Gen Z views music and fashion trends as economic recession indicators.
Traditional economic indicators show no current signs of a recession.
Gen Z uses social media to discuss economic theories.
The U.S. has not been declared in a recession by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Get personalized, AI-powered answers built on 27+ years of trusted expertise.
Generation Z is using social media to voice concerns about a potential U.S. recession, drawing attention to signs they believe are indicators of economic stress: from Lady Gaga’s newest album to 2000s-style low-rise jeans. Is this an exaggerated response to uncertainty, or is Gen Z tapped into early economic warning signs that might typically go unnoticed?
While it can be tempting to get sucked into these theories, ultimately, experts and data suggest that these are unreliable indicators and that a recession is not looming. Here’s what to know.
Insights from Gen Z on Economic Trends
Generation Z is interpreting the return of 2000s trends as indicators of an impending recession. The resurgence of fashion styles such as low-rise jeans, cheetah print, and rhinestone apparel parallels the cultural trends leading up to the 2008 Great Recession. In turn, Gen Z is concluding that these are warning signs of a similar time period, rather than turning to actual economic data and expert analysis.
Music is another way Gen Z is interpreting recession indicators. For instance, Lady Gaga’s latest album has led TikTok users to comment on how the country is heading toward economic turmoil due to the album’s similarity to her pre-recession era music. Newer artists, such as Chappell Roan, are also sparking commentary on the resemblance of 2000s-styled music, reinforcing this theory.
Important
Social media plays a primary role in spreading Gen Z’s economic theories. For example, Gen Z has started incorporating these discussions in trending TikTok formats, such as “Get Ready with Me”-styled videos.
Economic Data Analysis: Understanding the Trends
So, is there any merit to what Gen Z sees as cultural cues to a souring economy? Established economic indicators suggest no. Traditionally, economists look at gross domestic product (GDP), unemployment rates, and the stock market to gauge recession risk. Let’s break down where each of these stands.
GDP
Government data reports that GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025. Increases in consumer spending and investment contributed to the GDP increase. For a recession to start, there needs to be an increase in the unemployment rate and a decrease in GDP for two consecutive quarters.
J.P. Morgan anticipated a 0.25% annualized growth rate in GDP for the second half of 2025. Based on their data, they estimated that the probability of a recession has decreased from 60% to 40% due to a reduction in tariffs on China by the United States.
Unemployment Rates
Economists and policymakers use the Sahm rule to identify if there is a recession, as described by the U.S. Congress. The rule signals a recession if “the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate increases by 0.5 percentage points or more relative to its low in the previous 12 months.”
Unemployment rates are currently at 4.4%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For comparison, the unemployment rate before the 2008 recession was 5%. Thus, the rule has not been triggered, indicating that there is no recession, though it remains a useful early indicator of a potential recession.
Important
The National Bureau of Economic Research has not declared the U.S. to be in a recession.
Gen Z’s recession indicators, such as music and fashion, may be persuasive, but their concerns do not reflect actual trends. While the pressures of federal layoffs and tariff tensions persist, most traditional indicators signal a moderately stable environment and do not suggest the country is in a recession.
Ultimately, while Gen Z’s recession interpretations may not be reliable, they do highlight a cultural shift in how younger generations understand the economy, relying on cultural cues rather than traditional data.
(Bloomberg) — President Donald Trump told a group of Latin American leaders that they need to work with the US to target drug trafficking cartels as he sought to bolster US leadership in the region. Read More
France will push back against a European Commission plan to fast-track ratification of trade agreements by circulating only English-language versions during talks with EU governments and lawmakers, skipping translation into the bloc’s 24 official languages, according to several sources.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The slow ratification of the contentious EU–Mercosur trade deal has frustrated the Commission, which wants to accelerate negotiations and bring deals into force more quickly as it seeks new markets amid rising geopolitical tensions.
Translating the agreements into every official EU language can take months due to the legal scrubbing required before the ratification process begins. The EU executive has confirmed to Euronews that trade chief Maroš Šefčovič told EU trade ministers in February that the trade deal with India concludedon 27 January could serve as a test case for using English as the main language during ratification.
“We lost almost €300 billion by not having the Mercosur agreement in place since 2021, if it comes to the GDP, and more than €200 billion in export opportunities,” Šefčovič told journalists after meeting ministers on 20 February, adding that once negotiations end it can take up to 2.5 years before businesses can operate in partner countries.
“In today’s world, we cannot simply lose the time,” he said.
Šefčovič said the Commission would ensure the agreements are translated into all 24 official EU languages once published in the Official Journal, i.e. after ratification. He added the proposal was backed by at least seven member states at the meeting, though not all countries had time to speak.
French sources who spoke to Euronews were insistent that Paris would vigorously oppose the move to English-only agreements if necessary.
“As a matter of principle, we defend the use of all the languages of the Union, and in particular French, which is one of the EU’s working languages,” one official told Euronews.
‘Transparency, precision and understanding’
Language policy in the bloc’s institutions remains politically sensitive for countries such as France, whose language has declined sharply over the past decades as English massively dominates daily work in the European Union institutions – despite French, German and English being the three working languages.
“Switching entirely to English raises a legal and democratic issue, and the Commission is well aware of it,” an EU diplomat told Euronews.
On its website, the European Commission says linguistic diversity is essential and that the EU promotes multilingualism in its institutional work.
The bloc once even had a commissioner dedicated to multilingualism, though the portfolio was gradually merged with others and eventually disappeared.
“I have the impression that in some cases the Commission seizes the opportunity to push the idea that English has a superior status, and that the other official languages are translation languages that can come later,” Michele Gazzola, expert in language policy, said.
He added that relying only on English during ratification could pose problems for members of the European Parliament, and even more so if national parliaments are involved.
“It’s a matter of transparency, precision and understanding.”
At least 10 people have died, and more than 100 have been injured, after Iran launched barrages of missile and drone attacks against every member of the GCC in retaliation for US-Israeli strikes on Tehran.
Until February 28, few in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) could have imagined missiles flying overhead, let alone crashing into the glass facades of five-star hotels. For decades, cities such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha had been marketed as luxurious, safe havens—business and financial hubs seemingly shielded from the harshness of the desert and regional geopolitical turbulence, thanks to vast petrodollar wealth.
Recent attacks have punctured that sense of invulnerability.
The economic implications remain uncertain, but the US-Iran war marks a clear turning point. With much of the region still on high alert, business activity has begun to slow down and investors are reassessing risk. In January, the World Bank projected 4.4% growth for GCC countries this year. On March 2, however, JPMorgan cut its non-oil growth forecast by 0.3 percentage points.
“Businesses shift quickly into contingency mode: staff safety, operational coverage, supply, and cash-flow discipline,” says Abdulaziz Al-Anjeri, Founder & CEO, Reconnaissance Research in Kuwait. “You also see immediate attention to the ‘price of risk’—airspace and logistics friction quickly translate into higher war-risk premiums, insurance costs, and delayed decisions. The strongest response is quiet competence—keeping the lights on without drama”
Even in the most remote areas of the GCC feel the effects of the crisis. In Khasab, the last Oman town on the coast of the Strait of Hormuz and a popular tourist destination for outdoor activities, Ali Al Shuaili runs a diving center.
“Everything is normal, but the sea is closed so we can’t go fishing or diving and, of course, all tourist bookings have been cancelled,” he tells Global Finance via WhatsApp. “Life-wise, it looks normal, but everybody is worried about the business. We pray for everything to settle down quickly.”
For now, banks in the region are absorbing the shock, supported by strong liquidity and capital buffers.
“We are not seeing any direct impact on banking operations in the UAE or the wider GCC,” says Bader Al Sarraf, Research Analyst at Standard Chartered’s UAE office. “Financial institutions across the region continue to operate normally, supported by strong infrastructure, resilient financial systems, and established operational resilience frameworks that enable banks to continue facilitating transactions and supporting business activity even during periods of heightened uncertainty.”
Banks and major institutions focus first on continuity— keeping core functions stable: payments, customer access, liquidity management, and clear reassurance, adds An-Anjeri. “In moments like this, finance is not only about balance sheets; it’s also about maintaining confidence, because uncertainty can do damage even without physical disruption.”
Across the region, the prevailing approach among institutions, corporates, and investors is to monitor developments rather than take immediate action, according to Al-Sarraf.
“Given that the situation remains fluid and still in its early stages, many are in a ‘digest and risk assessment’ phase before making strategic decisions,” he says. “This reflects a period of careful observation as developments continue to unfold and as businesses and investors evaluate the potential implications across sectors and economic activity.”
One immediate concern is digital infrastructure. The Gulf has spent years positioning itself as a regional hub for data centers, but the conflict has exposed its vulnerability. Amazon Web Services reported that drones attacked three of its facilities in the UAE and Bahrain, disrupting cloud and IT services across the region. In the UAE, several bank customers briefly lost access to their online accounts. Such incidents could prompt US tech giants, including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Oracle, all of which have invested heavily in Gulf data infrastructure, to reassess their exposure.
Weaknesses Exposed
The war has highlighted structural weaknesses in the region’s economic model. Despite years of diversification efforts, most GCC economies still rely heavily on hydrocarbon revenues.
QatarEnergy, the world’s largest liquified natural gas (LNG) producer, halted production afte drones hit two of its facilities. Oil exports are also affected. Saudi Arabia partially shut the Ras Tanura refinery, one of the largest in the Middle East, with a capacity of 550,000 barrels a day.
Now, all eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world’s hydrocarbon supply transits. For GCC economies, the disruption translates into billions of dollars in daily revenue at risk.
“If the war drags on, you can get a mixed picture: energy revenues may benefit from risk pricing, while the broader economy pays through confidence, logistics, insurance, and financing costs,” says Reconnaissance Research’s An-Anjeri. “Non-oil sectors tend to feel prolonged uncertainty first because they’re confidence-sensitive—services, travel, retail, private investment. GCC states have buffers, but buffers don’t replace stability.”
Another major concern is food security: The region relies overwhelmingly on imports to feed its population, with roughly 70% of food shipments arriving through the Strait of Hormuz. The system has faced stress tests before—during the Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, and in 2017 when several GCC countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, imposed an embargo on Qatar. At the time, Doha imported around 90% of its food. Since then, the country has invested heavily in domestic production and is now self-sufficient in milk, but it still depends on imports for much of the rest.
Water security may be an even more critical vulnerability. Nearly 90% of drinking water in GCC countries comes from desalination plants. Any disruption, whether from direct damage or oil spills affecting coastal facilities, could quickly trigger a humanitarian crisis within days.
For now, most governments and businesses are in a wait-and-see mode. But as the conflict widens, including in Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, towards Cyprus and Turkey… longer-term scenarios are beginning to enter boardroom discussions.
“In the short run, if the war ends quickly, I don’t think there will be any significant impact on the banks, but if the conflict extends over weeks and if the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz continues to be even temporarily interrupted, eventually this will definitely affect GCC economies, government revenues, and trade flows,” notes Beirut-based Ali Awdeh, head of research at the Union of Arab banks.
For Al-Anjeri, the situation evolves, a number of lessons are already emerging: “For institutions, the takeaway is to treat stress-testing as real: cyber scenarios, telecom dependencies, liquidity access, supply-chain choke points, and customer-communication playbooks that are ready before the crisis—not written during it,” he says. “Hardware matters, but crisis governance matters too: credible communication, continuity discipline, and de-escalation channels so one incident doesn’t trigger a chain reaction.”
(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.
Los Angeles cannabis businesses that owe back taxes wouldn’t have to pay late fees and interest under an “amnesty” program proposed by the City Council.
To qualify, the businesses would have to pay their city taxes within three years.
The council’s unanimous vote on Tuesday, asking the Office of Finance to draft language creating the program, comes at a time when city leaders are searching for money to cover basic services after closing a $1-billion budget gap.
More than 500 of the roughly 700 licensed cannabis businesses in the city collectively owed about $400 million in taxes — an amount that includes $100 million in penalties and $35 million in interest, according to an October report from the Office of Finance.
The total amount owed increased to $417 million as of December, according to Matthew Crawford, the office’s assistant director.
But only about $150 million is collectible, since some tax debts are outside of the three-year statute of limitations and some cannabis businesses are no longer operating.
Based on a projection that about half of eligible cannabis businesses would take part in the program, the city would collect about $30 million in back taxes while waiving about $25 million in penalties, the October report said.
Under the amnesty program, about 20% of the revenue would go to the city’s general fund and the Office of Finance. The Los Angeles Police Department and the city attorney’s office would receive about 40% for illegal cannabis enforcement, and the remaining 40% would fund social equity grants to cannabis operators, particularly members of low-income and minority communities that have been subject to disparate enforcement of criminal cannabis laws.
“The city finds itself with a unique opportunity to bring businesses into compliance and, at the same time, properly fund cannabis industry-centric programming,” City Councilmember Imelda Padilla said during Tuesday’s meeting.
Owners of cannabis businesses say the 10% city tax rate on their gross sales is exorbitant, at the same time that illegal cannabis businesses have carved out a chunk of the market.
“Not only are we competing against the illicit market, we’re competing against licensed dispensaries that the city is allowing to stay open who have made it their business model to not pay tax,” Daniel Sosa, who owns four cannabis dispensaries in the city, told the council on Tuesday.
The amnesty program should be mandatory for businesses that are behind on their taxes, and those who default on their payments should have their licenses stripped, Sosa said.
Sosa said that the tax on cannabis sales should be “just like every other business pays in the city: guns, tobacco, alcohol, major, major billion dollar corporations.”
Other business tax rates in the city range from 0.11% to 0.425%, according to Crawford.
Last month, the council placed a cannabis-related measure on the June 2 ballot that, if approved by voters, would close a tax loophole for illegal cannabis businesses and open them up to the threat of civil collection.
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.
