Do it yourself

A friend recently remarked, “I don’t want to be young for the first time in my life”. He was alluding to the challenges Gen Z (born between 1997-2012) and Generation Alpha (born after 2012) children are likely to face in the coming years. I fully agree with him. The silver on my scalp gives me comfort that a relatively well lived life may end as comfortably for me, and many people my age. But young people in their 20s have no such comfort.

Continuing from the last week (View from the Mars – 4)

For a small investor like me, whose investment spectrum is limited to the locally available instruments and opportunities, it is critical to assimilate the impact of the global events on the local economy and markets. A natural follow-up would be to assess if a change in investment strategy and asset allocation plan is required to factor in the impact of the global events.

In most cases, the impact of global events is temporary and does not warrant any change in the investment strategy and/or asset allocation. However, some global events could have a lasting impact on the domestic economy and markets. Such events often require material change in the investment strategy and asset allocation.

It is important to note that in the past three months, the world has not witnessed any event that was not widely anticipated. The shift in the US policy (fiscal and monetary) paradigm was widely anticipated and documented. The response of the trading partners is also more or less on the expected lines. The geopolitical developments, economic growth, currencies, equities, bonds, commodities, etc. are mostly moving in the direction as was widely anticipated. In my post about outlook and investment strategy for the year 2025  (shared in the beginning of 2025), I had shared my anticipation of these events and consequent adjustments in my investment strategy and outlook.

Notwithstanding, let me again note down the important current global events that could have a material impact on the Indian economy and markets. (Please note that I have taken some inputs from AI tool Grok 3 (beta version) in preparing this post.)

Opportunities for India

Supply Chain Shift: Trump’s tariffs are pushing U.S. firms to diversify away from China. There is an potential for India to grab this opportunity. In 2024, India’s electronics exports to the U.S. spiked 22%. The Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) framework, as discussed by the Prime Minister and White House during the PM's February visit, could open bilateral trade opportunities worth US$200bn by 2027.

Visa curbs (H-1B denials up to 35%) might force Indian IT to onshore talent, boosting hubs like Hyderabad—Wipro’s hiring 10,000 locally, providing impetus to local economies. Less immigration pressure might also redirect diaspora skills home, powering startups. As per NASSCOM, 1,200 new startups became operational in 2024.

Defense and Tech Edge: Trump’s anti-China could tilt trade balance in favor of the Quad. India has reportedly already moved forward with $5 billion arms deals with the US, since January. COMPACT tech transfers (AI, chips) could leapfrog India’s R&D. India’s premier defense research organization (DRDO) is eyeing U.S. quantum tech.

Energy Stability: Peace in Ukraine and the Middle East, after the US intervention, could steady oil at $70-$75. India, which is 80% oil-import-dependent, saves $10 billion annually if prices don’t spike. LNG from Qatar gets cheaper too.

Trade normalization: A calm Black Sea and Red Sea (Houthi attacks down 40%) unclog shipping, allowing India’s $45 billion EU exports to flow smoothly via Suez. Peace could also revive the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) with Russia-Iran, cutting freight costs 20%. 

China’s Retaliation Opens Doors: China’s counter-tariffs—25% on U.S. autos and tech imports and yuan devaluation (5% drop, PBOC) makes Chinese goods pricier. India’s textiles (now up to 20% cheaper than China’s) and pharma generics (40% of the U.S. market) could take some of the US’s market from the Chinese suppliers.

Investment Inflow: China’s economic slowdown as a consequence to slower exports could reverse the flows of global capital (FDI and FPI) towards India. Though FDI into India hit $70 billion in 2024, up 12% yoy, the rate of growth in FDI flows has been declining for a few years. Weakness in USD and sharp fall in the US treasury yields could turn the global investment flows towards the emerging markets. India being one of the major emerging markets, would certainly stand to benefit.

Cheaper Capital: U.S. 10-year yields dipped to 4.3%, EU’s at 2.1% (ECB). India, having over $400 billion of external debt does benefit directly from the lower yields. Even Rupee bonds could draw more investors if yields keep sliding, easing pressure on domestic banks which are constrained by an adverse credit-deposit ratio for many months.

Export Boost: Falling inflation (U.S. PCE at 2.7%, EU at 2%) lifts disposable income of Americans and Europeans. As per GTRI, India’s consumer goods (handicrafts, apparel) could see a 10% uptick in demand due to lower inflation and a weaker dollar.

Threats for India

Export Pain: India’s $77.5 billion U.S. exports face a $7 billion hit from tariffs. Textiles and gems bleed the most. IT’s $108 billion U.S. revenue stalls if H-1B cuts force wage hikes (Trump’s 50% proposal, per ORF). Remittances (~$10 billion from the U.S.) could be materially affected.

Retaliation Risk: Retaliatory tariffs on India’s exports to the US could potentially dent some of the $45.7 billion trade surplus India enjoys with the US.

Commodity Competition: As peace returns to Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East, India’s petroleum product export and wheat exports in particular, may be adversely affected.

Dumping Threat: If China floods global markets with cheap goods, India’s MSMEs could be adversely impacted. China’s ~$30 billion trade surplus with India could balloon, straining forex reserves.

Border Tension: China’s tariff war might spill into Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, straining diplomatic relations and further fueling tension..

Capital Flight Risk: If U.S./EU yields crash further, investments could flow to the developed economy bonds anticipating further gains. China’s stimulus could siphon even more funds.

Demand Softness: Deflationary pressure in the West might cap India’s export growth—gems and jewelry stagnate if wallets tighten.

Conclusion

India could materially benefit from the current global events, especially U.S.-China fallout—supply chains, tech, and peace-driven energy savings could push GDP past 6.5% by 2027. However, we need to see proactive policy response and strong execution to capitalize on this opportunity. A long-term strategy is also needed to mitigate the impact of frequent tariff and VISA threats. China’s countermoves might flood or flank India, and Western yield drops could make capital flows very volatile and unpredictable. Peace helps, but only if India diversifies fast—BRICS, EU, ASEAN—to offset U.S. volatility. Trump’s bluff might crumble by 2026 if China holds firm, amplifying India’s export risks but opening manufacturing doors. A Middle East flare-up could spike oil and ruin it all.

Overall, the situation, as anticipated earlier, is very volatile and unpredictable. For now, it does not warrant any change in the investment strategy, as shared in the beginning of the year:

“2025 may be a far more challenging year for investors as compared to 2024. The volatility and uncertainty may increase materially, requiring investors to focus on capital preservation rather than making some real returns.

I shall maintain a standard allocation in 2025 and engage in active trading in my equity and debt portfolio to optimize return using the benefit of large swings. At the same time, I would continue to look for opportunities in the emerging themes for the next many years and build a long-term portfolio. Returns will not be my primary focus in 2025.”

Also read

View from the Mars

View from the Mars - 2

View from the Mars - 3

View from the Mars - 4

Trade war cannot quick-fix

The master failing the first test

Continuing from yesterday (View from the Mars – 3)

In my view, the following issues may, inter alia, play an important role in shaping the contours of the new world order that may evolve in the next decade or so.

·         China presently is finding it hard to gain acceptance as a major global leader. One of the reasons is lack of democracy, which is still a major consideration for the western developed world. Besides, it is also regarded as an irresponsible power by the extant major global powers. Recently, the spread of Covid-19 virus from Wuhan laboratory, causing a global pandemic, has materially tarnished the image of China. In particular, the mistrust between the US and China have increased manifolds after the outbreak of pandemic, resulting in a Sino-US cold war. This cold war that may last for many years, or may be decades, may be a key determinant of the new world order. Important to note that Russia, which was a key WWII opponent of China, and key OPEC members – Iran & Saudi Arabia, and erstwhile strategic partner of the US – Pakistan, are overtly standing on the Chinese side in this cold war.

·         The vulnerabilities of the US and Europe have been exposed by the coronavirus. Post 9/11 incident, we saw dramatic changes in the concept of internal security in the US and many other countries. The suspects were shot dead without much provocation, disregarding all concerns for human rights and liberties. The culprits were chased and killed in foreign jurisdictions often disregarding sovereignty of these foreign lands. The diplomats, politicians and prominent personalities arriving in the US and the UK were strip searched and denied entry with impunity.

We may see further rise in xenophobic tendencies of the developed western countries. Another major impact could be a concerted effort to reverse the course of demography, especially in European countries that are turning old at an alarming rate. This could be achieved by substantial incentives for procreating aggressively or changes in the immigration policies to encourage young professionals from developing countries to settle there.

·         The global supply chain presently relies heavily on China for components as well as manufacturing services. Many developed countries get their fiscal gaps filled by China in lieu of using Chinese manufacturing services and allowing China access to their markets. The new world order may see a massive shift in this trend. Countries may seek to limit their fiscal deficits and seek diversification of their supply chains. This could present many opportunities & threats to the emerging economies like India.

·         The dominance of USD as the world's only reserve currency could face serious challenges from more neutral digital currencies, especially as a medium of exchange.

·         The ideas like free trade, personal liberties, etc. may face serious challenges from the rising tendencies of governments world over, which are eager to exercise enhanced surveillance and control over personal conduct and data.

·         The business models, valuation models, risk assessment techniques, commercial contracts etc. may need to be redefined to build in probability of frequent disruptions and conflicts.

·         The business and official ‘foreign travel’ may become ‘avoidable unless necessary’, due to rising scrutiny and excessive VISA restrictions.

·         The business continuity planning may become a mainstream subject for all businesses, not just for the mission critical processes and financial services.

·         A strong wave of debt defaults/waiver may hit the global financial system. Handling of this tsunami and subsequent recapitalization of the lenders will be a key challenge for the governments and central banks. Inappropriate handling of this challenge may eventually lead to shortage of growth capital and thus rise in cost of capital.

Where does India stand in this transition and what are the opportunities and threats?

I shall share my thoughts on this next week.

Also read

View from the Mars

View from the Mars - 2

View from the Mars - 3

Trade war cannot quick-fix

The master failing the first test

About 17 years ago, a global financial crisis (GFC) engulfed the global markets. The impact of the crisis on financial markets was mitigated in a couple of years by collective efforts of the governments and central bankers. However, the social, geo political and economic impacts of the crisis largely remain unmitigated even today.

Continuing from my previous post (View from the Mars)

Have you ever wondered why—

In the year 1689, British monarch William of Orange put steep tariffs on French wine. He wanted to encourage the British to drink their own booze - make and drink. It was not a great idea because without wine, Britain turned to the hard stuff - gin. So, for the next 50 years, England was in the grip of the so-called gin craze. And newspapers wrote about the surge in crime and death and unemployment.

In the 18th century, Britain put trade restrictions and taxes on tea being shipped to the colonies. This eventually led to the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event in the American war for independence.

In the 1800s, the Brits were importing a lot of tea from China, and they didn't like the trade deficit, so they started to export opium to China, which caused an opium epidemic in China. China put a tariff on opium and then banned it altogether. This led to the very bloody Sino-British Opium Wars. The Qing lost the war. This defeat is popularly believed to be the first step in the direction of establishing modern day China.

Restrictions on the trade of cotton textile, indigo, salt etc. by the British empire on India inspired many key events in India's war of independence.

Soon after its unification in 1871, Italy turned to protectionism to foster its “infant” industries. It terminated its trade agreement with France in 1886; raised tariffs as high as 60 percent to protect its industries from French competition. The French government responded by passing the highly protectionist Méline Tariff of 1892, which famously signaled the death knell of the country’s flirtation with free trade. This eventually pushed Italy closer to Germany and Austria-Hungary in the years leading up to the First World War.

A famous example of protectionism gone awry is 1930’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act—which along with similar protectionist measures enacted around the globe—helped torpedo world trade, killing two third of the global trade, and exacerbate the Great Depression leading to WWII.

In the post WWII era, US trade restrictions on Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Russia, North Korea, Syria etc. have had a significant impact on global strategic balance.

Wider economic sanctions on India in the wake of 1998 nuclear tests, helped India develop indigenous technologies and evolve as a major power in space technology.

There is a strong view that America’s “trade war”, with Japan in the 1980s, was one of the best things that ever happened to American industry and consumers, because American businesspeople rose to the challenge of the time. The "quality movement" spread across the country. Businesspeople, previously outraged by the Japanese “stealing” trade secrets, decided to join the club and took to “benchmarking” on an industrial scale, often with Japanese companies as their targets. The benefits of all that attention to quality were large and durable for US businesses and consumers. In the end, the “war” did not prove to be destructive.

The short points are:

·         Trade wars perhaps as old as the cross-border trade itself.

·         Trade wars have often culminated in larger geopolitical conflicts and resulted in changes in the global maps.

·         Trade wars have been mostly caused by (i) distress in the domestic economy of the aggressor, promising protection and assurance to the local businesses; and/or (ii) eroding credibility of the extant political leadership, resulting in such leadership raising the rhetoric of aggressive-nationalism and external threats to the national integrity to protect its position.

·         There is evidence of trade wars causing structural shifts and paradigm changes in the global economy. However, there is little to suggest that but for trade wars, the world would have been a better place.

In my view, the latest specter of a wider trade war has been unleashed by the US administration to find a quick-fix solution to economic malaise, the US economy is suffering from nearly two decades of fiscal and monetary profligacies.

The US public debt has increased from US$3.41 trillion in the year 2000 (~35% of GDP) to US$29 trillion (~105% of GDP) currently. In this period, the fiscal deficit has risen from a US$236 billion surplus in the 2000 to a deficit of ~US$1.8 trillion currently. This is obviously not sustainable and needs to be corrected.

The moot point is “Whether trade war is a good solution for correcting historical mistakes?”

Ever since the self-proclaimed master in the “art of deal making” re-entered the White House, January 2025, after a hiatus of four years, the atmosphere has been filled with greater uncertainties. Each time, the great negotiator sits behind his newly acquired table in the Oval office, or holds a mike in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, he adds little more to these uncertainties.

The President of the United States (POTUS) is announcing a material hike in trade tariffs, pausing his orders, deferring implementation of his orders, and reinstating his orders as if he is ordering his evening snacks and not able to decide between coffee and soup. His administration, including the Alpha male, VPOTUS, and the Smartest man in-charge of DOGE, for some strange reasons, is not briefing the POTUS that changing tariff may, inter alia, require—

a)    some preparation on the part of trade and custom authorities to adjust their systems, documentation, and software;

b)    a lot of effort for the traders – who need to renegotiate the previous contracts and adjust the pricing accordingly;

c)     significant adjustments by the downstream value chain, including the ultimate consumer who might have to bear the impact of tariff hikes;

d)    monetary authorities to assess the impact of the changes in tariffs on the overall price curve and corresponding monetary policy response, if any required;

e)     counterparties to decide on the strategy to deal with the revised tariff. The response may be aggression (reciprocal hike in tariffs) requiring further adjustments by the importers, and downstream value chain; and

f)      financial markets to assess the impact on businesses, currencies and rates, and accordingly adjust the discounting factors, option pricing, etc.

The uncertainties created by frequent policy flip-flops of the POTUS, is also impacting the supply chains globally, as both the buyers and sellers are in a state of flux. If it continues like this, soon we could see a repeat of Covid like supply chain disruptions including logjams at ports, shortages of containers.

Sensing that the POTUS may be bluffing, the Chinese authorities have already placed a 2x blind bet by announcing that China (biggest trade partner of the US) is ready for any kind of war. Responding to the 10% extra tariff imposed by the US, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said: “Exerting extreme pressure on China is the wrong target and the wrong calculation … If the US has other intentions and insists on a tariff war, trade war or any other war, China will fight to the end. We advise the US to put away its bullying face and return to the right track of dialogue and cooperation as soon as possible.” (see here)

Canada and the EU have also responded aggressively to the Trump Tariff threats.

“Canada’s initial retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. will remain in place despite President Donald Trump postponing 25% tariffs on many imports from Canada for a month, two senior Canadian government officials said. (see here)”

“We will not let ourselves be bullied, not with tariffs nor with threats about our legislation,” said Bernd Lange, a usually mild-mannered German Social Democrat who chairs the European Parliament’s international trade committee. (see here)

We would soon know whether the great negotiator is actually bluffing or is serious about his MAGA pledge; and is willing to make the US businesses and consumers (and the US economy) suffer medium-term pain, as the local manufacturing base is rebuilt (without the benefit of cheap and abundant immigrant labor) over the course of next 5-7 years.

Besides the tariffs, the POTUS has also threatened to withdraw from the multilateral institutional frameworks like NATO, the UN and IMF etc. The recent developments in Ukraine and Palestine indicate that NATO is no longer a potent deterrent to war, and the UN’s credibility is eroding at the fastest pace since the attack on Iraq on a false pretense of WMD. The withdrawal of the US (the largest fund contributor to these institutions) will only precipitate the inevitable.

…more on trade war tomorrow

Recent interaction with the market participants indicates that the sentiment of fear is now strongly dominating greed. Most of the investors/traders are complaining of pain in their respective portfolios.

Indubitably, the portfolio values have corrected noticeably from their September 2024 high levels. However, the damage is far less as compared to the previous major bear market, which lasted for almost thirteen months (2008-2009), followed by a 20-month period of recovery (March 2009-November 2010) and a three-year period of consolidation (November 2010-October 2013).

We had a tentative two-year market cycle between 4Q2013 and 1Q2016, before the latest proper bull market started at the end of February 2016. Notably, this bull market has been the longest one (8 years); and it is still not certain that it has ended on 26^th September 2024.

Pain-check

In my view, the pain from stock price corrections could be of two types – absolute and emotional.

Absolute pain occurs when an investor or trader loses his capital permanently. This may be due to excessive leverage, error of judgement in the stock selection, and/or liquidating portfolio at a low point due to panic.

Emotional pain occurs when an investor or trader becomes greedy and internalizes the excessive returns as normal. The pain is felt when the market reverts to mean and excessive returns made during the euphoric phase evaporate, leaving only normal returns for them.

It is therefore important to use a correct reference point for “pain-check”.

So far, most of the regular investors/traders may be feeling emotional pain only, as the correction so far has been mild and they are still earning normal returns (13% CAGR on Sensex and 18% CAGR on BSE Smallcap) since February 2016 when the latest bull market started.

For traders and investors who started investing/trading in stocks and/or mutual funds in 2020, the returns are still above normal (15% CAGR on Sensex and 26% CAGR on BSE Small Cap since September 2020 when lockdown was lifted after the first Covid wave).

It is important to note that during the last bear market (2008-13), stock price correction lasted for 13 months - from the end January 2008 to early March 2009. However, January 2008 high levels were not breached till October 2013. The 2008-09 correction was so severe that it not only eroded entire gains earned during July 2006 – January 2008, but erased a significant part of the invested capital. In the end (March 2009), the Sensex was 18% lower than the starting (July 2006) level; while Smallcap (-41%) and Midcap (-36%) were sharply lower. In comparison, the investors and traders are in a significantly comfortable position in the present correction.

As per the latest national accounts data released last week, the economic growth of India appears to be normalizing in 6.5% +/- 0.3% band. Optically, this growth rate may appear decent; but is insufficient for achieving the target of catapulting the Indian economy into a higher orbit and sustaining the status of a middle-income economy.

After recording a higher growth rate of 8.8% CAGR for three years (FY22 to FY24) on a low base of Covid affected FY20 and FY21, the FY25 growth is estimated to be 6.5%. The consensus estimates for FY26e growth are also hovering around 6.5%.

From the internals of the economic data, it appears that growth trajectory of the Indian economy is settling in the current band, just like we spent decades in the 3-4% growth band in the pre-reform (1990s) era. Any effort to accelerate the economic growth would require transformative socio-economic reforms in the next five years.

Some critical points that need to be watched closely from the perspective of growth sustainability and acceleration could be listed as follows:

·         The share of primary sector that employs the largest share of workers has deteriorated from 22.1% in FY21 to 19.8% in FY25AE. The share of the secondary sector has also declined from 25.6% in FY21 to 25.2% in FY25AE. Especially, the share of manufacturing in the GDP is low at 14%, and has not recorded any material improvement despite the material incentives like PLI, etc. FY25AE growth of manufacturing is estimated to a dismal 3.5%.

·         The gross savings rate of the economy has fallen to 30.2% of GDP in FY25AE, materially lower than 33.8 in FY12, when the new GDP series started. The investment rate has also fallen in this period from 39% in FY12 to 31.4% in FY25AE. The household & corporate savings and investments have seen decline in FY25E. The government investment and consumption has been supporting the investment rate to stay above 30% of GDP. The fiscal constraints are indicating that this support may weaken in the coming years.

·         Early reports are indicating that Rabi crop in many states has been materially damaged by unusually dry and warm winters. Sugar production for SS25 is expected to be ~14% lower; while wheat crop may be 25-35% lower. Oilseed and pulse crops have also suffered damage. This data will reflect in 4QFY25 and 1QFY26 agriculture GVA and private consumption numbers.

It is important to note that MFI sector is already burdened by a material deterioration in the asset quality. Poor Rabi crop may add to the rural stress and adversely impact the overall consumption demand, given that urban demand is not showing signs of improvement.

It is therefore very much possible that the actual FY25E growth comes lower than the second advance (AE) estimates.

·         The global trade uncertainties are rising with the passage of every hour. A situation of material trade logjam, supply chain disruption, accelerated tariff war and/or high volatility in currency markets is not completely improbable. If any such situation does materialize, it may materially hurt the growth prospects and external vulnerability of India. 

It was summer of 2013. The mood on the street was gloomy. The stock markets had not given any return for almost three years. USDINR had crashed 28% (from 53 to 68) in a matter of four months. GDP was on course to drop to 5.5% after growing at a rate of over 8% CAGR for almost a decade. Current account deficit had worsened to more than 6% of nominal GDP (the worst in decades). The Fx reserves of the country were down to US$277bn, sufficient to meet just 5 months of net imports. The confidence in the incumbent government had completely depleted. The people were on the street protesting against ‘corruption’ and ‘policy paralysis’.

The global economy had still not recovered from the shock of the global financial crisis (GFC). The thought of unwinding of monetary and fiscal stimulus provided in the wake of being unwound was unnerving most emerging markets ((Taper Tantrums), including India.

India, which was touted as TINA (There is no alternative) by the global investors just five years back and had become a key member of BRIC and G-20; was already downgraded to “fragile five” by some global analysts. This was the time when the government of the day took some brave decisions. One of these decisions was to appoint Mr. Raghuram Rajan, former Chief Economist and Director of Research at the IMF and then Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, as the 23^rd governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Mr. Rajan with the full support of then Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, took several effective damage control measures, and was able to pull the economy and markets out of crisis within a short period of one year. USDINR gained over 11%, stocks markets recorded their all-time high levels, CAD improved to less than 1% of nominal GDP, real GDP growth recovered to ~7% (FY15).

The situation today is nowhere close to the summer of 2013. Nonetheless, the feeling is that we could potentially head to a similar situation in the summer of 2025.

Worsening external situation - rising global trade uncertainties due to the US unpredictable tariff policies, depleting Fx reserves, weakening USDINR, declining FDI and persistent FPI selling, pressure on the government to cut tariff protection for the domestic industry, and rising probability of a global slowdown.

Slowing domestic growth - Prospects of a poor Rabi crop aiding pressuring food inflation and RBI policy stance, crawling manufacturing growth, limited scope for any meaningful monetary or fiscal stimulus, etc are some of the factors that suggest the probability of any meaningful growth acceleration in the near term is unlikely.

Uninspiring policy response – The policy response to the economic slowdown and worsening of external situation is completely uninspiring so far. The measures taken by the government and RBI appear insufficient and suffer from adhocism.

For example, RBI has announced several liquidity enhancement measures in the past three months. These measures have been mostly neutralized by USD selling by RBI to protect USDINR and rise in the government balance with RBI (inability of the government to disburse money quickly to the states or spend otherwise. Risk weight cut for lending to NBFCs and MFI etc. is too little and too late. The damage to credit demand and asset quality in the unsecured segment is already done, and is not easily reversible.

The fiscal stimulus (tax cut on for individual taxpayers) could support the economy if at all, from 2H2025 only. There is a risk that the taxpayers in lower income segments (Rs 7 to 15 lacs) might use the tax savings to deleverage their balance sheets by repaying some of their high-cost personal loans etc. In that case this stimulus could have a negative multiplier on growth.

The short point is that (a) we are yet not in a crisis situation; (b) if not handled effectively and with a sense of urgency, the current situation may not take long to turn into a crisis.

The government, especially the finance minister and RBI, would need to urgently take several steps to take control of the situation and inspire confidence in the businesses and investors. Leaving it to the external developments, e.g., USD weakening due to falling bond yields in the US; energy prices easing due to Russia-Ukraine truce; trade normalcy restoration due to Sino-US trade agreement and normalization of Red Sea traffic; a plentiful monsoon easing domestic inflation; etc. may not be a great strategy - even if it works this time.

As they say – “it is great to have faith in God, but always lock your car”.