Do it yourself

For much of modern history, power was mostly measured by military strength. Borders shifted through conquest, and influence was enforced through force. In the past couple of decades, there has been a gradual shift in this paradigm. While military capability still matters, the primary instruments of power today are economic and technology. In the contemporary world, access to capital, technology, markets, and resources often determines outcomes more effectively than armies. Trade rules can shape behavior. Financial sanctions can immobilize economies. Control over technology standards can define the future of entire industries. Unlike traditional warfare, economic power operates quietly. There are no declarations, no battlefields, and no formal endings. Yet its effects can be just as lasting.   The latest events in Venezuela also need to be looked at from this Lense. Export controls, tariffs, financial restrictions, and regulatory barriers are now routine tools of statecraft. They ar...

The idea of a “global reset” has gained popularity in recent years. It reflects a widespread sense that the extant world order is no longer working and a fundamentally new thing needs to emerge to replace it. Total collapse of global growth in the past couple of decades, unsustainable trade balances, and excessive socialism (social security in developed countries) have raised the specter of a total collapse in the global order, just like it happened in the early part of the twentieth century. While this feeling is understandable, the term itself might be misleading, in my view. What we are witnessing may not be a reset, but a reorganization of global institutions and systems. Global systems rarely collapse overnight. Instead, they evolve unevenly, often while appearing stable on the surface. Trade continues, markets function, currencies circulate, and institutions remain intact. Yet beneath this continuity, the logic guiding decisions is changing. For much of the post–Cold War era, eco...

The year 2025 is likely to be remembered not as a moment of rupture, but as a period when several long-term global trends became impossible to ignore. Political realignments, economic fragmentation, and rapid technological change have collectively weakened the assumptions that shaped the global order over the past three decades. Rather than a sudden “reset,” the world appears to be undergoing a gradual but meaningful reconfiguration. Existing systems continue to function, yet their underlying logic is shifting. Governments, markets, and institutions are adjusting to this reality, though not always in a coordinated or predictable manner. From integration to strategic competition For much of the post–Cold War period, economic integration was seen as a stabilizing force. Trade, capital flows, and technology exchange were expected to align national interests and reduce conflict. That assumption is now being tested. Major economies are increasingly treating economic capabilities as ...

  Across global banks, asset managers, and research institutions, the consensus view for 2026 is of a sub-trend but resilient global economy transitioning into a post-inflation, late-cycle phase. Growth is expected to remain positive but uneven, led by the U.S. and parts of Asia, while Europe lags amid structural and fiscal constraints. Inflation is broadly forecast to moderate toward central-bank targets, giving policymakers room for gradual and cautious rate cuts, though a return to the ultra-low-rate era is not expected. Financial markets are seen shifting from liquidity-driven gains to earnings- and fundamentals-based performance, with lower average returns, higher dispersion across assets, and sustained volatility. Structural forces — geopolitical fragmentation, elevated debt, demographic pressures, and the transition to a more multipolar global order — dominate cyclical drivers, while technology and AI-led productivity gains remain the key upside risk. Overall, instit...

As I mentioned yesterday ( see here ) the pain being felt presently by the non-institutional investors is disproportionately high. For the investors and traders who have spent a short period of time in the market, mostly those who started investing in post Covid period, the pain may be actual, while for those who have been investing for a long time, the pain might only be notional due to perception of relative underperformance or loss of opportunity cost. Over exposure to small cap stocks While large caps account for ~60–63% of total and free-float market capitalization, retail participation in this segment has been relatively muted. Institutional investors—both domestic and foreign—continue to dominate ownership and trading activity in large caps. As a result, price discovery here has been more orderly, liquidity deeper, and drawdowns relatively contained. In contrast, non-institutional investors (retail investors, HNIs, family offices, and smaller proprietary books) have had di...