AI as an asset class

A very early career memory of mine came in late 1999 when the UBS investment bank took the team of analysts covering the staid Paper & Packaging team and re-directed them to become the ‘dot.com’ team. This I reckon came about six months before the peak of the ‘dot.com’ bubble and, I am now wondering if investment banks are channeling resources into AI banking teams (surely AI can do the work!). If so, it would be proof of the idea that AI is everywhere, from the Mythos breakthrough we wrote about a few weeks ago to, with good timing the thoughtful note, Magnifica Humanitas, from Pope Leo XIV on how AI should be deployed.

Nowhere is the sense that AI is everywhere more true than in finance. According to Pitchbook, 45% of all American unicorns (venture-backed companies with a valuation above USD 1bn) are AI-driven, not bad for a technology that, to public eyes, barely existed three years ago. In more detail, two earlier venture-backed successes, Bytedance (i.e. TikTok) and Uber had been established for 80 months when they launched their first products. OpenAI and Anthropic have done so after 30 months, and each is now worth close to USD 1 trn. Equally, illustrating the link between investor exuberance and AI, the FT recently estimated that two-thirds of the value of SpaceX is attributable to investments made in the company in the six months since December 2025.

When this trio of AI firms lists on the stock market, revised index inclusion rules will add their weight to the already substantial 44% representation of technology stocks in the major indices. To that end, AI is no longer a market theme or fad, but is becoming an asset class in its own right.

One of the factors that distinguishes a genuine asset class from a market theme or fad is the presence of a transformative technology, with a lasting economic impact. In the context of an otherwise pedestrian US economy, AI capital expenditure is the dominant growth driver and in the last year, expenditure on data centres in the US hit USD 1 trillion.

A comprehensive study from Stanford’s Forecasting Research Institute (March 2026) compared GDP forecasts from different types of forecasters – economists in the private sector, academics, AI experts and the general public. Unsurprisingly, those closest to the AI industry tended to have the highest GDP forecasts, while academics were more grounded. On balance though, there is a consensus view that AI will lift the trend rate of growth in the US.

There are also increasingly varied ways to invest in AI. An AI-centric portfolio can now span private equity, venture capital, infrastructure (clean energy for data centres), real estate (data centres), currencies such as the Korean won, corporate bonds (Amazon, Meta, Oracle and Alphabet have issued nearly USD 150bn in bonds this year) and private credit. Indeed, AI-related private credit investments are expected to grow by over USD 1.5 trn in the next two years. While there is already a rich mix of AI-centric asset classes, the correlations between them remain high, limiting the diversification benefit.

In addition to investment banks committing resource to AI-driven deals, another hint that AI is an emerging asset class is that it has its own distinctive mode of corporate governance – strong-willed founders who monopolise voting rights, enormous pay packets and neutered boards. This concentration of control is likely to prove one of the structural vulnerabilities of the AI complex as scrutiny from regulators and institutional investors intensifies.

Given the scale of AI’s footprint across markets, one of the essential tasks for investors will be to identify assets uncorrelated with AI (e.g. luxury goods, food), as well as hedges on AI assets. And, as the suspected AI bubble grows in value, investment managers will have to find ways of protecting portfolios against sharp reversals in AI valuations.

The investment dimension of the AI boom carries particular urgency. Given the risk that AI (as per Mythos) creates potentially existential security and economic risks, and could disrupt labour markets, there is a strategic need for pension funds and sovereign wealth funds to have exposure to the economic benefits of AI. As it stands, the risk is that billions of people will have their lives and livelihoods changed by AI, but the benefits accrue to only a narrow group of investors and executives. In that regard, the advent of AI as an asset class gives individuals, countries and investment funds a means of participating in the upside of the AI boom.

The one formidable obstacle investors will have to navigate is the sense that we are in the thick of an AI bubble. Already long-run valuation measures – such as the ratio of market price to long-run earnings (the ‘Shiller P/E’), or the ratio of the value of the US stock market to GDP – are testing all-time highs, at levels not seen since 1929 and 2000. In this way, AI is truly everywhere, in our savings, investments and pensions, and that will be a risk.

To return to my first point on the switching of analyst roles. A couple of brokerages have, according to the Wall Street Journal’s China correspondent, dropped coverage of Chinese consumer stocks because of the weak outlook for spending. It might be the next trend to watch.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Lost at Sea

As a child I was fascinated and terrified by tales of the Bermuda Triangle, an area between Florida, Puerto Rico and Bermuda where ships and planes disappeared without warning, allegedly. Legend had it that a mysterious magnetic field around the Sargasso Sea drew vessels to perdition, or that even darker forces were behind the disappearance of the crew of the Mary Celeste.

Without stretching the analogy too far, my feeling is that financial markets have entered a logical Bermuda Triangle, or even Trilemma. Data, models, rules and indicators go in, but come out logically impaired. In particular, there is an unreal sense from at least three asset classes that are at historically extreme levels, each apparently contradicting the other. They cannot all be right.

In one corner, the US has, for the first time since 2007, issued long-term debt (30 years maturity) at a yield of 5%. Then, US stock market valuations are at an all-time high since 1929 and, as we stressed in last week’s note, semiconductor stocks are in a speculative frenzy. In another corner of the triangle, oil prices are pushing the highs of the last two decades.

This trio of market signals leaves investing logic in a grey zone — a Bermuda Triangle-like make-believe world. This stretched logic suggests that the prosperity and productivity of AI-related capital expenditure will rescue the world from both high inflation and a debt crisis, and will also prove powerful enough to compensate for the effects of a momentary energy crisis. I am not sure.

The confluence of these three indicators is interesting because each one points to a long-term trend that investors and policymakers cannot ignore, but equally, each one rests on a short-run vulnerability.

Rising bond yields in Europe, the UK, Japan and the US are an early warning of a debt crisis, or debt purgatory, to come. In the very short term, they signal that inflation is creeping higher whilst a number of policymakers — notably on the Fed’s FOMC — appear complacent about this development.

Equities are trading at record high levels and valuations, mostly because earnings and business cycles are strong. But a very small number of stocks has pushed the market higher, caused in part by the fact that sectors like semiconductors are heavily financialised. What I mean by this is that the deployment of exchange-traded funds and options has surcharged the prices of semiconductor stocks, and likely driven them well above long-term fundamental valuations.

In my view, Intel’s ability to treble in value since the end of March (from USD 41 to USD 129 last week) has less to do with the fundamentals of the company, and more to do with speculation. In support of this, a recent Goldman Sachs note shows that retail investors now account for around 20% of US stock market trading.

Energy prices remind us that in a multipolar world, commodities — or rather their supply and refinement — acquire a premium, and that a number of countries will have to address shortcomings in industrial supply chains. For example, last week Willie Walsh, the former airline chief executive, warned that the UK has scant jet fuel refining capacity. As such, energy infrastructure will be an area for future investment.

In the short term, however, supply pressure may be more acute: oil inventories are being drawn sharply lower. Unless there is a full and speedy resolution to the Iran War, estimates from JP Morgan point to world oil inventories dropping to 6.8 billion barrels by September — just enough to keep refineries operating worldwide.

So, like the Sargasso Sea, market compasses are spinning in different directions, and it is difficult to discern a clear narrative. The confusion arises from the changing geopolitical nature of the world, the fast shift in industrial structure away from ‘bits’ and towards ‘atoms’, shortages of refined oil and compute, and the intense financialisation of specialised sub-industries such as semiconductors and commodities.

Given the disagreement between markets, the obvious question is: which one is right? A ‘two-handed’ economist might argue that the stock, commodity and bond markets are all correct, but on different time frames.

In my experience, the bond market is the most consequential, because when it worries, it imposes a cost on other markets and on political actors. The overused but apt quote from President Clinton’s adviser James Carville in the mid-1990s captures it well: “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.”

So, the ‘market triangle’ or trilemma is resolved by bonds showing their displeasure at high oil and inflation, slowing the economy and walloping the over-bought sections of the stock market.

From a policy angle, bond markets are highlighting the urgent need for policymakers to calm inflation — through rate rises from central banks, and an early test for incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh — for governments to reduce debt, and for greater policy clarity in countries like the UK. The silver lining is that credit markets are so far well behaved, signalling that the healthy business cycle should allow for these policy actions to be made now, before it is too late.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

League of Nations, II

One implication of the recent surge in the price of semiconductor firms is that the stock markets of Taiwan and South Korea are now larger than that of the UK (which in 1900 made up 25% of the world stock market capitalization). It is expected that the two East Asian countries will soon have more billionaires than Britain, many of whom have apparently been scattered to the winds by the Labour government.

Though a country’s stock market is a highly imperfect indicator of a country’s economic standing, it does offer good clues as to evolving industrial structure. Bond yield and currencies help to complete the picture, and the runaway UK 10-year Gilt yield (now above 5%) doesn’t tell a happy story either. Then, on GDP, the country whose rise impresses me is Poland, which has not suffered a recession in the past thirty years (COVID excepted). Its GDP has increased sevenfold since 1990, and by 2030 it is expected to surpass the UK in terms of GDP (based on purchasing power parity). Remarkably, Poland is also shaping up to be a geopolitical power as well.

The loosening of the globalized world order, and the advent of many new risks and challenges – from the impact of AI on economies, to climate damage to war – has the potential to knock some nations back, and present opportunities to others.

As such, we can expect that the rise and fall of stock markets and economies tells us a lot about the rise and fall of nation states. In a world where the established world order is shattered (OPEC is the latest long running institution to fall apart), the rise and fall of countries is accelerating, and has become more vivid. In 2020, in the context of how different countries and states were responding to the COVID crisis, we wrote of the idea of the ‘League of Nations’, and have emphasized the theme ever since.

There are many existing league tables of country performance – happiest nation, most innovative country and most competitive, to name a few. Those league tables tend to be dominated by small, advanced economies. Regular readers will know that one of my favourite long run economic themes is the success of the small, advanced economy model, notably so for the way in which these nations can adapt to changes in the broader world. The UAE is a case in point.

In previous notes I have also made the parallel between football and politics, and this is still valid. A few weeks ago I mentioned that in the last ten years the UK has had more ministers for housing (a whopping 14) than Chelsea FC has had managers (12). Chelsea have recently parted with their latest manager Liam Rosenior, and it might well be that a cabinet reshuffle or change of prime minister leads to Matthew Pennycook moving on from his job as UK housing minister.

Like football, the manager of a country is important. For decades, Singapore and the Emirati states have made a virtue of strong, visionary leadership, Greece’s Kyriakos Mitsotakis and more recently Mark Carney in Canada are associated with turning their nations away from troubled waters.

In today’s League of Nations, the winning formula is changing, and shifting towards all things ‘sovereign’ and ‘atom-like’. For example, last week Canada announced the creation of a sovereign wealth fund to help the buildout of critical infrastructure, and it also laid claim to be the host of the new multilateral defence bank (Chris Collins and I wrote about this in a recent note for Barrons). Further, as I mentioned last week’s note (‘Mythical’), successful countries will need to cultivate their own AI stack, and the merger of Cohere and Aleph Alpha is a sign of things to come (their main shareholder is German but the firm will effectively be Canadian from now).

Then, with a step change in the industrial structure of the developed economies of the world underway, from services and ‘bits’ (software, crypto) to ‘atoms’ (energy, infrastructure, defence, AI and quantum), those countries with the universities, capital base and innovation ecosystems, will thrive. America is the standout example, but the Nordic countries and the economic zones that surround the Alps (particularly Switzerland) are good examples.

One consideration regarding the stature of nations is age and pedigree. One of the elements that makes small, advanced countries successful is that their laws, democracies and institutions have been in place for some time, and therefore offer clarity and consistency to businesses for example. At the same time, as economies get older they can become sclerotic, acquire layers of regulation and fail to engage in the creative destruction necessary to keep economic growth at healthy levels. Whilst this is simply an observation, I have a hunch that like aging athletes, older, large economies (US, Japan, UK, France) resort to a ‘boost’ in order to keep their economies going, which may explain why they are excessively indebted.

A final word in praise of older economies and societies, which relates to the cultures, behaviours and ‘family silver’ they accumulate over time. King Charles III’s various speeches in Washington last week demonstrated the value of heritage, and he might just have saved Britain from relegation to the lower leagues.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Do No Harm

An unusual but non surprising cameo in the response of the UK to the burgeoning energy crisis that is resulting from the Iran War, was the inclusion of Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey in last Tuesday’s emergency COBRA (Cabinet Office Briefing Room) meeting. The prospect that inflation and a cost-of-living crisis could further derail the fledgling economic recovery in the UK, has struck fear into politicians (the OECD reckons that the UK will be the worst hit country), though monetary policy purists won’t like the appearance that the independence of the ‘Old Lady’ (the Bank not Bailey!) is compromised.

What is more interesting is that this is yet another datapoint in a trend where finance, war and politics are becoming interwoven. In peacetime, central banks were the only game in town, the monetary battleships of the 2010’s, keeping the peace in bond markets and tilting currency moves in their country’s favour.

That was not always the case, books like Liaquat Ahmed’s excellent ‘Lords of Finance’, show the key role that central banks played in maintaining the stability of war time economies.

Now, the world order that is unravelling before our eyes is more like that of the 1910’s than the 2010’s, and a particular concern for central bankers is the extent to which economies have become frictioned.

By this, I mean the extra costs and inefficiencies that are bubbling up because of the end of globalization (a period associated with intense commoditization of prices and low inflation), a pandemic of supply chain disruption, and great power competition for ‘rare’ things (from rare earths to rare places like Greenland to rare technologies like quantum computing).

In general, these frictions will tend to bump up the rate of inflation. A famous example is the way in which the side effects of the war on Ukraine combined with short-sighted energy policy in Europe to produce a prolonged rise in inflation from 2021 to 2022.

From the point of view of central bankers, inured to a decade of stubbornly low inflation, this was a surprise, and prominent members of the central banking community were badly caught out by their view that this burst of inflation was ‘transitory’. Their difficulty is that the economic context of the 2010’s was characterised by demand weakness whereas the main policy problem of the 2020’s is supply constraint.

We now live in an economy of ‘atoms’ (energy, commodities, deeptech), where historically huge amounts of investment capital expenditure is/are being deployed amidst supply constraints to build a new (AI) economic infrastructure. About half of this will be financed by different forms of credit. Within this model, the debate on the productivity benefits of AI, which has produced a wide range of estimates of the potential impact of AI on the economy, illustrates what a demanding environment it is for central bankers to read.

The potential energy shock from the Iran war complicates matters even more and raises the prospect of a policy error. Echoing the schoolboy mistake by Jean-Claude Trichet to raise interest rates in 2006 when a spike in the dollar helped trigger a spike in oil prices, current ECB President Christine Lagarde has stated that the ECB was ‘ready to raise rates’. This may be a pre-emptive move to push markets to do the ECB’s job, and to warn companies and unions off raising prices. If not, Lagarde and other central bankers should do no harm. A rate rise from the ECB will do nothing to re-open the Strait of Hormuz (good note on the disruptive effects from the Kiel Institute), nor to rebuild refining capacity in the Gulf states.

The dilemma for central bankers is in distinguishing between an energy centric rise in prices and an eventual generalised rise in inflation expectations.

In my view the economic consequences of the Iran War can be short lived, but as long as it endures, amounts to a tax on consumers, a hit to risk appetite and a blow to confidence in US financial assets. Furthermore, the many costs of the war (see our note of two weeks ago, ‘It will be over by Christmas’) include a rise in the debt burden that countries like the US and UK will suffer, and an elevated level of uncertainty as the world’s former policeman turns bully.

It could be worse for central bankers, they could be politicians, who now must contend with another cost-of-living crisis, with little money left in the fiscal jar.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Old Money

A recent book, Samuel Moyn’s ‘Gerontocracy in America, highlights the growing concentration of wealth and power in the much older generations in the US, whilst younger generations face historically high valuations in real estate and financial assets, and how this growing intergenerational divide might be mended. Moyn, in my view, has struck a chord that will become one of the new dividing lines in politics, in Asia and the West.

His book brings demographic change into focus, a slow-creeping risk to economies, society and public life, but whose implications are only just surfacing in the public debate. Despite that, from a popular point of view, the sense in many Western countries is that there are too many people, or rather that infrastructure has not kept up pace with population growth – I am writing this in Dublin, which is an excellent case in point.

Yet, the long-run demographic trends – falling fertility, longer life expectancy and a shift in population composition towards a much smaller working (tax paying) population, will have enormous impacts on society, pension systems and debt loads, to name a few economic issues.

As much was evident in Germany’s recent pension reform debate which was nearly upended by Helmut Kohl’s grandson Johannes Volkmann and a group of other young parliamentarians who voiced the right of the younger generation to not have to shoulder the financial burden of their parents’ generation (under the German system, and many others, the working population effectively funds the retirement system of the older generation)..

The best starting point on the outlook for demographics is the United Nations World Population Prospects website. and the data – especially in chart form – are quite striking.

The UN data show that as we approach 2100 the world population will plateau and start to shrink. From roughly 2080 onwards the world population growth rate will turn negative for the first time in centuries (wars apart), as the death rate passes out the birth rate. Within the age cohorts, the over 65 group will expand by a billion people in the next thirty years.

More specifically, at the country level, the US death rate will surpass the birth rate in around 2040, and population growth is likely to only be sustained by immigration. The picture is worse for some European countries – Italy for example is already in negative population growth territory, and the most negative forecast scenario from the UN has the Italian population dropping from over 60 million today to 25 million by 2100 (the same level as when Garibaldi unified the country).

Equally, China, which has been renowned for its economic and population growth, will endure a collapse in the 24–65-year age group, who today number 830 million people and by 2100 are expected to comprise 280 million people. China is projected to be the country most affected by ageing, with its, China’s elderly dependency ratio is projected to surpass 100% by 2080, meaning there will be more people aged over 65 than those aged 15 to 65.

The expected collapse in the working population begs serious questions for the economy – who will pay taxes, sustain pension systems and where will demand for financial assets come from. Markets are not worried, yet.

In general, researchers find that there is a positive link between demographics and asset prices, a finding that is predicated on the rise of the boomer middle class and the coincident equity bull market and fall in bond yields. The idea is that until they retire, working households invest more in real estate, equities and other riskier assets, but then shift to income-oriented assets like bonds as they get older and require income from investments. The oddity in that respect is that despite an ageing population, equities and real estate are very expensive. This may well owe to a growing investment culture, a record level of wealth (USD 500 trillion worldwide) and the prosperity boon that has resulted from globalization.

In this context, old money will become a political target, both in terms of demands for lower inheritance taxes, to more populist measures to tax the ‘old’ and give the ‘young’. For governments who worry about demand for their bonds, wealthier older citizens might make ideal candidates for financial repression (their children would face lower inheritance tax provided that capital spent a period of ‘purgatory’ invested in government bonds – I outlined a similar theme in ‘Patriotic Capita l’)

At the same time, pension systems will have to change to accommodate a proportionately smaller number of workers (to pensioners). Private pension systems will become more common, they will invest more, earlier, with a tilt to riskier assets.

Concurrently, I expect to hear more on the need for states to establish sovereign wealth like funds (based potentially on the sale of state assets) to help provide for future pension liabilities. Another concern will be the need for states to cushion the potential blow of AI on workforces (a fund that holds equity in AI firms might be an avenue), at least through a transition period. In the long term, AI and robotics may well allow more older people to work for longer and for more women to enter the workforce. And, I haven’t managed to tackle the topic of later retirement ages and how that will impact the workforce and society.

The effects of demographics are not yet showing up in markets, and are just creeping into the investment industry, but it will become a major fiscal and financial megatrend.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Constellations

One of the highly unique, and fascinating characteristics of this era of unravelling is the way we increasingly look at the world from a geopolitical rather than a geographic point of view. In previous phases in history, geography and geopolitics aligned neatly – for example the democratic West faced off against the communist East while economically, the North was well ahead of the South. Now, select countries from disparate parts of the world share the same dilemmas and challenges. Japan, as a middle power, arguably has more in common geopolitically with the UK, than it does with Indonesia. In turn, Singapore and Ireland, arguably share the same geopolitical stress points.

In the post globalized world, new coalitions and constellations of countries are beginning to emerge. That much was on display at Davos two weeks ago, when Canadian prime minister Mark Carney eloquently pleaded the case of the democratic ‘middle powers’ and the need for them to collaborate. His speech was followed by the far less eloquent launch of Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’, which is a ragtag band of largely developing countries not known for their commitment to the rule of law and appreciation of human rights.

As the various threads of globalization – from the use of the SWIFT payment system to energy pipelines like Nord Stream, the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US, NATO, USAID, and many more, fall by the wayside, new groups and alignments emerge, and in the rest of this note I will sketch some of them.

To start at the top of the pyramid, regular readers will know that David Skilling and I have extensively researched the phenomenon of small, advanced economies – a group that spans Sweden, Singapore, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark, and that may in future incorporate the Gulf States.

Culturally, these countries are very different but share the same economic and social successes (‘happiest place to live’, ‘best rule of law’, ‘highest GDP’), and a common policy recipe that is based on innovation, openness, education and social cohesion. While we have even tried to create a policy forum for these countries (the ‘g20’), they do not act as a formal block, but actively compare notes behind the scenes. For example, the Nordic states are learning from each other and collaborating on immigration, while Ireland urgently needs to follow the examples of Singapore and Norway on defence.

Then, below the small, advanced economies are the ‘middle powers’, sizeable, developed countries, many of whom enjoyed periods of international dominance, but are now beset by demographic issues (ageing and immigration), and are searching for a defined geopolitical role. Japan, the UK, Canada, Korea, Australia and Russia (not big enough economically to be a superpower, and not nice enough either). With the exception of Russia, the middle powers are democracies and most are eager that the world stays much the same as it was during the period of globalization (at least in the case of Keir Starmer). As such they are beginning to hedge bets by aligning with larger powers, Russia with China, and the UK is now cultivating much better relations with the EU.

Looming over the middle powers are the three ‘great powers’ – China, the US and the EU, each with their strengths – military, finance and technology for the US, culture, liberal democracy, well-being and cities in the case of Europe, and industry and cultural cohesion in the case of China.

They will be the pillars of the emerging multipolar world, and in contrast to the globalized era where most countries adopted the American way of doing things, these three ‘blocs’ will increasingly do things their own, culturally specific way. AI is an example, but corporate governance might be another tack. In addition to these three behemoths, a ‘Fourth Pole’ made up of a core of India and the Gulf states, is possible, as we wrote back in November.

Those classifications still leave about fifty percent of the world’s population unaccounted for, whose nations collectively labour under the term ‘Global South’. These countries, from Nigeria to Indonesia to Bangladesh, share similar policy problems – the building of e-commerce driven economies, healthcare and urbanisation, to name a few but they are not at all at the level of policy exchange as the small, advanced economies, and many of them do not have structured economic models.

For some, the idea of the ‘Fourth Pole’ can become an interesting organizing point, but to a very large extent the survival of existing world institutions, from the UN to the World Bank, now depends on the large, populous emerging economies. Equally, the directions that these countries take in their political economy – do they follow the ‘Chinese model’, the European democratic one, or something else altogether. This policy question is vastly underestimated in the discourse on international economics and politics, partly because the ‘great powers’ are not leading by example.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

The UnRavelling Rule

Amidst the slew of corporate earnings and macro-economic data released in the past week, two developments struck me, both of which give the impression of the tectonics of geopolitics pushing against each other.

First, in the past year the number of children born in the US has caught up with the EU, at close to 3.6 million babies each (though the EU has a much bigger population). For comparison, Nigeria – whose population is less than half that of the EU – welcomed 7 million babies last year.

Second, in recent months the trend rate of consumer inflation in Japan has surpassed that of the US for the first time in decades, signalling a long awaiting shift in the Japanese economy that has been accompanied by a rise in long-run bond yields (a potentially critical development for the international financial system).

These two examples will give a sense of the rise and fall of nations, that is accelerating since the fall of globalisation (which I date to the effective end of democracy in Hong Kong). This rise and fall – think of countries like football clubs – is also associated by an unravelling of the world order. For example, in a recent note ‘Atlas Shrugging’, we detailed how the independence of the Federal Reserve was being undercut by the White House, and the attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Fed’s rate setting committee confirms that Donald Trump wants to direct the Fed as an engine of his economic policy (as a giant bond buying machine I suspect).

The independent Fed has been one of the pillars of the globalised world system of the past forty years – and the snuffing out of its independence heralds the unravelling of that system. In the same way that the period of globalisation was characterised by low inflation and the absence of major wars – the presence of inflation and conflict today, is a sign that we are moving into ‘something else’.

In that context I find myself playing a mind game which I call the ‘Unravelling Rule’. Very simply, it is to identity the principal factors that have supported globalisation and that are positive outcomes of it and identify if and how they are unravelling. The crisis of democracy is one such trend (the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index has fallen to its lowest level in twenty years).

Other certainties are also unravelling – notably the assumption that the USA is an unflinching ally of Europe and many Asian countries, and the possibility that it could even actively undermine them. In this regard, the fact that the Danish government had to summon the US ambassador over the conduct of three Americans in Greenland is troubling and reflects very badly on the White House.

The danger with the ‘Unravelling Rule’ is that in a chaotic world, it is tempting to see unravelling everywhere. It is more obvious though in the case of world institutions – the United Nations, IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation, who are frequently ignored by the very large economies, and sometimes badly undermined by them (the WTO is an example). These institutions need to be recast, most likely for the benefit of the populous emerging economies.

On a more speculative basis, there are at least four trends that have marked the past forty years, and that are now worth watching for a change of course.

The first is poverty. It is an underestimated facet of globalisation that it helped a billion people rise out of poverty, according to the World Bank. My concern is that in a world where the major economies (2/3 of the world’s GDP) have debt to GDP ratios above 100%, economic precarity may return, and this time to developed countries. We have already noted (The Road to Serfdom) the extremely high level of inequality in the US and broad economic vulnerability. In Europe, British and French policymakers conjured the spectre of IMF intervention in their economies (it would have to be a new, bigger IMF – which under this White House is unlikely). In that respect the growing disparity in incomes in the UK regions (relative to London) bears watching.

A second is corporate governance and the rule of law as it extends to international business. We have not seen a rule of law or broad governance crisis in sometime, but the rise of decentralised finance (i.e. crypto), the new idiom of the ‘art of the deal’ in the US, and the geopolitically tinged trade relationships that China is developing worldwide. As a global ‘way of doing things’ gives way to more regional or localised approaches, the watertightness of contracts and the oversight of business relationships is something that businesses will need to consider more carefully.

A true litmus test of the ‘Unravelling’ hypothesis will be the role of US multinationals in the world economy. Described as the ‘B-52s’ of globalisation in the late 1990’s by a prominent trade economist, they have shaped the world economy and come to dominate financial markets. I have lost count of the number of charts circulating that declare that Nvidia for example is worth more than the major European stock markets together. Whilst cash rich, they now face a number of challenges – the difficulty of selling into China as it broadens its technological self-sufficiency, and the collateral damage to overseas sales from the Trump trade and foreign policies, and the rise of more specific local tastes in markets like Africa and India.

A final unravelling, and one I would welcome, is for the EU to unleash its nasty side. In the past forty years the successes of the EU – enlargement, holding the euro together and the creation of a European identity (based on borderless travel the Erasmus programme for example). The likes of Poland and Estonia have benefitted greatly from this, and it is fair to say that the UK would be better off ‘in’ than ‘out’. But the emphasis has been largely on soft rather than hard power, and in a ‘harder’ world, the EU will need to take a tougher stance in terms of how it projects itself.

There are many challenges but three in particular are the potential exclusion of existing and prospective member states like Hungary and Serbia who habitually refuse to act in accordance with EU values and interests, a specifically more aggressive approach to countering sabotage by Russia (and at times China and Iran) in Europe, and then a retaking of the narrative as to what Europe stands for.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Grasshopper

I had intended to write about universities this week but, strolling through the City of London, I was surprised, shocked even, to find myself on Trump Street, and then amused to see that it is joined by Russia Row.

My first thought was that this was part of a grand plan by the British establishment ahead of President Trump’s visit to London in September, the idea being to stage an event at the nearby Guildhall and to then tell the president that a nearby street had been named after him. Trump Street was apparently named so because several trumpet makers lived there in the 18^th century, but let’s ignore that for the time being.

Yet, the far more meaningful coincidence of Trump Street is its proximity to Gresham Street.

Sir Thomas Gresham was a trader and financier in 16^th century London, at a time when coffee houses in the lanes around the Royal Exchange formed the basis of what is known as the City. Gresham was an important player in Queen Elizabeth I’s economy, and his emblem – a grasshopper – is still present in various parts of the City (there is a giant-sized golden grasshopper on the roof of the Royal Exchange….if you can dare to make it up there).

While Gresham’s imprint can be seen across the City, he is remembered by Gresham’s Law which was named after him and states ‘bad money will drive out the good’. Gresham’s Law which echoes similar observations from Copernicus and other scientists through the ages is founded on the idea that in an economy where coins with the same face value but that are made from different base metals (say nickel and copper) there is a tendency for traders to hoard the coins made of the more valuable metal and to circulate lower quality coins. Bad coins stay in circulation, good ones are re-commoditized. From an economics point of view the law is conditioned on all the coins (of variable quality) having the same face value.

Unlike the 16^th century, today, coins have the same physical consistency and in general there is little incentive for people to shave bits off coins (historically coins have serrated edges to prevent this) but broadly the Gresham’s Law is applicable in different domains.

Think of how cheap goods (made under questionable labour conditions) have forced quality players out of markets, or how in the run-up to the global financial crisis, low quality financial institutions offering generous loan conditions caused better quality banks to step back from lending. In both cases, regulation or policing of markets is necessary to ensure that ‘bad’ actors do not gain an advantage over good ones. Social media is another example, where it seems a lot of nonsense thrives at the expense of information.

Additionally, the idea of Gresham’s Law is applicable to politics, where in many countries it appears that political actors with extreme views and extreme modus operandi are forcing out ‘good’ ones in the sense that most normal people would be terrified of a career in politics.

Readers will guess that my argument is leading back to Washington. Bad behaviour, bad ideas and bad policies are infesting themselves in public life, the economy and markets – to the surprise of many ardent supporters of President Trump. What is not clear is whether this will result in an evacuation of capital and talent from the US, or whether there will be a counter-reaction. Gresham’s point in describing how bad money drives out good was to avoid the debasement of the currency (schilling), which when Elizabeth I came to power, was already in a bad state. She appointed Gresham as a finance minister of sorts in 1560, and within a year he had ‘bad’ coins taken out of circulation and replaced them with money made from precious metal, the result of which was a dramatic improvement in Britain’s status as a trading and economic power.

The lesson of this should be very clear today. As a final point, it is interesting to note, from the point of view of coins and money, that the ratio of gold (precious metal) to a cyclical commodity (copper) is the most stretched it has been since at least the 1980’s, suggesting that markets at least are thinking of Gresham’s Law.

Have a great week ahead

Mike

Watching and Waiting

N’interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur.

During the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon quipped to one of his commanders (General Soult) that one should never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake. Austerlitz was one of Napoleon’s tactical triumphs, but some seven years late the Emperor gathered one of the largest armies ever assembled and crossed Russia. The Russians burnt Moscow, harassed the French army and then patiently waited for the cold weather to cruelly teach Napoleon the error of his way (Sylvain Tesson’s book ‘Berezina’ offers a lively account of the retreat from Russia).

In a similar vein, as another modern-day, would-be emperor careens from financial calamity to geopolitical catastrophe, my sense is that the world beyond America, is best served by waiting and watching.

In the next two months the economic damage to America from the tariff campaign will become clear. The corporate earnings season has just started – some of the large banks have done well from the trading volumes created by market volatility – but as the focus turns to technology and other export focused firms, we can expect to see significant drops in earnings, a development that will make the still high valuation multiples for the US stock market hard to sustain. Relatedly, while investment banks are profiting from volatility, most of them are reporting that capital markets activity (public offerings, mergers and funding rounds for private equity firms) have stopped dead.

This is a shock for Wall St. With president Trump having installed a market trader as commerce secretary, a hedge fund manager as Treasury, a private equity titan in the defence department, and so on, capitalists might well have thought that the White House was on their side, but the annihilation of up to 8 trillion dollars in market capitalisation has proven them wrong. There is I imagine, a limit to Wall St’s patience and the pushback on policy will grow.

As it does, the hard (as opposed to ‘soft’ survey) data is likely to worsen dramatically, and the US will enter into an economic breakdown. At the start of this year I had sifted through the IMF GDP forecasts for 2025 and 2026, where uniquely they expected nearly all of the world’s economies to register positive growth. From this starting point, a global recession was a very low probability, but the Trump administration has blundered into one.

Now, policy makers in the US and abroad are realising that watching and waiting is the best way to entice Trump away from his tariff policy. There were signs of this on Wednesday when the Federal Reserve chair declared that tariffs would augment inflation and make it much harder for the central bank to cut rates. This statement represents quite the departure for a monetary authority that has greeted every flicker of economic trouble with lashings of cheap money. Mr Powell knows very well that it is not the job of a central bank to fix the mistakes of an errant policymaker, and very likely that a short, sharp market shock now might deter a great fiasco (and the credibility of the dollar) later.

In contrast, other central banks, who are unburdened by any sense of conflict of interest with Mr Trump, can feel much more free to cut rates into a coming recession, as the ECB did on Thursday. In that context, we may see the dollar strengthen in coming weeks, and much of the stress of the White House policies on the economy, transferred to the corporate bond market.

Then a key, patient player in this unfolding drama is China which, whilst it has deep economic faultlines of its own, is politically and socially coherent enough to weather the onslaught from Washington. Like the Russians who took on Napoleon, China’s strategy is partly one of endurance, partly ‘guerrilla’ (think of rare earth export controls, supply chain manipulation leading to shortages of goods in the US) and a patient attitude to the market turmoil that is starting to undermine the financial credibility of the USA.

Europe may follow suit. Giorgia Meloni spent Thursday in the US with president Trump and then raced back to Rome to host JD Vance. Her visit was useful in terms of Italian and EU diplomacy, but the EC is carefully signalling to Washington that any negotiations on trade will have to be done through Brussels alone, which as the Brexit process revealed, is a hard defence to breech.

Napoleon left Moscow in the middle of October 1812, eventually to creep into Paris just before Christmas. His army was devastated, only 100,000 or so men from an initial force of 600,000 survived. Donald Trump is no Napoleon. In two months’ time the US economy may well be in a state of disarray, consumer confidence and confidence in the president will likely have plummeted further, and the world will be watching and waiting for his capitulation.

Have a great week ahead

Mike

Did no-one see it coming?

In November 2008, in the darkest hour of the global financial crisis, Queen Elizabeth II asked an audience at the London School of Economics ‘Why did no one see it coming”. We might ask the same question today in respect of Donald Trump’s tariff war, where he has diminished the things that he was reputed to hold dear – the economy, the stock market and the dollar.

One disturbing template that might offer insight into the path that the American economy takes is Brexit. As noted by the current prime minister of Canada, Brexit was not the solution to the problems that Britain faces. Certainly, the disengagement of the US from the world trade system is becoming as soap operatic and sometimes ludicrous as Brexit was.

An even more pertinent example might be Britain at the turn of the 19^th century when there was a palpable sense that the might of its empire was peaking. At the time tariffs and trade were widely debated, and leading politicians like Joseph Chamberlain proposed the idea of an ‘imperial preference’, a lower tariff on trade with its colonies, to create a trading zone that would buffer the rise of the US and Germany.

To a certain extent, tariffs and trade became the issue of the day, but in the 1906 general election the public voted overwhelmingly for liberal, open trade (less restrictive tariffs) candidates. This I suspect was also the intention of those who supported Donald Trump in November last – keep the economy and markets strong, whilst evening up the status quo (a little). That tariff rates set by the US (and China) are at levels only last seen in the 1920’s completes the shock, and rhymes with history.

One reason tariffs were a popular policy tool one hundred years ago is that the fiscal side of the economy was not well developed (only a small proportion of Americans paid tax) and, in some cases, central banks did not exist. Today, tax systems are well developed and as small, open economies show, they are the best mechanism to reduce inequality, and to entice investment, both stated objectives of the Treasury secretary.

This particular market crisis is interesting because it is nearly entirely man-made. Turkey has taken a similar path in recent years, all but eviscerating its bond market and currency, but these are inconsequential compared to the depth of US markets. Whilst the president has stepped nimbly and profitably (some say) away from the financial brink, he still risks contagion of his actions in a number of respects.

Two such risks loom on the horizon, an economic war with China and a crisis of credibility in US financial assets.

We are now led to believe that ‘it was China all along’, but it would have been easier to tackle China with the support of America’s former allies in Canada, Japan, the UK and Europe.

For its part, China has plenty of tools to respond to the US with – it can allow its currency to weaken further and through supply chain disruption can inflict higher consumer prices, shortages of goods and lower (Chinese) demand on the US. Informal boycotts of American goods, investigations of US service firms and rare earth restrictions are just a few other tools at China’s disposal.

Should an economic war between the US and China materialise, my sense is that a supportive response from the Federal Reserve has been made less likely by Wednesday’s tariff capitulation by the White House, which demonstrates how arbitrary policy is under this administration.

In the longer-run, the actions of the Trump team could manifest themselves in a capital crisis in the context of the way they have undermined confidence in the US and by extension its financial system. What the likes of Peter Navarro seem not to have grasped is that the quid pro quo of America’s trade deficit is its enormous financial power – the role of the dollar and Treasuries as lynchpins of the international financial system, the dominance of US financial systems and its integral role in the fabric of capital markets, and the capital that overseas investors provide them.

With Mr Trump behaving in the way that some might caricature as ‘emerging market’, If we apply an emerging market stock market valuation rating to US stocks, the SPX index would be half its current size for instance. Equally, the mid-week selloff in Treasuries which was most likely the result of hedge funds unwinding positions, but the poor performance of bonds underlines the sceptical view that markets are starting to take on the administration.

In this context, we may be at the beginning of a great unwind of American financial power.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike