(Bloomberg) — Qatar is now offering a total of 10 liquefied natural gas tankers that it controls for lease, as the country’s massive export facility in the Persian Gulf remains shut due to the ongoing war in the Middle East. Read More
European stock markets turned early gains into losses by early afternoon, following a rally in Asian markets, as investors searched for direction nearly a week after the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran that sent global markets on a rollercoaster.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
By 2 p.m. CET, Germany’s DAX was down by 0.2%, similar to the CAC 40 in Paris and Britain’s FTSE 100.
Madrid’s IBEX stood out by gaining 0.3% as the European benchmark European Stoxx 600 was down by a few points.
Before noon, European trading followed strong gains in Asia, where South Korea’s Kospi jumped by more than 9%, recovering much of Wednesday’s 12.06% fall.
“A decent showing on Wall Street last night and a solid performance from Asia on Thursday helped to spur part of Europe into a higher gear,” said Dan Coatsworth, head of markets at AJ Bell, commenting on the morning trade.
Uncertainty about the war in the Middle East has continued to rattle financial markets, with investors closely watching movements in the oil price.
Crude prices continued to rise. US benchmark WTI was trading 3% higher at around $76.8 a barrel, while the international benchmark Brent crude was up 2% after 2 pm CET.
“Brent crude continued to move higher, nudging above $83 per barrel and stoking fears that energy bills will go through the roof,” Coatsworth said.
“Oil is so important to the world economy and to see the price rise so quickly in just a week could leave investors feeling dazed and confused.”
He added that the situation in the Middle East was unfolding rapidly, making it difficult for investors to judge whether markets were facing a prolonged energy crisis or “just a short, sharp shock”.
Meanwhile, US futures slipped as Iran launched more missiles at Israel on the sixth day of the conflict.
The latest escalation included Iranian attacks on Israeli and American bases. Iran warned the United States would “bitterly regret” torpedoing an Iranian warship in the Indian Ocean, while a religious leader called for “Trump’s blood”.
Israel said it had begun a “large-scale” attack on Tehran.
On Wednesday, US stocks rose as oil prices steadied, albeit temporarily.
Investor sentiment was also supported by a report showing growth in US businesses in the real estate, finance and other services sectors accelerated last month at the fastest pace since the summer of 2022.
The S&P 500 rose 0.8%, erasing much of its losses since the conflict with Iran began.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.5%, while the Nasdaq Composite climbed 1.3%.
Another report suggested US private-sector employers increased hiring last month, a potentially positive signal ahead of a broader US government labour market report due on Friday.
Investors remain concerned about how long the conflict could last, how much inflation may rise due to higher oil prices, and what impact that could have on corporate profits.
Gains in major technology companies also lifted Wall Street.
Amazon rose 3.9%, while Nvidia added 1.7%. As two of the largest companies in the US market by value, their movements have a significant impact on the S&P 500.
Wednesday’s strong economic data was also welcome news for the Federal Reserve, which is trying to keep the labour market strong while bringing inflation under control.
However, the jump in oil prices could complicate that task by pushing inflation higher.
In other dealings on Thursday, gold trade was slightly down by early afternoon, losing 0.3% and traded at $5,120 an ounce.
The US dollar traded at 157.64 Japanese yen, while the euro slipped to $1.1623 from $1.1636.
Analysts said the dollar has strengthened partly because the US is seen as facing less direct risk from the conflict than other countries.
When President Trump announced the initial wave of US and Israeli strikes on Iran at 8:30 a.m. CET on Saturday 28 February, marking the start of Operation Epic Fury, all traditional financial markets were closed.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Most markets operate Monday to Friday only, meaning weekend developments, however significant, cannot be priced in until trading resumes on Monday morning, creating a bottleneck of reaction at the open.
US equities, futures, major foreign-exchange platforms, commodity markets, Asian and European bourses were all closed on Saturday.
Middle Eastern exchanges, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, opened on the second day of the conflict, as they trade Sunday to Thursday, but these attract fewer Western participants and, consequently, lack liquidity.
In the past, investors facing such a major geopolitical shock on a Saturday would have been forced to wait until US futures reopened Sunday evening to start pricing in an expectedly chaotic Monday.
Crypto never sleeps
This time, however, they had a genuine alternative — crypto-based platforms that trade 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, are globally accessible and settle transactions almost instantly.
The standout choice was Hyperliquid, a decentralised perpetuals exchange that offers contracts not only on cryptocurrencies but also on real-world assets including crude oil.
According to on-chain data, trading volume on the platform spiked sharply, reaching peaks near $200mn (€172mn) in a single 24-hour period on Saturday.
The oil-linked perpetual contracts on Hyperliquid, such as OIL/USDH and USOIL/USDH, rose more than 5% almost immediately after the US-Israeli strikes were announced, providing one of the first real-time price signals before traditional markets reopened.
Hyperliquid contracts were not the only instruments drawing attention.
Tether’s XAUT, a token fully backed by physical gold held in vaults, saw its 24-hour trading volume exceed $300mn (€258mn) — a remarkable figure for a weekend.
Prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket also posted massive volumes, while Bitcoin, Ethereum and other crypto tokens were sold off as proxy assets for broader negative risk sentiment.
For the first time in many observers’ memories, crypto markets were effectively “the market” during the weekend.
In a memo published on Tuesday, Matt Hougan, chief investment officer at Bitwise, described it as “the weekend that changed finance”.
Critics will point out that crypto markets remain smaller and more volatile than their traditional counterparts, and that regulatory and operational risks persist.
However, the events of the past weekend showed that on-chain finance is moving from the fringes to the core of global capital markets far faster than most forecasts anticipated even six months ago.
Traditional exchanges accelerate push for 24/7 trading
The success of crypto platforms during the Iran conflict adds to the pressure already felt by legacy financial institutions to follow suit and provide perpetually open markets.
The New York Stock Exchange, owned by Intercontinental Exchange, is actively developing a blockchain-based alternative trading system for tokenised equities and exchange-traded funds that would enable genuine 24/7 trading with instant settlement.
Announced in early 2026 and still subject to regulatory approval, the platform would combine NYSE’s existing matching engine with private blockchain networks for post-trade processing.
Trades could be funded and settled in real time using stablecoins, bypassing the T+1 settlement cycle, which dictates the transfer of securities and the corresponding payment must be completed by the next business day and still governs equity markets.
The tokenised venue has a potential launch window as early as the second quarter of 2026, with broader 22 to 23-hour weekday trading on NYSE targeted for later in the year or early 2027, subject to coordination with the SEC, DTCC and market-data providers.
Nasdaq has filed similar proposals to extend US equities trading to 23 hours a day, five days a week, with an anticipated rollout in the second half of 2026.
These moves represent a direct response to the competitive pressure exerted by always-on crypto venues and the growing frequency of market-moving events that occur outside traditional hours.
The Iran weekend served as a vivid case study.
With hedge funds and proprietary traders already active on Hyperliquid and other decentralised platforms, established exchanges recognise that failing to offer comparable access risks losing order flow permanently.
Tokenisation provides the technological bridge, allowing continuous trading while preserving existing regulatory safeguards around custody, dividends and shareholder rights.
Crypto market bill stalls despite Trump backing
While the crypto infrastructure demonstrated its resilience over the weekend, progress on the legislative front remains frustratingly slow.
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, known as the CLARITY Act, passed in the US Congress last year with strong bipartisan support but has since become bogged down in the Senate.
The primary sticking point is friction between the banking and crypto sectors over the treatment of stablecoin yields under the separate GENIUS Act, which established the first federal framework for stablecoin issuers.
Banks argue that yield-bearing stablecoins could drain deposits, and they have lobbied to close perceived loopholes.
Crypto proponents counter that such rewards are essential for customer retention and innovation.
On Tuesday, President Trump weighed in directly via Truth Social.
“The Genius Act is being threatened and undermined by the banks, and that is unacceptable — we are not going to allow it. The U.S. needs to get market structure done, asap.”
Moreover, President Trump further sided with the crypto sector by stating that “The banks are hitting record profits, and we are not going to allow them to undermine our powerful crypto agenda that will end up going to China, and other countries, if we don’t get the Clarity Act taken care of.”
Despite the presidential intervention and earlier White House meetings between the two industries, no resolution has been reached.
The Senate Banking and Agriculture committees continue to advance differing drafts, and a full vote remains elusive.
With the bill effectively stalled, market participants are left without the regulatory certainty many had hoped would arrive before the end of the first quarter.
The irony is not lost on observers. While crypto markets proved their worth during a real-world crisis, the very legislation designed to integrate them safely into the traditional system remains hostage to lobbying battles.
Until a resolution is achieved, the speed of innovation will continue to outstrip the pace of rulemaking — a dynamic the Iran weekend has only made more apparent.
HomeNewsUS-Iran War Puts Strait Of Hormuz Under Fire, Disrupting Global Energy Trade
US strikes on Iran escalate Strait of Hormuz tensions, spiking energy prices, disrupting trade and heightening global geopolitical risk.
Trade traffic within the Strait of Hormuz has nearly halted as fuel tankers and other shipping remain vulnerable to attacks and are virtually uninsurable, amplifying fears that the US-Israeli war on Iran is turning into a broader global conflict with major economic consequences.
Global energy prices, especially, are a key focus point since the Strait serves as a critical maritime artery for roughly 20% of the world’s oil flows — 70% of that oil goes to China, South Korea, India, and Japan.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s standoff with EU leaders over the use of certain military bases is making an already contentious situation worse.
Chokepoint Under Fire
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards claim total control of the passage just days after US-led airstrikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Center is actively documenting multiple vessel attacks and electronic interference affecting navigation in and around the Gulf.
A bomb-carrying drone boat struck a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker in the Gulf of Oman, killing at least one mariner, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing Omani authorities.
The economic shock was swift. West Texas Intermediate crude notched its biggest two-day rally since March 2022. European natural gas prices nearly doubled in 48 hours. The biggest jolt came after QatarEnergy halted liquefied natural gas production following attacks on its facilities, sending European gas prices soaring more than 40%. The United States Oil Fund LP rallied over 15% over the past five days.
Analysts are also at odds over whether a total Iranian blockade will occur.
Insurance Vanishes, Ships Stall
“A sustained, structural military blockade by Iran that totally stops ships from passing through is unlikely,” Morningstar Equity Director Joshua Aguilar said. Still, the commercial reality may produce the same effect.
“Ships may not pass through because no insurance is willing to cover them,” Aguilar added
Mutual insurers such as the London P&I Club, NorthStandard, UK P&I Club and Noord Nederlandsche P&I Club provide coverage for vessels navigating volatile regions. If that coverage drops, shipping companies face untenable exposure — effectively freezing commerce even absent a formal blockade.
In response, Trump said on his Truth Social platform that he had ordered the US International Development Finance Corporation to offer political risk insurance and guarantees “for the financial security of all maritime trade, especially energy, traveling through the Gulf.” He also said the US Navy would escort tankers through the Strait.
BIMCO’s Chief Safety & Security Officer, Jakob Larsen, scrutinized the logic of Trump’s plan. Indeed, naval escorts would reduce the threat ships currently face.
“That said, providing protection for all tankers operating in areas currently threatened by Iran is unrealistic,” he says. “This would require a very high number of warships and other military assets.”
CaixaBank, in a research note on Wednesday, issued its own warnings about Iran’s attacks and Strait of Hormuz closures. Energy prices will spike as long as the disruption continues, the firm predicts.
“Iran’s response — expanding the radius of the conflict, effectively closing maritime traffic through Hormuz, and threatening critical infrastructure — is causing a short-term escalation of tensions,” the firm stated. “It remains to be seen for how many days this response can be sustained and what approach will be taken by the new leadership core (and, in particular, by Khamenei’s successor).”
Persistent high prices could prompt hawkish European Central Bank and Federal Reserve moves, increasing economic drag, the firm continued.
Transatlantic Talks Turn Tense
The maritime chaos is unfolding alongside a sharp diplomatic rupture with Europe. Trump on Tuesday threatened to “cut off all trade with Spain” after Madrid refused US access to its military bases. He also criticized the UK’s decision to block the use of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
“This is not the age of Churchill,” Trump said during a White House meeting with European counterparts. “The UK has been very, very uncooperative with that stupid island that they have.”
The remarks underscore mounting friction within NATO and the broader Western alliance at a moment when coordinated action would be critical to stabilizing markets. Instead, the spat adds another layer of uncertainty to global trade flows already strained by inflation and tariff confusion on the heels of the US Supreme Court ruling against Trump.
Many dealmaking plans are also likely on hold, marking a stark contrast to 2025, the second-highest year on record for transaction value.
“The sentiment was that the stars were aligned” for a similar trajectory in 2026, said Kyle Walters, an analyst at PitchBook.
M&A consultancies such as McKinsey & Company and Bain & Co. had projected sustained M&A growth in 2026 due to energy security priorities, sovereign wealth fund firepower, and supportive fiscal reforms.
Then one weekend changed the narrative. As Walters puts it: “Uncertainty is bad for M&A appetite.”
Tariff ambiguity can slow deals. Inflation complicates financing. Armed conflict in a region central to global energy flows is far more destabilizing.
“In periods of uncertainty, buyers take a step back. They’re in wait-and-see mode,” Walters said, adding that domestic M&A has been “flipped on its head.” Cross-border activity is particularly exposed, with capital flight, currency volatility, and political risk creating an “unopportunistic M&A environment.” European firms considering expansion into the Middle East now face heightened scrutiny; “It has to be an A+ transaction to proceed,” Walters said.
Markets Brace For Escalation
What began the year as a story of alignment and acceleration has become one of recalibration — with capital pausing just as geopolitical risk surges.
BMI, a unit of Fitch Solutions, outlined a short-term scenario in which the US coordinates with Israel to overwhelm Iran and minimize retaliation against US assets and the Strait itself.
But even a limited campaign carries economic consequences.
Abigail Hall, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, warned that energy markets are likely to bear the brunt. “There are already concerns about shipping and other disruptions — particularly around the Strait of Hormuz,” she said, pointing to “knowledge constraints on the part of policymakers and the presence of misaligned incentives.”
Hall also expressed skepticism that the US-led strikes would produce long-term political transformation inside Iran. “You may have ‘cut the head off the snake,’ but neglected the fact that there were many other vipers in the room,” she said.
Military strikes, she explained, often empower the most extreme factions of a country and produce a “rally-around-the-flag” effects whereby an external attack draws the civilian population toward the existing regime.
“In Iran we’ve seen that military escalation, and the domestic dissent it inspires,” she adds. “It often leads to harsher repression and increased regime control.”
Nguyen The Anh, Director of Private & Priority Banking at Techcombank, spoke with Global Finance about the rapid maturation of Vietnam’s wealth management market and the growing importance of preparing next-generation clients and families for long-term succession planning.
Techcombank was named Best Private Bank in Vietnam 2026 by Global Finance, with the award presented at a ceremony held at Claridge’s in London, bringing together leaders from across the global private banking industry.
The recognition reflects Techcombank’s expanding wealth platform and its commitment to supporting Vietnamese entrepreneurs and families as they navigate intergenerational wealth creation, preservation, and transition.
While the US pursues fossil fuel dominance, China is looking to lead the way on renewables. Which model of energy security will the rest of the world follow?
Aside from regime change, a central goal of President Donald Trump’s military actions in Venezuela and against Iran has been to reinforce the US as a dominant petroleum producer while curtailing federal support for alternative energy. The war in the Middle East has already injected new uncertainty into global energy markets — with strikes on Iranian infrastructure driving oil prices higher and disrupting flows through the Strait of Hormuz — and may prompt some countries to rethink their dependence on fossil fuels even as short-term demand spikes.
In sharp contrast, China is intent on advancing its lead in renewable technology, even as it meets massive domestic demand for coal and oil. These divergent national approaches set up a fundamental global contest: Will fossil fuel dominance or renewable leadership define the future of energy security?
As these two superpowers intensify their competition for economic and geopolitical dominance, the world’s climate future and investment flows will largely hinge on which energy model—oil or renewables—proves most viable. The global energy landscape risks a clear split: one path leading to enduring fossil-fuel dependence, the other to a renewable-powered world.
As a November report by the Washington, DC-based think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it, “Nearly 10 years after the signing of the Paris Agreement, a new energy investment paradigm is taking shape” that is likely to influence, if not determine, government and industry policy decisions on energy security, affordability, and competitiveness.
Ray Cai, associate fellow and CSIS author
At this point, the CSIS report notes, the paradigm shows fragmentation, volatility, and scarcity, even as state intervention rises. Its author, associate fellow Ray Cai, writes: “A widening bifurcation between hydrocarbon and low-emission value chains—in part accelerated by strategic competition between the US and China—is already reshaping global energy investment flows.”
This bifurcation, as Cai describes, is a world of “two tracks.” One track features economies with secure, affordable access to fossil fuels. Most countries are net importers, while exporters are few. As a result, the US has become a significant oil and LNG producer and exporter. According to Cai, this shift also reinforces the country’s retreat from its postwar role as “facilitator and guarantor of global trade.”
On the other track, he continues, economies are turning to electrification and renewables. Nearly 90% of energy generation capital expenditure in the Global South in 2024 was allocated to low-emission sources, about double the share from 10 years ago. “Driving this shift is China,” says Cai, noting that the nation has led global supply chain and manufacturing investment both at home and abroad.
Much of the globe, including China, is adopting what Martin Pasqualetti, an Arizona State University professor and author of several books on energy geography, calls “an all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy, pursuing all power sources, including oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and wind.
Meanwhile, the US under the Trump administration has ended subsidies for electric vehicles and other alternative-fuel applications as it seeks to boost fossil fuel production and exports. Yet this emphasis risks squandering its many competitive advantages across other energy sources, including alternatives, according to a September report by JPMorgan Chase.
“North America has a significant strategic advantage in energy because of the sheer number of energy resources it has a competitive advantage in—fossil fuels, solar, geothermal, and wind,” the authors noted, adding that if the US fully takes advantage of all those energy resources, it will be unrivaled in what they call “the New Energy Security Age.” But they point out, “recent policy shifts from Washington are creating uncertainty for America’s offshore wind ambitions—which can be a key strategic advantage for the US alongside fossil fuels, geothermal, and nuclear.”
Cai agrees that recent US policy shifts are creating uncertainty for investors in alternatives, telling Global Finance in an interview that “policy pullbacks and regulatory obstruction can raise financing costs, slow project timelines, and erode competitiveness for US firms.”
Navigating The Valley Of Death
Pasqualetti says moving from fossil fuels to renewables means passing through a “valley of death,” a period when returns must prove profitable before funding runs out. Sometimes these investments rely on government subsidies until they can become profitable at scale. He notes that the “valley” has narrowed sharply as the prices of renewables have dropped. “We’re not going to make conversion quickly,” he says, “but we’ve been making it faster than expected.”
On the other hand, oil is proving less profitable for producers at its recent price of around $60 a barrel. Experts estimate that the “heavy” oil that characterizes Venezuela’s hefty reserves may cost at least $80 a barrel to extract and process for sale. So Pasqualetti finds the Trump administration’s plans to take over its petroleum industry puzzling. “If you increase our domestic supply, increase production, capture Venezuelan ghost ships and sell the oil on the market,” he asks, “won’t that just drive the price down?”
Cai noted in the interview that while the Trump administration has signaled its clear intent to advance the US fossil fuel and mining industries, “industry stakeholders remain constrained by market fundamentals and capital discipline.” He continued, “Producers and investors alike have shown limited appetite for aggressive expansion due to soft demand expectations and oversupply conditions in global markets.”
Cai doubts the Trump administration will see its stated policy goal materialize quickly, if at all. “Heightened geopolitical risk resulting from further military action may increase volatility and suppress near-term investment,” he said in the interview.
In contrast, China is forging ahead on all fronts, as the JPMorgan report notes: “For the foreseeable future, Beijing will continue to deploy an energy strategy that seeks to dominate … global renewable energy innovation, exports, and markets while still relying on sources like coal at home to power China’s industrial and technological rise.”
If China is hedging its bets, much of the rest of the world is as well. JPMorgan notes that India and Brazil, along with China and others, are forming new energy alliances and setting their own standards based on competitive advantages in natural resources, shifts toward energy self-sufficiency away from fossil fuels, and technological exports. “Strategic energy independence actions are strengthening to reduce geopolitical exposure to former trade partners,” the authors note.
India, the world’s most populous nation, is especially active in pursuing alternatives to fossil fuels. Renewables account for 89% of India’s newly installed power capacity, with the majority being solar.
Despite holding the third-largest oil reserves after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, Iran aims to get two-thirds of its power from natural gas over the next five to seven years. Pasqualetti says, “They want to move to renewables as fast as they can.” Of course, Tehran’s plans are in question now that it is under attack by the US and Israel. And the regime faced Western sanctions and popular unrest even before war broke out in the region.
Imports Versus Exports
To better understand global energy trends, Richard Bronze, co-founder of Energy Aspects, an energy consultancy based in London, says it’s helpful to distinguish between countries’ domestic and international policies. Bronze describes China’s “pragmatic” energy strategy, for example, as embracing both fossil fuels and alternatives for domestic purposes and exporting large quantities of green technology while resisting international climate agreements. He says this reflects China’s reliance on fossil fuels to power domestic consumption and on green technology to power exports.
Richard Bronze, co-founder of Energy Aspects
Similarly, he says Saudi Arabia is successfully diversifying its economy. Reliance on oil for government revenues has fallen from almost 90% in 2014 to 60% in 2024. While the country aims to be less of a “petro state,” shifting power generation from oil to natural gas and solar, it still sees itself as “the last man standing” in oil exports before the global shift to renewables.
Bronze sees the world as three groups, not just two tracks: One group is pursuing alternatives, including Europe and India. A second “all-of-the-above” group includes China and Saudi Arabia. The third focuses on fossil fuels and nuclear power, as in the US and Russia. While the third group may oppose transitioning to renewable energy, Bronze says this strategy has short-term geostrategic logic for the Trump administration.
In effect, Trump’s policy aims to counter Chinese influence everywhere. This includes discouraging imports of Chinese technology and products, affecting alternative energy and high-tech exports such as rare-earth minerals. This may explain the recent, though apparently abandoned, interest in acquiring Greenland, which has significant reserves.
And of course, the Trump administration is “championing a domestic oil industry,” as Bronze puts it. In sum, by using petroleum to counter China’s exports of alternatives, US policy reflects what he calls “a somewhat coherent political thesis.”
Still, he notes that the transition to renewables is inevitable if you accept the premise that a sustainable environment requires moving away from fossil fuels. “All the science says it’s necessary if we’re going to keep a livable world,” he asserts.
Cai sees energy geopolitics differently. Rather than countering China’s advantage in alternatives, he contends that the central motivation of recent US moves is to reinforce US comparative strengths, particularly in fossil energy, in service of what he terms the administration’s “hemispheric security ambitions,” as outlined in its recent National Security Strategy.
Regardless, Bronze notes that a change in US administrations may be accompanied by a shift in energy policy. “We saw a handbrake turn” away from the Biden administration’s policy by his successor, Bronze observes, suggesting a similar turn is possible, if not likely, in the future.
Alice C. Hill, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations,
Other observers are skeptical that a U-turn by the US is likely anytime soon. As Alice C. Hill, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, told a roundtable discussion last March, “The US is not going to be a player in the international arena on climate. We’ve got this pendulum that swings back and forth, and so it’s very hard to maintain that sort of true north right down the middle.” In an interview with Global Finance, Hill added that given the Trump administration’s policies, “it will be harder for a new administration to turn back, because there will be that much more to unravel.”
The Reign Of Uncertainty
As a result, the only certainty at this point may be uncertainty. The Trump administration’s actions in Iran and Venezuela could produce what Bronze calls “a spectrum of outcomes,” ranging from chaos to the reintegration of oil exports into the market. And while the latter outcome might indeed bring oil prices down further, he says it would also serve the administration’s goal of lowering inflation. At present, however, with oil prices soaring, that goal is in doubt.
If Trump seems isolated in insisting that global warming is a hoax, that view is increasingly shared, to some degree, among right-wing political parties in Europe, Bronze points out. There’s been a real politicization of the energy transition,” he says.
Cai of CSIS agrees, noting that recent electoral results have contributed to policy diversity. As he sees it, the European Union “is moderating from an aggressive decarbonization drive to rebalance for energy security and industrial competitiveness.” In contrast, he adds, “the US has retreated from climate leadership in favor of fossil fuel abundance and trade protectionism. China, on the other hand, has deepened its commitment to renewables manufacturing and exports while maintaining coal capacity.”
Still, most countries accept that renewable energy must eventually replace fossil fuels. Notwithstanding rising opposition in some European circles, the European Union and China recently pledged an expanded partnership, JPMorgan notes, “even as Brussels drives forward on a campaign to diversify its supply chains away from China.” One of the agreements between Beijing and the EU is to accelerate the deployment of global renewable energy. Pasqualetti contends that US efforts to slow a similar renewable future are misguided. “We’re not going to get out of the oil age because we ran out of oil,” he says.
Cai puts it more even-handedly. “Ultimately, the policy challenge ahead is pragmatic rather than ideological,” he says, noting that it will likely shape global investment flows. “Investors are gravitating toward jurisdictions that can combine strategic clarity with consistent execution.” By that standard, he argues, neither the US nor China fully qualifies. “Most countries will not replicate either model wholesale,” he tells Global Finance.
“The fracturing of the post-World War II global system is reinforcing divergence in energy pathways shaped by political economy and practical constraints.”
As a result, Cai adds, energy investors—and policymakers elsewhere—now face risks under both regimes. “Heightened policy uncertainty in the US has contributed to capital outflows that have, in some cases, even raised concerns about the dollar’s reserve-currency status,” he says.
China, by contrast, presents what he calls “a different trade-off.” Investors increasingly recognize its structural advantages in renewable manufacturing and supply chains, yet remain wary of geopolitical risk and the broader trajectory of decoupling. He points to Canada’s recent electric-vehicle trade deal with Beijing as an example of how widening rifts between the US and its traditional allies may create new opportunities for China.
How durable or profitable those openings prove remains to be seen. But on current trends, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Hill warns, “the US will isolate itself over the long haul.”
The US-Israeli military campaign that began on Saturday has already killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior commanders, triggered retaliatory strikes across the region and raised the spectre of prolonged disruption to global energy flows.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
While diplomats scramble and the UN calls for restraint, certain defence contractors and energy majors have emerged as early market victors.
As the conflict enters its fourth day, demand for advanced weaponry, missile-defence systems and intelligence platforms is projected to surge.
Lockheed Martin’s stock, the world’s largest defence contractor by revenue, hit a new all-time high on Monday, closing at $676.70 after rising over 4%.
Its F-35 fighters, precision munitions and radar systems are central to the air campaign under way over Iran.
The rally extended across the defence sector.
Northrop Grumman shares jumped 6%, lifted by its stealth-bomber and missile-defence technologies.
RTX, formerly Raytheon, gained nearly 5% while L3Harris Technologies and General Dynamics also recorded solid increases.
Palantir Technologies, whose data-analytics tools support intelligence operations, rose almost 6%.
European companies followed the upward trend on a more modest scale. Germany’s Renk and Italy’s Leonardo posted gains as investors eyed possible increases in NATO procurement and export orders.
Analysts note that defence budgets, already earmarked for growth in 2026, now face even fewer hurdles in Washington and European capitals.
With President Trump stating that operations could last “four to five weeks” or “far longer”, and Iran continuing missile and drone barrages, markets are positioning for weeks of high-intensity military activity.
The gains reflect classic geopolitical risk pricing.
Other market outliers
These rises stand in sharp contrast to broader equity weakness, highlighting how narrowly the benefits are concentrated. Beyond the pure-play defence names, energy companies have been the other clear outperformers, riding the oil and gas wave.
Iranian retaliation has already included strikes to energy sites in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, which could choke off roughly 20% of global oil supply and send energy prices soaring.
The international benchmarks for oil, Brent crude (BZ) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI), are trading at over $82.50 and $75.50 respectively, at the time of writing.
Alongside them, integrated oil majors moved swiftly higher.
ExxonMobil shares rose more than 4% recording a new all-time high, while Chevron, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips posted comparable gains.
In Europe, Shell and TotalEnergies advanced in line with the global pricing surge.
The QatarEnergy LNG production halt announced on Monday, following Iranian drone strikes on Ras Laffan and Mesaieed facilities, sent European benchmark TTF gas prices over 50% higher, reaching €62/MWh by Tuesday.
Markets reacted swiftly as the indefinite shutdown raised immediate fears of rerouted demand and renewed energy inflation risks in Europe.
LNG equities climbed notably since Monday’s open on the news.
Cheniere Energy, the largest LNG exporter in the US, Venture Global and Australia’s Woodside Energy, all saw intraday strength at the start of the week.
However, analysts caution that actual substitution will take time due to shipping and contract constraints, keeping price action geopolitically sensitive.
The European Commission announced it is closely tracking both price and supply developments and will convene an Energy Task Force with Member States, in liaison with the International Energy Agency, for a meeting sometime this week.
Nedbank is one step closer to acquiring 66% of Kenya’s NCBA, expanding East African footprint and fueling continental growth strategy.
African banking giant Nedbank continues to pursue a calculated growth strategy on the continent, receiving regulatory approval to acquire a 66% controlling stake in NCBA for $855.5 million.
The deal, while subject to the remaining conditions of the waiver and NCBA shareholder approval, would be one of the largest cross-border banking transactions in Africa’s recent history.
Driving the purchase is Nedbank’s realization that its South African home market is stagnating while other markets are hitting saturation mode, largely due to stiff competition. For this reason, the bank is taking bold steps to sustain growth and has identified the East Africa region as the next frontier.
Nedbank said in a statement that the strategic acquisition brings it “complementary strengths” to fuel its growth in East Africa, a region underpinned by expanding economies, a large and growing population, strong macroeconomic fundamentals, and the fact that there is primary trade corridor linking Africa with the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.
One of the leading lenders in Kenya, the bank would bring more than 60 million customers, $5.4 billion in assets, and leadership in asset finance, digital banking, and innovation to Nedbank. NCBA also has a presence in Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, and offers digital banking services in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. This would expand Nedbank beyond its presence in Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe
By combining the two banks, Nedbank is building a “compelling platform for sustainable growth in the region,” said Jason Quinn, Nedbank Group CEO. The transaction is pending regulatory approval and is expected to close later in the year.
NCBA saw its profits surge by 8.5% to $127 million for the nine-month period ending September 2025. It has also delivered an average return on equity of approximately 19% since 2021. Nedbank has made it clear that the acquisition, which will see NCBA remain independently governed and retain its brand identity, is not an end in itself. Rather, it serves as a springboard for further expansions to high-potential markets like Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The benchmark European gas price, traded on the Dutch TTF hub, rose by as much as 45% to around €46 per megawatt-hour in early afternoon trading.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
UK natural gas prices also surged, with the NBP benchmark climbing sharply in tandem with continental markets.
High market volatility has driven sharp minute-by-minute swings.
The sharp increase follows US and Israeli strikes on Iran, which have heightened tensions in a region critical to global energy flows.
QatarEnergy announced early Monday afternoon that it had halted liquefied natural gas production linked to the giant North Field gas reservoir following an attack on its facilities, but gave no further details as to the extent of the impact on operations.
Strait of Hormuz disruption raises global concerns
A large proportion of the world’s energy supply comes from the Middle East, and before the announcement from Qatar, the seaborne oil and gas transport was at the centre of market fears.
The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passage largely controlled by Iran, is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints for oil and LNG, including exports from Qatar.
Iran has moved to block traffic through the strait following the strikes, raising concerns about supply interruptions.
“In modern history, the Strait of Hormuz has never been actually closed, albeit a temporary slowing of traffic has occurred,” said Maurizio Carulli, global energy analyst at Quilter Cheviot.
He added that “about 20% of global oil supply transits through the Strait of Hormuz and 38% of seaborne crude oil trade.”
Carulli does not expect oil shipping companies to send through their vessels until “the military situation de-escalates”, due to the risk of ship damage or seizures, as well as temporary unavailability of insurance cover.
“Satellite data shows that oil tanker transit had virtually halted over the weekend, a precautionary measure by shipping companies,” he added.
Any sustained disruption could affect LNG shipments from Qatar, which supplies around 12% to 14% of Europe’s LNG imports.
Europe exposed to global competition
While Europe does not rely primarily on Qatari gas, analysts say the indirect impact could still be significant.
If supplies to Asia are disrupted, buyers there may seek alternative cargoes, increasing global competition for LNG.
This would likely push prices higher worldwide, including in Europe.
Qatar, the world’s third-largest LNG exporter after the United States and Australia, has become an increasingly important supplier to Europe since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 forced European countries to reduce their dependence on Russian pipeline gas.
Low storage levels increase vulnerability
Europe’s relatively low gas storage levels have added to market anxiety.
Storage across the European Union is currently below 30% capacity as the winter heating season draws to a close, compared with around 40% at the same point last year.
Germany and France, the bloc’s two largest economies, are among the most vulnerable.
Germany’s gas storage facilities were 20.5% full as of Saturday, while France’s stood at 21%, according to data from Gas Infrastructure Europe.
Lower reserves leave countries more vulnerable to supply disruptions and price volatility, particularly if global LNG markets tighten further.
European markets cratered on Monday as the fallout from a dramatic weekend of US and Israeli strikes on Iran rattled investors across the continent.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Euro Stoxx 50 shed 2% at the open, with the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 close behind at -1.8% — and the selling shows no signs of stopping.
Regional indices from Frankfurt to Paris to Milan are all in the red, spooked by an escalating conflict that has choked shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and drawn Hezbollah into the fray on Sunday.
In London, the FTSE 100 is having the more durable response, only falling around 0.3%.
However, Germany’s DAX 30 edged down 1% whilst France’s CAC 40 dropped more than 1.4%.
Italy’s FTSE MIB fell roughly 1.8%, the Netherlands’ NL 25 declined over 1% and Spain’s IBEX 35 has seen a sharp drop of more than 2%.
Before European markets opened, Japan’s Nikkei 225 was already in free fall and is currently down over 2.3%.
Likewise, US futures opened lower on Sunday with the E-mini S&P 500 dropping over 1.6% and E-mini NASDAQ down more than 2%.
In the UAE, regulators have taken the dramatic step of shutting down both the Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange and the Dubai Financial Market for the next two days.
The Capital Market Authority made no attempt to dress it up and the closures are explicitly designed to prevent panic selling after a staggering 165 ballistic missiles, 541 drones, and 2 cruise missiles rained down on the country over just 48 hours.
Oil and precious metals
While global markets sink into negative territory, crude oil prices rose in early trade on Monday morning as investors continue to weigh the potential impact of escalating tensions in the Middle East on the supply of energy.
The price of a barrel of US benchmark crude initially surged by about 8%. It later traded 5.9% higher at $71.00 per barrel. Brent crude rose 6.2% to $77.38 per barrel.
Gold is up roughly 2.5% while silver climbed 2% and platinum 1.2% as well.
Oil prices climbed on Monday morning as investors assessed the economic impact of US and Israeli attacks on Iran, which triggered swift retaliation from Tehran targeting assets in multiple Middle Eastern countries.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
In early trade, the price of a barrel of US benchmark crude initially surged by about 8%. It later traded 5.9% higher at $71.00 per barrel. Brent crude rose 6.2% to $77.38 per barrel.
Traders were betting that oil supplies from Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East could slow or grind to a halt. Attacks across the region, including on two vessels travelling through the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf — have restricted countries’ ability to export oil to the rest of the world.
“Roughly one-fifth of global oil and LNG (liquefied natural gas) flows squeeze through the Strait of Hormuz. This is not an obscure canal. It is the aorta of the global energy system,” Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary note.
A prolonged war would likely result in higher prices for other fuels and petrol, and could ripple through the global economy, adding to overall production costs.
Likewise, prolonged interruptions to oil flows through the Middle East would have “huge implications for oil and LNG and every market everywhere if it occurs. Energy is an input to all production,” RaboResearch Global Economics & Markets said in a report.
Iran exports roughly 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, mostly to China. Beijing may need to look elsewhere for supply if Iran’s exports are disrupted — another factor that could push energy prices higher.
However, China has ample oil reserves of up to 1.5 billion barrels and could offset a decline in Iranian oil by increasing imports from Russia, said Michael Langham of Aberdeen Investments.
The attacks had been anticipated, following a significant build-up of US forces in the Middle East, so traders had already adjusted their positions to account for that risk.
In other early trading on Monday, the price of gold — usually viewed as a safe haven in times of uncertainty — rose 2.4% to about $5,371 per ounce.
Elsewhere, futures for the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were down about 0.8% by mid-morning in Bangkok.
Asian shares also opened lower. Japan’s Nikkei 225 initially fell more than 2%. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng lost 1.6% to 26,215.91, while the Shanghai Composite was flat at 4,163.01.
Taiwan’s benchmark index fell 0.6% and Singapore’s dropped 1.9%. In Bangkok, the SET declined 2.1%, while Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 shed 0.3% to 9,173.50.
The STOCK Act requires public disclosure of securities trades by Congress members.
Disclosures can be accessed through government websites and third-party databases.
Democratic-tracking ETF outperformed Republican-tracking ETF since February 2023.
ETFs face trading and information delays due to disclosure rules.
Both ETFs have a high expense ratio of 0.74%.
Curious about where lawmakers invest their money? Politicians’ investment choices often attract attention because of their unique position in shaping policy. In fact, a 2024 report by the trading platform Unusual Whales found that more than 20 members of Congress earned nearly double the S&P 500’s average gain.
Thanks to the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, the public can see what members of Congress are investing in. But how do you actually find this information? And what can it tell you about market trends or potential conflicts of interest?
What Is the STOCK Act and Why Does It Matter?
The STOCK Act was passed in 2012 following high-profile reports of lawmakers making well-timed trades around major economic events, such as the 2008 financial crisis. It was designed to boost transparency and restore public trust. The law requires members of Congress and senior federal officials to disclose any securities transaction over $1,000 within 45 days of the trade. These disclosures cover politicians, as well as their spouses and dependent children.
It’s important to note that insider trading by members of Congress is prohibited under federal securities law, just like it is for everyone else. The STOCK Act reaffirmed this prohibition and made clear that lawmakers can’t use nonpublic information gained through their official duties for personal financial gain. However, proving insider trading requires demonstrating that someone knowingly used material, nonpublic information. That’s a high legal bar, which is one reason there haven’t yet been any prosecutions under the STOCK Act.
After reported outsized gains by senior White House officials and members of Congress just before major tariff announcements in April 2025, the push to ban securities trading altogether by those in Congress gained new momentum, with Senators Mark Kelly and Jon Ossoff reintroducing their Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act in May 2025.
How To Access Congressional Stock Trade Information
So, how can you get information on what politicians are buying and selling? Here are several options:
Official disclosure portals:The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate both maintain searchable online databases. Here, you can look up individual lawmakers’ financial disclosures, including all reported stock trades. Just enter a name, date, or transaction type, and you’ll find detailed records.
Third-Party Trackers: Several third-party tools have emerged to make tracking even easier. Sites like Smart Insider, Quiver Quantitative, and InsiderFinance aggregate and analyze congressional disclosures, letting you search by politician, stock, or sector. These platforms often highlight recent trades, show which lawmakers are most active, and even track the performance of stocks favored by Congress.
Key Considerations for Using Data on Congressional Stock Trades
Congressional trades are disclosed after the fact—often 45 days later or more—so you’re seeing moves that may already be reflected in prices. In 2023, Business Insider identified 78 members of Congress who violated the law, highlighting enforcement gaps. As such, you should treat these disclosures as just one piece of your research puzzle, not a shortcut to guaranteed profits or market timing.
In addition, not every politician is an expert investor, and many hold portfolios riskier than most professionals would recommend. Following these trades too closely can expose you to unnecessary volatility or lead you to overlook your own financial goals. Always balance congressional data with your personal risk tolerance, time horizon, and a diversified investment approach.
Tip
Two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) now let you mirror congressional trades—the Democratic-focused NANC and Republican-focused GOP. Since launching in February 2023, the Democratic ETF has significantly outperformed with a 58.9% return compared with the Republican ETF’s 30.2% return. Both funds charge a high expense ratio (0.74%) and face trading and information delays since trades aren’t disclosed for up to 90 days after they occur.
The Bottom Line
The STOCK Act provides important access to what lawmakers are buying and selling. While tracking these moves can offer insights into emerging sectors or companies that may be in the regulatory spotlight, remember that disclosure delays and enforcement gaps limit the practical value for investment timing.
The real story here may be transparency itself. As public pressure mounts for stricter rules or outright trading bans, these disclosures serve more as a window into potential conflicts of interest than a reliable investment strategy.
The digital euro is facing fresh delays in the European Parliament after the file’s lead rapporteur, Spanish lawmaker Fernando Navarrete Rojas of the European People’s Party (EPP), formed a minority bloc with far-right groups — leaving shadow rapporteurs unable to secure a workable majority around the draft.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The latest compromise text seen by Euronews would also narrow the project’s scope in a way that goes to the heart of the Commission’s plan.
Brussels proposed a digital form of cash that could be used both online and offline. Navarrete, by contrast, is pushing for an offline-only model.
As rapporteur, Navarrete is responsible for steering the legislative text and building agreement across political groups through negotiations with shadow rapporteurs — a process designed to produce a majority-backed position in Parliament.
The Parliament has already signalled broad support for a digital euro.
On 10 February, lawmakers adopted the European Central Bank’s annual report and backed two pro–digital euro amendments, with opposition mainly coming from some centrist and far-right MEPs.
The EPP itself is split on the file. The German delegation is strongly in favour, amid pressure from Berlin. In mid-February, Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil told journalists that those opposing the digital euro were harming Europe.
Two sources familiar with the talks told Euronews that amendments tabled by Navarrete in the latest compromise text are a non-starter for groups backing the Commission’s plan, pushing the file into a legislative deadlock.
Euronews contacted lead rapporteur Navarrete for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.
The impasse surfaced again at a meeting on Thursday, when lawmakers attempted to bridge differences after a heated discussion, claiming “the text is going nowhere”.
Another meeting is scheduled for 10 March, but sources expect a vote currently pencilled in for May to slip.
EU countries have already agreed their position in the Council. Without a Parliament mandate, the legislation cannot move to the next stage.
What is digital euro?
The digital euro has taken on new political weight as economic tensions between the EU and the US sharpen the debate over Europe’s reliance on American payment giants.
Visa and Mastercard, both US-based, underpin much of day-to-day card spending in Europe. ECB data for 2025 shows the two networks account for 61% of card payments in the EU and nearly all cross-border card payments.
The project would create an electronic form of cash issued by the European Central Bank, designed to sit alongside banknotes and the payments services offered by commercial banks.
Supporters argue it would give citizens direct access to digital “public” money — something that, for now, largely exists only in the form of cash.
Under the Commission’s proposal, users would have a digital wallet for both online and offline payments, with transactions designed so they are not trackable.
Critics say the latest compromise text in Parliament risks stripping out key parts of that vision.
“This first taste of a compromise from Mr. Navarrete sadly shines little light on any actual shift in his direction for the digital euro,” Laura Casonato, head of policy at Positive Money Europe, told Euronews.
Casonato said the draft does contain some welcome elements, including language recognising that the digital euro “should be a sovereign and secure digital means of payment that safeguard public access to central bank money” alongside clearer provisions on privacy and data security.
The NYSE is building a blockchain-powered platform for 24/7 trading and instant settlement of tokenized securities, aiming to modernize global capital markets and challenge traditional trading hubs.
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is developing a platform for continuous trading and on-chain settlement of tokenized securities, a development some analysts are hailing as a revolution in global capital markets.
In a January announcement, the Big Board said that, subject to regulatory approval, the digital platform will enable 24/7 operations including “instant settlement, orders sized in dollars, and stablecoin-based funding.”
According to the NYSE, the proposed trading site will blend its proprietary Pillar matching engine with blockchain post-trade systems, “including the capability to support multiple chains for settlement and custody.” The announcement describes the initiative as “a new NYSE venue that supports trading of tokenized shares fungible with traditionally issued securities as well as tokens natively issued as digital securities.”
The announcement signals that the world’s largest traditional exchange is committing to blockchain-native market infrastructure, says Aditya Singh, head of product and strategy for brokerage firm INFINOX. A 24/7, on-chain settlement model removes many of the frictions that have defined capital markets for decades, including delayed settlement, operational risk, and restricted trading hours.
A Wake-Up Call To Competition
“From a global perspective, this puts immediate pressure on financial centers like London, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai to accelerate their own digital asset strategies or risk falling behind as liquidity and institutional participation migrate towards more-efficient, always-on markets,” says Singh.
NYSE parent company Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) is advancing a broader digital strategy that includes preparing the clearing infrastructure to support round-the-clock trading and integration of tokenized collateral. ICE is currently working with BNY Mellon and Citi to facilitate tokenized deposits.
“We are leading the industry toward fully on-chain solutions, grounded in the unmatched protections and high regulatory standards that position us to marry trust with state-of-the-art technology,” Lynn Martin, president, NYSE Group said in a statement.
In December, NYSE competitor Nasdaq said it was seeking approval from the US Securities and Exchange Commission to allow close to 24-hour trading, five days a week. If approved, the new schedule would roll out in the second half of this year. But the development was criticized at the time by some traders as being unnecessary.
Since its public listing on Euronext in 2015, Nicola Perin has served as CFO of Italian mass-market clothing retailer OVS. Previously, he was CFO of the conglomerate Grupo COIN, from which OVS was carved out. OVS operates brands including OVS, Upim, Golden-point, Stefanel, CROFF, and Les Copains, managing a network of 2,600 stores in Italy and abroad.
Global Finance: Over your 10 years guiding OVS’ finances, what are you most proud of doing?
Nicola Perin: What makes me proudest, though not because it is the most difficult task, is that I’ve always kept the machine running smoothly. For a CFO, whether in a listed or private company, nothing is more fundamental than a reliable administrative system: one that produces accurate information, supports mandatory disclosures, and gives management the confidence to make sound decisions. Without that foundation, any other achievement—no matter how ambitious—would have been far less certain.
Among the results I value most, one stands out. In 2014, our CEO, Stefano Beraldo, and I decided to spin off OVS-Upim from the Coin Group to prepare it for listing. It proved to be an extremely successful operation, providing OVS with the financial resources needed for a new phase of growth: expanding our network, increasing volumes, and strengthening our brand portfolio. It laid the financial and managerial groundwork for the significant expansion that followed.
GF:And more recently?
Perin: We have always paid close attention to sustainability. Apparel retail is considered the second most polluting industry after energy, and although we are far smaller than global groups like Inditex, H&M, or Gap, we have always taken these issues very seriously.
Our commitment has often placed us among the leaders, if not always at the very top, and it has also created tangible financial value. In 2022, I proposed and led the issuance of Italy’s first sustainability-linked bond [SLB]. It was a significant milestone; it secured highly attractive financing at a fixed 2.25% and strengthened our market profile. At the time—between 2022 and 2024—sustainability was a dominant theme, and limited supply meant strong demand from investors looking to add green-labeled products to their portfolios. We planned to raise €120 million; we raised €160 million.
GF: Is sustainability still important, given the current political climate?
Perin: Trends aside, the next time we issue a bond—whenever that may be—I will still aim to highlight the company’s sustainability progress. Interest may not be as strong as it was a few years ago, but I believe a sustainability-linked bond remains the right choice for OVS, because it makes our commitment transparent.
An SLB requires us to define clear ESG targets and undergo third-party verification midway through the bond’s life. If we are not on track, the cost of the bond increases. For example, the coupon would rise from 2.25% to 2.45%. In other words, the cost of financing is directly linked to how effectively we deliver on our improvement path.
GF: How deeply are you incorporating AI in the finance function?
Perin: In administrative processes, we rely more on robotics than on AI. By robotics, I mean software that automates repetitive tasks that colleagues once handled step by step. There is some digital intelligence involved, but it’s essentially process automation. A simple example is the DURC check in Italy—verifying that suppliers are up to date on their social security, insurance, and construction fund contributions—which we now execute through robotic processes.
In management control and financing, however, AI is becoming increasingly useful. It helps us write clearer, faster commentary and perform more detailed analyses; work that would take a person eight hours can be multiplied with AI.
But the real frontier for us is in predictive sales. For OVS, Stefanel, Goldenpoint, and all our brands, AI has been supporting forecasting for years. We all know that coats sell earlier in Bolzano than in Palermo, but AI goes much further; it tells us how many to ship, which sizes, how early to move from cotton to wool blends, and what items to substitute when stock runs out. It takes simple, intuitive patterns and transforms them into hundreds of thousands of variables, allowing us to make far more precise decisions.
What began as a largely fintech-led experiment is steadily gaining traction among incumbent banks. Across Europe, established financial institutions are now assessing stablecoins alongside other payment innovations, driven by the need to modernise transaction flows while upholding regulatory discipline, operational resilience and customer confidence.
For many banks, the discussion is no longer about whether stablecoins belong in the financial system, but about how they can be deployed responsibly and at scale. Persistent frictions in cross-border payments, settlement lag and the growing expectation of always-on digital services are exposing the limitations of existing infrastructures, particularly in corporate and wholesale banking. At the same time, Europe faces a strategic question: how to ensure that the future architecture of digital money is not shaped solely by non-European actors or dominated by dollar-based instruments.
Ultimately, the adoption of stablecoins will be determined by practical demand. Different users will gravitate towards different applications, depending on their operational needs and the ecosystems in which they operate. Platforms that integrate stablecoins natively as a payment option are likely to drive early use, especially in cross-border or digital-native environments.
Given their global reach, stablecoins issued by European banks are unlikely to be confined to domestic users. This international dimension implies a diversity of use cases, not only for corporates but also across banks themselves, reflecting differences in business models, geographic exposure and sectoral focus.
Enterprise-first applications
Against this backdrop, a group of major European banks, including CaixaBank, has joined forces to develop a euro-denominated stablecoin backed by regulated financial institutions. Organised through a consortium model and supported by a dedicated entity, Qivalis, the initiative signals a shift towards cooperation as a catalyst for innovation in payments. The initiative is fully compliant with the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which is set to be completely implemented by mid-2026, marking a significant step forward in regulated digital finance.
In contrast to retail-oriented projects such as the prospective digital euro, bank-backed stablecoins are being designed primarily with enterprise use cases in mind. Features such as near-instant settlement, programmability and cross-border operability create opportunities in areas ranging from treasury management and supply chain finance to the tokenization of financial instruments. For multinational corporates, the value proposition is clear: more efficient, predictable and continuously available payment solutions.
A defining characteristic of these initiatives is their anchoring within a robust regulatory framework. MiCA establishes a common set of rules that addresses concerns around governance, financial stability and user protection. Operating as regulated electronic money institutions, bank-backed stablecoins aim to merge the advantages of distributed ledger technology with the safeguards traditionally associated with the banking sector.
This emphasis on trust alongside innovation is increasingly shaping European banks’ approach to digital assets. As CaixaBank CEO Gonzalo Gortázar has observed, payments are undergoing rapid transformation, with outcomes that remain uncertain. Any new initiatives come with their own set of risks and adoption barriers, but for banks, opting out is not a viable strategy. As with the earlier expansion of instant payments, active engagement is essential to retain strategic flexibility and to help ensure that new instruments strengthen, rather than weaken, the financial system.
A pragmatic approach to blockchain
Beyond efficiency gains, the strategic case also encompasses monetary and technological considerations. A euro-denominated stablecoin issued by a consortium of European banks could contribute to reinforcing Europe’s autonomy in digital finance. In a landscape largely shaped by US dollar-linked stablecoins, a credible euro-based alternative would support global digital transactions while embedding European standards on compliance, data protection and governance.
Qivalis, based in Amsterdam and supported by banks such as CaixaBank, ING, BNP Paribas and UniCredit, illustrates this pragmatic vision. With an experienced management team and governance designed to meet supervisory expectations, the project is targeting a market launch in the second half of 2026. Its focus on concrete economic applications, rather than speculative use, reflects a measured and utility-driven approach to blockchain adoption.
More broadly, the rise of bank-backed stablecoins marks an inflection point for payments in Europe. It suggests a sector that is moving beyond defensive reactions to technological change and instead actively shaping its trajectory. By combining scale, regulatory certainty and collaborative execution, European banks are positioning themselves at the centre of the next phase of digital payments, aligning innovation with stability and efficiency with trust.
As regulation and technology continue to converge, stablecoins are shifting from experimental concepts to practical tools within Europe’s payments ecosystem. Ongoing collaboration between banks, corporates and policymakers will be key to integrating them responsibly and harnessing their potential in support of a more efficient, resilient and competitive European financial system.
After its failure to strike a deal to tap into the EU’s defence for loan scheme, the UK is now on a charm offensive to secure “Made in Europe” access for its industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
UK Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle is in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday to press the case for UK involvement in the European preference scheme the Commission is drafting, as speculation circulates that it will be limited to EU countries only.
“We have a shared challenge on the continent of Europe about economic security,” Kyle told journalists after meeting Commission Vice President Teresa Ribera, adding that “the continent of Europe should come together” to build “resilience” at a time of increasing worldwide economic tensions.
The UK fears Brussels’ push to favour “Made in Europe” products will shut London out of EU public procurement and state aid, escalating post-Brexit trade tensions.
London argues that the EU and UK economies are too deeply intertwined to withstand a strict EU-only European Preference.
The EU’s “Made in Europe” strategy is set to feature in the long-delayed Industrial Accelerator Act, held up for months by divisions among member states and within the European Commission. Baltic and Nordic countries have warned that the plan could curb innovation and restrict access to non-EU technologies, joining Germany in calling for a broad definition of “Made in Europe” that includes the bloc’s “trusted” trade partners.
France, by contrast, wants to limit eligibility to members of the European Economic Area – including Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland – as well as countries with reciprocal procurement agreements with the EU.
Limits of participation
London has previously sought to secure preferential access to the EU’s €150-billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) defence loan scheme – so far, to no avail.
That programme also contains a European preference, with member states required to ensure that at least two-thirds of the weapon systems they buy using loaned EU money are manufactured in an EU or EEA/EFTA country or Ukraine. Third-country participation is capped at 35%.
Talks to bring the UK to the same level as a member state collapsed last November when they failed to find a compromise over how much London would have to contribute financially.
Euronews understands that those talks fell apart over a major gap between the two sides: whereas the final offer on the table from the EU was around €2 billion, the UK estimated it ought to contribute just over €100 million.
But the UK also wants to participate in the EU’s €90 billion loan to Ukraine, two-thirds of which is earmarked for military assistance.
Starmer said last month that “whether it’s SAFE or other initiatives, it makes good sense for Europe in the widest sense of the word – which is the EU plus other European countries – to work more closely together.”
But the British premier is walking a difficult political tightrope. His Labour party is consistently polling several points behind the right-wing populist Reform UK, led by arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage.
Yet, a recent YouGov poll showed that a majority of British people (58%) now believe that it was wrong for the UK to leave the EU, with 54% supporting rejoining the bloc. An even bigger majority – 62% – support having a closer relationship without rejoining the EU, the Single Market, or the Customs Union.
Brussels, however, has always been clear that the UK cannot pick and choose privileged access to the Single Market without accepting the EU’s “four freedoms”: the full freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people – the latter of which would feed into Farage’s anti-immigration platform.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.
Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.
Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments
Enjoy additional articles per month
Get email updates from your favourite authors
Sign In or Create an Account
or
Article content
Strong margin improvement to 16.3% in FY 2025
Article content
Article content
Positive growth outlook with continued margin expansion in 2026
Article content
New EUR 200 million share buyback
Article content
COURBEVOIE, France — Bureau Veritas (BOURSE:BVI):
Article content
2
Article content
025 key figures
Article content
1
Article content
› Full-year revenue of EUR 6,466.4 million, up 6.5% organically (with 6.3% organic growth in Q4). At constant currency, the growth was up 7.3% year-on-year and up 3.6% on a reported basis,
Article content
› Adjusted operating profit of EUR 1,052.9 million, up 5.7% versus EUR 996.2 million in FY 2024, representing an adjusted operating margin of 16.3%, up 32 basis points year-on-year and up 51 basis points at constant currency,
Article content
Article content
› Operating profit of EUR 992.4 million, up 6.3% versus EUR 933.4 million in FY 2024,
Article content
Top Stories
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Article content
› Adjusted net profit of EUR 631.4 million, up 1.7% versus EUR 620.7 million in FY 2024,
Article content
› Adjusted EPS stood at EUR 1.42 in 2025, with a 2.8% increase versus FY 2024 (EUR 1.38 per share) and up 9.2% at constant currency,
Article content
› Attributable net profit of EUR 588.0 million, up 3.3% versus EUR 569.4 million in FY 2024,
Article content
› Free Cash Flow of EUR 824.2 million, up 3.9% organically and up 2.6% at constant currency, and cash conversion of 107%2,
Article content
› Adjusted net debt/EBITDA ratio of 1.1x as of December 31, 2025, slightly up versus last year,
Article content
› Proposed dividend of EUR 0.92 per share3, up 2.2% year-on-year, payable in full in cash.
Article content
2025 highlights
Article content
› 2025 financial targets of revenue, margin and cash met or exceeded,
Article content
› Strong drivers of portfolio organic growth from higher energy investments, from the ongoing buildup of digital infrastructure and from clients demand for corporate and enterprise risk assessment solutions,
Article content
› Progressive LEAP I 28 strategy execution in its second year yielding tangible impact on operational leverage and functional scalability,
Article content
› New organization implementation to accelerate strategy execution,
Article content
› Portfolio refocusing continues with nine bolt-on acquisitions, and two divestments in non-core areas closed. These acquisitions added EUR 96 million in annualized revenue and support LEAP I 28 portfolio priorities of: i) Strengthening leadership positions in Buildings & Infrastructure; ii) Creating new strongholds in Power & Utilities and Renewables, Cybersecurity, and in Sustainability and iii) Optimizing value and impact in mature businesses; in Consumer Product Services and in Metals & Minerals. Year-to-date, three more bolt-on deals have been closed, contributing to c. EUR 5 million in annualized revenue,
Article content
› Double-digit shareholder returns based on EPS growth of c. 9% at constant currency, a dividend yield of c. 3% and enhanced by a EUR 200 million share buyback program (representing c. 1.5% of outstanding share capital).
Article content
2026 outlook
Article content
Bureau Veritas is starting the third year of LEAP I 28 strategy with sound market fundamentals. Building on a strong 2025 performance, the Group aims to deliver full year results for 2026 aligned with the financial ambition outlined in its strategy:
› Improvement in adjusted operating margin at constant exchange rates,
Article content
Article content
› Strong cash flow generation.
Article content
Hinda Gharbi, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
Article content
“2025 was a year of solid progress for Bureau Veritas, with sector leading organic growth, strong margin expansion, and a disciplined execution of our LEAP | 28 strategy. I want to thank all our colleagues worldwide for their strong commitment and personal contributions.
Article content
In this passing year, the second of our strategic plan, we delivered results fully in line with our ambition to accelerate growth and enhance returns, supported by a strengthened portfolio and a tangible impact from our performance programs.
Article content
We again achieved double‑digit shareholder returns at constant currency, reflecting both the quality of our portfolio and the effectiveness of our strategy. With our new organizational structure now almost complete, we are better equipped to scale our product lines’ services within our regional platforms, drive cross‑selling, and elevate our customer service and stickiness.
Article content
As we start 2026, we remain focused on executing our growth and margin improvement plans, confident in the resilience of our evolving portfolio and in our ability to generate superior, sustainable value over the mid and long term. We are continuing to improve shareholder returns and will be launching a new EUR 200 million share buyback program, without hindering our M&A plans.”
Article content
2025 KEY FIGURES
Article content
On February 24, 2026, the Board of Directors of Bureau Veritas approved the financial statements for the full year 2025. The main consolidated financial items are:
Article content
IN EUR MILLION
2025
2024
CHANGE
CONSTANT CURRENCY
Revenue
6,466.4
6,240.9
+3.6%
+7.3%
Adjusted operating profit(a)
1,052.9
996.2
+5.7%
+10.8%
Adjusted operating margin(a)
16.3%
16.0%
+32bps
+51bps
Operating profit
992.4
933.4
+6.3%
+11.2%
Adjusted net profit(a)
631.4
620.7
+1.7%
+8.1%
Attributable net profit
588.0
569.4
+3.3%
+9.3%
Adjusted EPS(a)
1.42
1.38
+2.8%
+9.2%
EPS
1.32
1.27
+4.3%
+10.4%
Operating cash-flow
1,006.7
1,004.8
+0.2%
+4.6%
Free cash flow(a)
824.2
843.3
(2.3)%
+2.6%
Adjusted net financial debt(a)
1,253.3
1,226.3
+2.2%
(a) Alternative performance indicators are presented, defined, and reconciled with IFRS in appendices 6 and 8 of this press release
Article content
2025 HIGHLIGHTS
Article content
2025 financial targets achieved with some exceeding expectations
Article content
› Mid-to-high single digit organic revenue growth in the full year Group revenue in 2025 increased by 6.5% organically compared to 2024, including 6.3% in the fourth quarter, benefiting from underlying robust market trends across businesses and geographies.
Emerging markets are roaring back in 2026, staging a rally that has surprised investors not only for its speed — unmatched in decades — but also for the broader global context in which it is unfolding.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
While US software stocks reel from artificial intelligence disruption fears and the S&P 500 remains broadly flat year-to-date, emerging markets are decoupling.
In a reversal of long-standing market dynamics, the asset class is briefly playing an unexpected role: that of a relative safe haven.
The rally is broad, persistent and increasingly supported by flows, macro conditions and structural shifts in global trade.
Emerging markets dominate global performance rankings
Data from CountryETFTracker show that the five best-performing country-specific exchange traded funds so far this year all belong to emerging markets.
Leading the rally is South Korea’s iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY), up 43.28% year-to-date after a 96% surge in 2025.
The gains reflect the dominance of chipmakers such as Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, which are benefiting from strong global demand for AI-related memory and advanced semiconductors, lifting exports and corporate earnings.
It is followed by Peru’s iShares MSCI Peru ETF (EPU), which has gained 25.31%, Brazil’s iShares MSCI Brazil ETF (EWZ) at 22.03%, Thailand (THD) at 21.38% and Turkey (TUR) at 21.32%.
The broader MSCI Emerging Markets Index, tracked by the iShares MSCI Emerging Index Fund (EEM), is up nearly 13% year-to-date.
Two elements stand out here: the scale of the relative strength and the remarkable consistency of the rally.
Over the past two months, EEM has achieved the strongest relative surge against the S&P 500 since 2008. Over 12 months, the performance gap has widened to 25 percentage points — the largest divergence since January 2010.
Emerging markets have also recorded 13 positive months out of the last 14 and closed higher for nine consecutive weeks — a streak not seen since 2005.
There is, unmistakably, a structural trend under way.
Record inflows toward geographic capital reallocation
The rally is not only price-driven but also flow-driven.
The iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF attracted more than $4bn (€3.7bn) in January 2026, its strongest month for inflows since 2015.
South Korea alone drew $1.6bn (€1.5bn) in January and over $1bn (€0.9bn) in February, while Brazil attracted nearly $1bn (€0.9bn) in January.
The surge in allocations suggests that institutional investors are actively increasing exposure to emerging markets.
Importantly, flows appear broad-based rather than concentrated in a single thematic trade.
While Asia-focused markets have benefited from AI supply-chain positioning, Latin American funds have drawn support from commodities and cyclical exposure.
Why is this happening?
1) Rotation away from crowded US tech
Much of 2026’s market narrative has centred on artificial intelligence disruption, particularly in long-duration US software stocks.
After years of heavy concentration in mega-cap American technology names, investors are reassessing exposure as valuations look stretched and volatility rises.
Emerging markets, by contrast, began the year trading at sizeable discounts to developed peers.
Capital is rotating away from crowded US growth trades into cyclicals, commodities and regions directly exposed to AI hardware demand.
Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research highlighted that while the US economy still remains exceptional, emerging economies benefit from expanding middle classes, rising industrial output and export growth that increasingly outpaces advanced economies.
2) Dollar weakness supports emerging markets
Currency dynamics are reinforcing the move towards emerging markets.
Jeff Buchbinder, Chief Equity Strategist at LPL Financial, indicates that the US Dollar Index is close to breaking its long-term uptrend, with expectations of further Federal Reserve rate cuts adding pressure.
Central banks’ gradual diversification away from the US dollar towards gold, alongside a persistent US trade deficit that continues to expand the global supply of dollars, is also exerting downward pressure on the greenback.
For emerging markets, a softer dollar eases financing conditions and improves relative returns.
Bank of America strategist David Hauner describes the near-certainty of the next Fed move being a cut as a ‘volatility compressor’ — a backdrop that has historically supported EM assets.
3) AI hardware boom supports Asia
While AI concerns weigh on US software, the hardware backbone of artificial intelligence is largely produced in Asia.
Taiwan dominates advanced semiconductor production, and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics remains a global leader in memory chips.
In Taiwan, technology-related goods now account for roughly 80% of exports and the bulk of recent growth. Revenue at TSMC continues to track the island’s export momentum, with analysts expecting another year of solid expansion in 2026.
4) Commodities and cyclicals add further support
The strength is not confined to technology exporters. Commodity-linked economies such as Brazil and Peru are benefiting from firm metals and agricultural demand, while Thailand and Turkey are gaining from improved financial conditions and cyclical recovery dynamics.
Against a backdrop of stabilising global growth and easing US monetary policy expectations, emerging markets combining export momentum with improving external balances are regaining investor attention.
Why this matters
The resurgence of emerging markets is more than a short-term performance story.
After a decade dominated by US exceptionalism, the current rally points to a potential broadening of global leadership — driven by currency dynamics, shifting capital flows and the geography of AI-driven production.
If sustained, the move could reshape portfolio allocations and challenge the long-standing concentration of global equity returns in a narrow group of US mega-cap stocks.
Recently, the United States reached a new historic milestone: it produced over 13.6 million barrels per day, a staggering feat for a country that many thought had peaked in 2008 when production bottomed out at 5 million bpd. This staggering increase was not achieved by a state giant, but by an ecosystem of thousands of independent operators driven by market-based incentives that, in Venezuela, might seem from another planet.
Meanwhile, Venezuela has traveled the opposite path: from a proud peak of 3.7 million bpd in 1970, it has collapsed to a stagnant output below 1 million bpd.
In Texas, the landowner owns the oil; in Venezuela, it is the State—which claims, all the while, to represent us all.
The hundred-year war
Since the Los Barrosos II blowout in December 1922, our oil history has been defined by a relentless tug-of-war between private capital and the State over the capture of oil rent. This conflict is not unique to Venezuela, but as we enter this “third opening,” the question is unavoidable: how do we prevent a third nationalization?
Having done it twice before (1976 and 2006), Venezuela has established a precedent that alters risk assessment across all investment horizons. How can we guarantee investors that history won’t repeat itself? While often sold as a patriotic triumph, nationalization is a terminal breach of contract and a direct assault on property rights, deterring the very capital profiles that otherwise would be participating. International arbitration, legal reforms, and institutional frameworks are necessary, but they are not sufficient.
Government take and the global race
To put things in perspective: before the 2026 reform, the Venezuelan fiscal system was among the least competitive on the planet. Between royalties on gross income, income tax (ISLR), and “windfall profit” taxes, the State extracted a “Government Take” that often exceeded 80%, with marginal tax rates reaching up to 95% depending on price thresholds. In a scenario where the operator’s net margin was squeezed to a minimum, production became a game of survival and reinvestment became technically impossible.
While the January 2026 reform moves in the right direction, we aren’t just competing against our own past; we are competing against the world. Consider the current margins (Operator Share) in the region:
Canada (Alberta, Heavy Oil): Private 50%-55% | Government 45%-50%
Texas (Permian Basin): Private 45%-55% | Government 45%-55%
Colombia (New Reforms): Private 40% | Government 60%
Brazil (Pre-Salt): Private 39% | Government 61%
Guyana (2025 Model): Private 25%-35% | Government 65%-75%
Venezuela (2026 Law): Private 20%-35% | Government 65%-80%
Even with the recent reform, Venezuela is far from being a “bargain” for long-term investment.
The proposal: from State-partner to citizen-owner
To mitigate expropriation risk and attract long-term capital, I propose a model built on four foundational pillars:
Private Capital-Citizen Partnership: The State is removed from operations. Incentives are aligned directly between citizens—the ultimate owners of the subsoil—and those who risk the capital to extract it.
Zero Corporate Taxes (Tax Displacement): Eliminate corporate income tax, royalties, and all “shadow” taxes at the source. This slashes the operational break-even to technical average levels of $30 to $40 per barrel, turning “iron cemeteries” into profitable ventures even in low-price environments. This is not a tax holiday, but a redirection of the fiscal take: the operator delivers a major share of the value directly to the citizens, while the State sustains itself by taxing the total income of the citizenry and companies in the rest of the economy.
The Citizen Dividend (Oil-to-Cash): Instead of paying a traditional tax to a discretionary Treasury, the operator delivers 50% of its net profit—effectively a flat tax paid to the owners—directly into a sovereign trust (or similar non-state mechanism) managed by top-tier international banks. While 50% is a significant share, the absence of any other fiscal burden makes this model one of the most competitive in the region. This trust distributes periodical dividends to every Venezuelan citizen, including those abroad. The State then funds its operations by taxing these dividends as part of the citizens’ total income via personal income tax (ISLR) and other tax sources from a diversified economy. This ensures that the government’s budget depends on the collective prosperity of its people, not on political control over the oil.
The Citizen as “Guardian” and Auditor: This is the ultimate shield. In 1976 and 2006, the State nationalized because it was easy to seize control from a “multinational” and hand it to a bureaucracy. Under this scheme, any government attempting to expropriate would be taking directly from the pockets of 30 million owners. Transparency is embedded: citizens monitor production and distributions through real-time digital platforms, independent audits, and other decentralized oversight mechanisms. The citizen ceases to be a spectator and becomes the industry’s most powerful defender.
Unlike the State, whose lust for oil rent is political and lacks immediate consequences for those in power, the citizen acts with the prudence of an owner—because they become one. Under this model, any attempt to “suffocate” the private partner translates immediately into a drop in personal dividends. Private ownership of the benefit is, in itself, the best guarantee of stability for capital.
Application and reality
Under this model, the direct net profit split for the oil industry would be: Private 50%, Citizens 50%, State 0%.
This “State 0%” applies exclusively to the source to insulate the industry from political rent-seeking. It does not mean a zero-revenue State; the government continues to fund its functions, but through a transparent tax system (ISLR, VAT) derived from a citizen-owned economy.
To illustrate, with oil at $100 and production at 3.5 million bpd, each citizen would have received $1,500 annually ($6,000 for a family of four). At a $60 base price, the dividend would be $640 per person. Today, with production stalled below one million barrels, a citizen would receive a mere $185. It is modest, but it represents the starting point of a virtuous cycle where the State only prospers if its citizens do first.
Herein lies the virtue of the model: the alignment of interests. Under the current system, citizens watch from the sidelines as oil wealth vanishes into the state vortex. With this approach, each Venezuelan has a personal stake: the more their private partner thrives, the more they themselves benefit. Citizens move from passive critics to primary stakeholders in the nation’s industrial growth.
Considerations for a new Venezuela
Under other circumstances, I might not be a proponent of direct “cash” transfers. But given the alternatives, it is the “lesser evil”. The political class will likely claim this is neither feasible nor “patriotic.” For many politicians, the incentive is two-fold: the salivating prospect of managing an immense oil “booty,” and the recurring ideal of “doing good” with other people’s resources.
Still in doubt? Look at our track record: despite having the world’s largest proven reserves and over 20 different administrations of every political stripe since 1922, the State captured and managed over $1.2 trillion in rent between 1920 and 2015. The result? A Guinness world record in squandered booms, the largest migration in the hemisphere without a formal war, and unprecedented institutional destruction.
Isn’t it time to withdraw the State from oil?
This proposal would achieve:
Real competitiveness: By matching Texas and Alberta margins (50%+ for the private sector), we compensate for institutional risks with top-tier global profitability.
A limited State: The State ceases to be an inefficient businessman and becomes an arbiter: providing control, arbitration, and security. Its funding would come from taxing other economic activities, forcing it to foster general prosperity rather than living off the subsoil.
A path towards a dividend-producing nation: Why not extend this to all extractive activities (gas, gold, iron, rare earths)? Perhaps the gold of the Arco Minero would stop being a black hole and become a direct dividend, shielding resources from looting and opacity.
The January 2026 reform is just a sigh in a prolonged agony. We cannot expect different results by doing the same thing. The “Hundred-Year War” over oil rent has left the State as a jailer rich in promises and a citizenry poor in realities.
Avoiding a third nationalization requires moving the subsoil out of the political arena and into the sphere of economic freedom. The US does not dominate markets by government mandate, but through an ecosystem that rewards risk and efficiency. Venezuela can emulate this success, but only by breaking the State lock and allowing a fabric of investors to flourish in direct alliance with citizens.
True sovereignty is not the State running the wells; it is Venezuelans themselves being the real owners of the benefits. Only through this pact of ownership can we hope that oil becomes, at last, an engine of development and not the tool of our own institutional destruction.
EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is set to meet G7 trade ministers on Monday after United States President Donald Trump upped the pressure on trading partners with a 15% across-the-board tariffs on imports entering the American market.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump’s move came after a US Supreme Court ruling last week struck down several global duties he had imposed from the White House last year, overturning a central part of his trade policy.
Brussels is now demanding legal clarity. The EU is bound to Washington by a trade pact clinched in July 2025 by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Trump, setting tariffs on EU exports at 15% while committing the bloc to slash its own duties to zero.
“Full clarity on what these new developments mean for the EU-US trade relationship is the absolute minimum that is required in order for us the EU to make a clear-eyed assessment and decide on next steps,” Commission deputy spokesperson Olof Gill said on Monday.
Key Parliament vote expected
Šefčovič’s G7 talks come ahead of a closed-door meeting of EU ambassadors to assess the fallout from the latest developments in the US.
Some member states, including France, are prepared to deploy the bloc’s Anti-Coercion Instrument – the so-called “trade bazooka” that allows restrictions on public procurement, licenses and intellectual property rights if necessary to push back against external pressure.
Attention is now shifting to the European Parliament, which was set to vote Tuesday on implementing the EU-US agreement by cutting tariffs on US goods, as included in the deal. Instead, MEPs are meeting on Monday afternoon to decide on the future enforcement of the agreement.
The Parliament has led resistance to the US administration, arguing the deal signed in Scotland last summer was unbalanced.
German MEP Bernd Lange, who chairs the Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, said on Sunday that he will urge negotiators to suspend the agreement. But Zeljana Zovko, lead negotiator for the EPP – the Parliament’s largest group – struck a cooler tone, telling Euronews that MEPs “keep calm and do our [their] part.”
“No need to add any more fuel to an already existing fire,” she said.
