A 'Mutual Struggle' Over a GPU Order: The 'Dual Efforts' of Two Listed Companies | Titanium Media Deep Dive

A near‑RMB70bn chain sparked by a mysterious middleman

A convoluted near‑RMB70 billion (≈27.8bn + 35–40bn) compute deal has tied together two loss‑making A‑share firms and a company that, reportedly, cannot be found at its registered address. Tianyang Technology (天阳科技) — a former banking‑IT leader now battling collapsing margins and cash shortfalls — formally announced plans to pour RMB35–40 billion into a GPU‑heavy compute leasing business with Beijing Qimingxinghan Technology (北京启明星汉科技有限公司, hereafter 启明星汉). The same intermediary then arranged a RMB27.83 billion GPU equipment and integration order to Hanbang High‑Tech (汉邦高科), creating what the market sees as a near‑70bn transaction chain that stitches together capital‑market hopes and real operational risk.

Why the counterparty choice and timing trouble investors

The oddities are stark. Tianyang had an entrenched strategic partner and 5.02% shareholding relationship with Shoudu Online (首都在线), a company with demonstrable cloud and IDC capability that would have been the natural recipient of a large GPU procurement. Why then route the business to a deeply distressed, pivoting security‑vendor like Hanbang? Why did Tianyang pursue up to RMB85 billion in bank credit while its cash on hand was only RMB8.96 billion? Market moves add fuel: the stock ran ahead of the public announcement, known investors and “big‑fish” holders positioned themselves beforehand, and Tianyang’s ultimate controller, Ouyang Jianping, executed a timed sell‑down that realized about RMB123 million — actions that, it has been reported, leave investors asking whether this was growth strategy or capital‑market engineering.

Bigger picture: A‑share growth anxiety meets geopolitics and supply constraints

This episode is emblematic of a broader A‑share rush into compute leasing — from manufacturers to service firms — driven by an urgent desire to capture AI‑era narratives and revive fading revenues. But compute centers are capital‑intensive, have long payback horizons and require deep operational expertise; margins cited by insiders (annualized returns around 6–8%) are thin, and fierce price competition can push bids close to cost. Geopolitics complicates the calculus: US export controls and broader tech tensions have tightened supply and raised the strategic value and price volatility of high‑end GPUs, making procurement and delivery riskier for Chinese buyers. Reportedly, the most interesting question now is not whether GPUs will arrive, but who ultimately bears the delivery, financing and reputational risk if the project unravels. Who wins — and who gets left holding the hardware — remains uncertain.