billion, more than double BASF’s. BASF is bigger; Shin-Etsu is more profitable. These two companies operate in fundamentally different businesses—differing markedly in asset intensity, cyclical exposure, customer relationships, and pricing power. Revenue merely indicates which company is larger—not which is stronger. IV. The Global Chemical Industry Isn’t Deteriorating Uniformly—It’s Accelerating Its Polarization Among the 100 ranked companies, 91 disclosed EBIT data: 53 posted operating margins below 5%; 26 incurred operating losses; and 20 maintained double-digit EBIT margins. The chemical industry is undergoing severe polarization—even amid broader market weakness. Covestro reported an operating loss of USD 407 million; Westlake Chemical, USD 1.426 billion; Celanese, USD 786 million; Versalis, USD 1.672 billion; and FMC, USD 1.647 billion. Meanwhile, Shin-Etsu, NewMarket, and Givaudan continue delivering strong profit conversion. If all companies deteriorated simultaneously, it might simply reflect cyclical pressures. But within the same cycle, some suffer massive losses while others sustain operating margins exceeding 20%. That makes product mix, cost positioning, customer switching costs, technological barriers, and capital intensity critically important. Cycles haven’t disappeared—but they’ve magnified previously hidden differences among business models. V. What Matters Most Is Not ‘Moving Upmarket’—But the Quality of Your Product Portfolio Commodity chemicals face persistent long-term margin pressure, whereas specialty chemicals demonstrate relatively robust profitability—leading many to conclude the strategic direction must be 'upgrading to high-end.' Yet oversimplifying this as 'commodity = bad, specialty = good' is insufficient as a commercial judgment. A commodity chemical enterprise backed by low-cost feedstocks, highly efficient assets, and a globally leading cost curve can generate excellent returns on capital. Conversely, a so-called specialty chemical company—with products lacking meaningful barriers to entry, customers facing negligible switching costs, and intensifying competitive entry—may struggle to earn any profit at all.

FMC Reports $2.1 Billion Q3 Loss Amid Channel Pricing Reset

4 hours ago

FMC Corp. reported an 80% sales plunge and $2.1 billion Q3 net loss due to distributor inventory adjustments and pricing model overhauls in its crop protection business. The company lowered its fourth-quarter outlook amid persistent commodity pricing pressures.

chemweek

2026-10-30

FMC Reports $2.1 Billion Q3 Loss Amid Channel Pricing Reset

FMC Reports $2.1 Billion Q3 Loss Amid Channel Pricing Reset

FAQ