A record 142,000 millionaires are expected to relocate internationally this year alone — and most investors still do not fully understand what this means for markets.

The article Record number of millionaires are moving — investors should pay attention appeared first on Arabian Post.

The article Is Wall Street heading for a market correction? appeared first on Arabian Post.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has joined US President Donald Trump on Air Force One on his trip to China, after initial indications the executive had not been invited.

Read that line again, because it tells you almost everything you need to know about modern markets.

A generation ago, the most important seat on a presidential trip to Beijing might have gone to an oil chief, a banker, or the head of an industrial conglomerate.

Today, it belongs to the man whose company designs the chips powering AI. There’s no mistaking that this means that capital and influence have shifted. The centre of gravity in global markets has shifted with it.

This is why investors should pay close attention.

Nvidia is no longer simply a brilliant tech company riding a huge wave of demand. It’s become something rarer and more valuable: a strategic asset in an era where computing power shapes economic strength, military capability, productivity growth and political leverage.

Markets often lag these transitions. They continue to analyse companies through the old toolkit of quarterly earnings, gross margins, unit sales and guidance revisions.

Of course, these are valuable and useful metrics, certainly, but incomplete. Some businesses now command premiums because they matter beyond the balance sheet.

Nvidia sits firmly in that category.

China is where this becomes especially significant.

Investors for years have watched the tug-of-war over semiconductor restrictions, export controls and technological containment. Many assumed Chinese demand for Nvidia was effectively lost.

I believe that conclusion has always been too simplistic.

Demand in China didn’t disappear. It hit a political wall. And there’s a huge difference, of course, in that.

The appetite for AI infrastructure in the world’s second-largest economy remains immense. Corporates want automation, researchers want compute, cloud providers want capacity, manufacturers want efficiency, logistics groups want optimization, and, as ever, national champions want technological scale.

None of those ambitions faded because Washington tightened rules. Rather, they were postponed.

Even a modest thaw matters. Markets do not need fireworks or a sweeping grand bargain. They need signs that channels may reopen, licences may broaden, approved products may move more smoothly, or dialogue has become more practical. Small policy shifts can have large valuation consequences when the addressable market is measured in hundreds of billions.

Many investors still frame Nvidia’s next leg of growth almost entirely around US hyperscaler spending. For me, that’s too narrow a lens. The next chapter may also include sovereign buyers, industrial AI adoption, enterprise acceleration and renewed overseas demand wherever political conditions soften.

Another truth deserves emphasis too.

China is working aggressively to build domestic alternatives, and it would be reckless to dismiss that effort. Capital, talent and strategic urgency can achieve a great deal. Yet replacing a market leader is harder than headlines suggest.

Semiconductor dominance is not just about designing a faster chip. It’s about software ecosystems, developer loyalty, optimisation tools, reliability, installed base and years of embedded trust. Nvidia’s advantage has been built layer by layer. Competitors can narrow gaps, but ecosystems are not cloned overnight.

This is why the market keeps returning to Nvidia despite concerns over valuation, competition and cycle fears. Leadership of this depth commands a premium.

Still, investors should remain clear-eyed. Every month that restrictions persist gives rivals more time to improve. Necessity is a formidable incubator of innovation.

Over the long run, Chinese competition will become stronger, more credible and more investable.

Both ideas can be true simultaneously: Nvidia can remain the global leader while facing increasing pressure in parts of one crucial market.

Short term, however, this latest development is plainly constructive.

It suggests the White House views Nvidia as commercially and strategically important enough to have direct representation at the highest level. It suggests economics still has a voice in geopolitical disputes. It suggests advanced computing is now too important to be left out of the room.

That message travels far beyond one stock.

It’s relevant for the likes of AMD, TSMC, ASML and the broader ecosystem tied to AI infrastructure. If trade friction eases even marginally, the benefits can ripple through the supply chain.

The larger lesson for investors is impossible to ignore.

Geopolitics no longer sits in the background as an occasional market nuisance. It now runs through revenue models, earnings assumptions and valuation multiples.

Tariffs move currencies, export rules move margins, and diplomatic symbolism moves trillion-dollar companies.

Nvidia embodies this new market order more clearly than any other listed name.

Jensen Huang joining the Beijing trip this week is more than a headline curiosity. It’s a snapshot of where power resides in 2026.

Investors who grasp that shift early are, in my view, likely to prosper from it.

Those who shrug it off as ceremony may discover, as markets often do, that symbolism was the signal all along.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Trump takes Nvidia to Beijing appeared first on Arabian Post.

A war that threatens the flow of one-fifth of the world’s oil supply should be dominating market pricing. It isn’t.

President Donald Trump has pushed the US deeper into confrontation with Iran, locking policy into a narrow and dangerous path.

The Strait of Hormuz remains under constant threat, energy flows are disrupted, and, as a result, oil has surged above $110 a barrel at points in recent days and remains structurally elevated.

Yet equities continue to climb, supported by something else entirely: exceptional corporate earnings.

This is where, for me, the disconnect begins.

Roughly two-thirds of S&P 500 companies have now reported first-quarter results, and the numbers are undeniably strong.

Earnings growth is running at around 25% to 30% year-on-year, one of the fastest expansions in recent years. More than 80% of companies are beating expectations, many by a wide margin. Revenues are holding firm, margins remain resilient, and the largest tech companies are once again driving a disproportionate share of the gains.

The market is leaning heavily into this strength.

Money is flowing into AI-linked sectors, infrastructure, and mega-cap tech names with a level of conviction that reflects belief in sustained earnings expansion. The S&P 500 is trading near record levels as a result. We’re clearly seeing that momentum is powerful and concentrated.

It’s also masking risk.

Earnings tell you what has already happened. Markets should be pricing what comes next. Right now, investors are anchored to backward-looking data while underweighting a geopolitical shock that is unfolding in real time.

Oil above $100 is not a background variable. It feeds directly into inflation, transport costs, supply chains, and corporate margins. It raises input costs across industries and forces central banks into a more restrictive stance than markets would otherwise expect.

The transmission mechanism is already visible. Airlines are warning on fuel costs. Logistics and transport companies are facing margin pressure. Supply chain costs are beginning to edge higher again. These are early signals, not isolated incidents, and, in my opinion, investors should be paying more attention.

The broader issue is that geopolitical risk is being mispriced.

President Donald Trump is not stepping back, it would seem. The rhetoric has hardened. Military actions have intensified. Strategic shipping routes remain vulnerable. Each escalation increases the probability that disruption becomes prolonged rather than temporary.

History offers a clear framework. Oil shocks tied to conflict rarely resolve quickly. They embed themselves into inflation, into policy decisions, and into asset pricing over time. The current situation has already disrupted a significant portion of global supply flows, and the potential for further escalation remains high.

Despite this, there has been no meaningful repricing of risk assets.

Equities remain resilient. Volatility is contained. There has been no broad-based de-risking. Markets are behaving as though strong earnings can absorb geopolitical stress.

They can’t.

Strong earnings can delay the impact of external shocks. They cannot eliminate it. If oil remains elevated, inflation expectations will rise. If inflation rises, interest rate expectations adjust. If rates stay higher for longer, equity valuations come under pressure.

At the same time, continued disruption to energy supply introduces the risk of further price spikes and more persistent inflationary pressure. The interaction between geopolitics, energy, and monetary policy is where the real risk lies.

Markets are currently pricing a benign outcome.

They are assuming that earnings strength will continue, that the conflict will stabilise, and that inflation will remain under control. Each of those assumptions is optimistic. Taken together, they represent a significant underestimation of risk.

This is how mispricing develops.

Markets tend to absorb geopolitical risk slowly, then adjust rapidly once the implications become unavoidable. The current environment reflects the early stage of that process. The signals are there, but they are being overridden by earnings momentum and sector-specific optimism.

This gap between reality and pricing is unstable.

Energy is not a peripheral input. It is the foundation of the global economy. A sustained disruption at this scale reverberates through every asset class. It changes cost structures, policy responses, and growth trajectories.

Staying out of the market is not the answer, however.

History teaches us that long-term capital still needs exposure, and periods of dislocation often create some of the strongest opportunities. The approach, however, has to evolve.

This is a market that demands sharper judgement.

Broad, passive exposure carries more risk in this environment. Greater selectivity, and advice, becomes essential.

Companies with pricing power, strong balance sheets, and direct exposure to structural growth themes remain better positioned. Energy producers, defence, and segments of commodities are likely to continue benefiting from the current backdrop.

At the same time, overextended areas of the market that rely on low-cost capital or flawless growth assumptions face greater vulnerability.

Positioning should reflect that shift.

Diversification across geographies and asset classes becomes more important as volatility builds. Holding liquidity to deploy into dislocations adds flexibility. A disciplined focus on valuation and earnings durability matters more than momentum alone.

Markets are not broken, but they’re increasingly misaligned with reality.

The repricing will come. Investors who remain engaged and who seek proper advice will be better placed to capture returns and manage the risks that are no longer being ignored.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Trump stuck down blind alley as markets stay blinded by profits appeared first on Arabian Post.

Oil at $80 would once have been considered elevated. Now it would be interpreted as stability, and that shift alone reveals how fundamentally the market has changed.

Brent crude moving beyond $120 this week is widely being described as a spike driven by geopolitical tension. That interpretation is too narrow. Price action reflects something deeper and more consequential: a structural reset in how energy is priced, traded, and increasingly used as a direct instrument of geopolitical strategy.

At best, oil falls back to $80. Even at that level, the market remains far removed from the conditions seen at the start of the year, when crude hovered near $60 and key supply routes were broadly assumed to function without deliberate interference. That assumption no longer holds.

The catalyst is clear and measurable. A US-led blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted a corridor that carries close to 21 million barrels per day, accounting for roughly one fifth of global oil consumption, alongside a significant share of global LNG flows. Disruption at that scale does not simply tighten supply; it forces a repricing of risk across the entire energy complex.

Oil had already advanced above $100 before the latest escalation. The move through $120 reflects both immediate supply concerns and a sharp expansion in geopolitical premium. Tanker rates have surged, insurance costs have multiplied, and shipping routes are being adjusted, adding time, cost, and uncertainty into global energy distribution. These are not marginal adjustments; they are structural pressures feeding directly into pricing.

Focus on disruption alone misses the more important development. President Donald Trump is using energy access as leverage in the confrontation with Iran, placing supply constraints within a broader strategic framework. Oil is no longer sitting outside geopolitical negotiations; it’s embedded within them.

Markets are now attempting to price political intent alongside traditional fundamentals. Once a chokepoint such as Hormuz becomes part of a negotiation strategy, it ceases to function as neutral infrastructure. Risk becomes embedded into the system rather than appearing as a temporary shock.

A ceasefire announced weeks ago has not restored confidence in uninterrupted flows, precisely because the underlying structure remains unchanged. The possibility of renewed restrictions continues to influence pricing, and that influence does not dissipate quickly.

A retreat to $80 would still leave oil approximately 30% above where it began the year. For the global economy, that represents a meaningful and persistent shift. According to the International Energy Agency, every sustained $10 increase in oil prices adds around 0.2 percentage points to global inflation, feeding directly into transport costs, manufacturing inputs, and consumer prices.

Inflation expectations are adjusting in response. Energy costs move rapidly through supply chains, forcing businesses to reassess pricing and compressing margins where pass-through is limited. Consumers feel the effect almost immediately, while policymakers are faced with a more complex challenge as elevated energy prices maintain pressure on inflation.

Growth dynamics are shifting in parallel. Temporary increases in costs can be absorbed, but ongoing uncertainty changes behaviour. Investment decisions are delayed, expansion plans are reconsidered, and corporate confidence weakens.

Economies that rely heavily on imported energy, including large parts of Europe and Asia, are particularly exposed as higher prices feed into trade balances and earnings.

Supply-side flexibility offers limited relief. Spare production capacity remains concentrated within a small number of producers, primarily within OPEC+, and bringing additional supply online is neither immediate nor sufficient to offset a sustained disruption of this scale. This constraint reinforces a higher floor for oil prices.

Financial markets are already adjusting to this new reality. Energy producers and commodity-linked assets are benefiting from stronger pricing, while sectors with high transport exposure or limited pricing power are facing increased pressure.

The divergence is becoming more pronounced as cost structures shift.

The implications extend well beyond oil itself. Trade routes, sanctions, and supply chains are being used more assertively within geopolitical strategy, accelerating the speed at which political decisions translate into market outcomes.

Investors are operating in a world where those linkages are more direct and more immediate than in previous cycles.

Governments are responding by placing greater emphasis on energy security, with increased focus on domestic production, diversified supply chains, and strategic reserves. Investment into alternative energy sources is also gaining momentum, driven by the need to reduce exposure to external disruption.

Oil at $120 captures attention. Oil at $80 would be presented as stabilisation. Neither reflects a return to previous conditions. The market has shifted in a way that embeds a higher and more persistent baseline.

Energy flows can no longer be treated as a given. They’re increasingly shaped by political decisions, and that reality is now reflected in pricing.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Oil dropping to $80 would still be a new world appeared first on Arabian Post.

I remain strongly positive on AI. The pace of development, the scale of capital flowing into the sector, and the productivity upside it promises are all significant.

Equity markets have responded accordingly, with leadership concentrated in semiconductors, cloud platforms, and software. The concentration reflects real earnings power and strong visibility.

At the same time, the investment landscape around AI is broadening.

The next phase is taking shape, I believe, partly through the physical systems required to support it.

The data already signals how large this shift could be. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that global data centre electricity consumption could surpass 1,000 terawatt-hours by 2026, more than double recent levels.

This would bring demand close to the current annual consumption of Japan. In the United States, data centres account for roughly 4% of total electricity usage today. Projections from grid operators and industry groups suggest that share could approach 8% before 2030.

Those figures represent a structural increase in demand rather than a cyclical upswing. Meeting it requires sustained investment in generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure.

Grid access is already emerging as a constraint. In several major markets, developers are facing delays measured in years to secure connections for new data centres. Utilities are responding with increased capital expenditure focused on transmission upgrades, substations, and network resilience.

Annual investment across US utilities is running at well over $150 billion, with a growing allocation tied to data centre demand and electrification more broadly.

This is shifting the earnings profile of the sector. Historically viewed as stable but low-growth, utilities are now positioned to benefit from a multi-year expansion cycle linked to AI, electrification, and industrial demand.

Visibility on long-term investment programmes is improving, and regulatory frameworks in many regions allow for cost recovery and returns on capital deployed.

Energy supply is only part of the equation. Transmission capacity is becoming just as important. Building generation without the ability to move electricity efficiently across regions limits the system’s effectiveness.

As such, companies involved in grid infrastructure, high-voltage transmission, and network management are gaining strategic importance.

Water is another factor moving into focus.

Hyperscale data centres rely on cooling systems that can consume several million litres per day, particularly in high-temperature environments. Research from University of California, Riverside highlights the broader water footprint associated with AI, including indirect usage through power generation. In areas facing water stress, this is influencing planning approvals, operating costs, and long-term viability.

Operators are adapting by prioritising locations with reliable access to both electricity and water, alongside favourable regulatory conditions.

This is creating a geographic dimension to the AI build-out. Regions able to provide stable infrastructure at scale are attracting investment, while others face constraints that limit development.

From an investment perspective, this introduces a second layer to the AI theme.

The first layer, meaning compute, semiconductors, and software, remains central, of course. Alongside it, infrastructure is becoming a critical enabler with its own return profile.

Opportunities are emerging across several segments. Utilities with exposure to grid expansion and renewable integration stand to benefit from rising demand and increased capital deployment.

Companies involved in energy storage and load balancing are positioned to support system stability as consumption patterns become more complex. Transmission specialists and equipment providers are essential to expanding network capacity. Cooling technology and water management systems are also likely to see increased investment as efficiency becomes a priority.

These areas share a common characteristic: they sit at points where demand is rising faster than existing capacity. That dynamic tends to support pricing power, long-term contracts, and predictable cash flows.

Policy is reinforcing the trend. Governments are placing greater emphasis on energy security, grid resilience, and domestic infrastructure. AI development is becoming part of that framework, with countries competing to attract data centre investment and the associated economic activity. Infrastructure readiness is increasingly part of that competition, shaping both public and private capital allocation.

The broader implication is clear. AI is driving a convergence between digital innovation and physical infrastructure. Growth in compute capacity cannot be separated from the systems that power and sustain it.

Markets have begun to recognise this, but positioning remains concentrated in the most visible parts of the theme. As capital requirements increase and bottlenecks become more apparent, investment is likely to spread across a wider set of sectors.

I see this as a continuation of the same underlying trend rather than a shift away from it.

AI remains the core driver. The difference is that its expansion is now placing measurable demands on energy, water, and infrastructure networks.

Therefore, I believe that investors who incorporate those dynamics into their positioning are likely to capture a broader share of the opportunity.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Next AI trade? Power grids and water rights appeared first on Arabian Post.

Dubai still delivers, even in the shadow of war.

I’ve just arrived back in the city where we have our headquarters and several core offices, and what strikes me immediately is not disruption, but continuity.

The US-Iran conflict has injected real tension into the region, with the Strait of Hormuz under pressure and the wider Middle East adjusting to a far more uncertain backdrop.

Yet here in Dubai, daily life, business activity, and long-term ambition continue with a level of stability that few global cities could replicate under similar conditions.

This matters, because Dubai has never positioned itself as a place that only works when the world is calm. Its real strength shows when conditions are more complex.

Spending time here again reinforces why it remains one of the most compelling destinations globally for work, finance, and lifestyle.

The fundamentals that drew talent and capital in the first place are still firmly in place. The city offers a combination that is difficult to match: tax efficiency, global connectivity, safety, and a business environment built to enable rather than obstruct.

The career proposition remains particularly strong. Dubai continues to attract professionals across finance, AI and tech, and entrepreneurship, with a jobs market that is still expanding and evolving despite the geopolitical backdrop.

The depth of opportunity is visible in the number of firms setting up, expanding, and hiring. Financial services. in particular, continue to scale rapidly, with new entrants and established players growing their footprint.

Being back in our offices this week, the energy is clear. People are not stepping back, they’re leaning in. Conversations are focused on growth, hiring, expansion, and positioning for what comes next. The mindset is not universal globally right now, and it underlines a key point: Dubai attracts individuals who are here to build.

Lifestyle remains a central part of the equation. Dubai continues to offer one of the safest environments globally, supported by infrastructure that allows both professional and personal life to operate smoothly.

The ease of living here removes friction. Systems work efficiently, processes are streamlined, and people can focus on their careers, businesses, and families without unnecessary obstacles.

The regional context cannot be ignored. The conflict has tested perceptions of safety and stability, and there has been scrutiny around how Dubai holds up under pressure. Questions have been raised about whether its position as a global hub can endure in this environment.

What I see on the ground points to resilience.

Dubai is not pausing. Infrastructure investment continues, long-term economic planning remains intact, and development across financial districts, transport, and housing is moving forward.

This reflects a city that understands its position and continues to build on it, even as the region faces heightened tension.

A deeper structural shift also supports its outlook. Global talent and capital are more mobile than ever, and both are seeking environments that offer clarity, efficiency, and opportunity. Dubai continues to meet those requirements.

Many professionals are choosing to remain, expand, and deepen their presence here rather than step away, which reinforces the city’s stability.

This resilience has been built deliberately over time. Dubai has diversified its economy, strengthened its financial ecosystem, and positioned itself as a hub that connects global markets. It doesn’t rely on a single narrative or sector to sustain its growth.

Returning now, the sense is not that Dubai is insulated from what is happening around it. It is that it is prepared for it.

Confidence in Dubai as a destination for work, finance, and lifestyle remains well placed. The city continues to attract ambitious professionals, global businesses, and international capital because it offers a rare combination of opportunity, stability, and quality of life.

For me, being back here reinforces a clear conclusion. Dubai doesn’t lose its appeal in difficult moments. It proves it.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Dubai still leads appeared first on Arabian Post.

The head of the International Monetary Fund on Monday defined the direction of glbal economic travel with unusual clarity.

“All roads now lead to higher prices and slower growth,” said managing director Kristalina Georgieva in an interview.

The IMF had expected global growth of 3.3% in 2026. Six weeks of war centred on Iran and the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz have already forced a rethink. Markets have registered the shift in forecasts.

But, pricing across assets still looks incomplete given where the pressure is most intense.

Asia sits at the centre of that pressure, and the reason is structural rather than cyclical.

Stagflation—rising inflation alongside weakening growth—requires a shock that pushes costs higher while constraining output.

The current energy disruption does both, and Asia’s dependence on imported fuel ensures the transmission is immediate and broad. Roughly a fifth of global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz and disruption has driven a sharp repricing in crude, lifting volatility and embedding a geopolitical premium into energy markets.

In Asia, that repricing moves quickly through the system. Energy costs feed directly into electricity, transport, petrochemicals and food production.

Inflation, therefore, broadens rather than remaining contained, reaching households and businesses almost simultaneously.

Equity markets tied to consumption and manufacturing are already beginning to reflect this shift as margins come under pressure and earnings expectations adjust.

At the same time, those rising costs are weighing on activity in ways that are becoming increasingly visible.

Industrial economies across the region are adjusting under strain.

South Korea has been forced to secure alternative crude supplies while managing reduced efficiency in refining and petrochemical output.

India has pushed through higher domestic fuel prices as import costs rise, feeding inflation while weakening demand.

Airlines across the region a are cutting routes and adjusting operations as jet fuel tightens, offering a clear signal that supply constraints are feeding directly into economic activity. Transport, logistics and manufacturing names face a difficult combination of higher costs and softer demand.

This interaction is what elevates the current environment into something more complex.

Inflation is rising because supply has been disrupted. Growth is slowing because that same disruption is increasing costs and limiting production.

Both forces are moving together, and neither can be addressed without intensifying the other. Markets tend to respond poorly to this combination because it undermines both earnings visibility and policy clarity at the same time.

Export-driven economies depend on competitive cost structures. Higher energy prices erode that advantage quickly, pushing up the price of goods and reducing demand in external markets. Domestic consumption offers limited support as households face rising living costs.

The result is pressure on both external and internal growth, while inflation continues to build. Cyclical sectors, particularly those exposed to global trade and discretionary spending, are vulnerable in this environment.

As ever, crrency dynamics reinforce the cycle and add another layer of risk.

As energy import bills rise, trade balances weaken. Several Asian currencies —including the Indian rupee, Indonesian rupiah and Philippine peso— are already under pressure. A weaker currency raises the local cost of imported fuel, feeding further into inflation and complicating policy responses.

Currency volatility introduces additional uncertainty for capital flows and asset allocation decisions, particularly in emerging markets where external balances are more fragile.

Policy responses offer limited room for manoeuvre, which adds to the uncertainty embedded in markets.

Central banks face a tightening constraint. Raising interest rates to contain inflation risks accelerating the slowdown already underway. Holding rates allows inflation to become more entrenched. Fiscal intervention can cushion households temporarily, yet it comes at the cost of wider deficits and potential currency weakness, feeding back into higher import costs. The absence of a clean policy solution tends to elevate risk premia across asset classes.

The exposure varies across the region, but the direction is consistent.

Japan, South Korea and India remain heavily reliant on imported energy and are already seeing rising costs filter through their economies.

Southeast Asia faces additional pressure through tighter fiscal positions and sensitivity to capital flows. Economies with weaker external balances are under sharper strain as fuel costs rise.

China retains greater policy flexibility, yet higher energy prices still feed into producer costs, and any slowdown in Chinese industrial activity transmits across regional supply chains. Regional equity and credit markets are unlikely to remain insulated if that transmission strengthens.

Markets continue to frame the Iran conflict as a geopolitical development with economic implications. In Asia, that distinction has already blurred.

The economic impact is visible in pricing, production and policy constraints, and it is feeding through to asset valuations in a way that suggests further adjustment is likely.

Six weeks of disruption have been sufficient to shift behaviour.

There is, however, a more constructive layer emerging beneath the immediate stress.

Higher energy prices are accelerating diversification strategies that had already begun to take shape.

India and Southeast Asia are increasing LNG procurement from outside the Gulf, while Japan and South Korea are drawing more heavily on strategic reserves and long-term supply agreements.

Investment in renewables and alternative energy infrastructure across Asia is likely to gain further momentum as governments and corporates seek to reduce exposure to flashpoints such as Hormuz.

At the same time, elevated volatility is creating clearer differentiation across sectors.

Energy producers, commodity exporters and infrastructure linked to supply diversification stand to benefit from sustained higher prices. Balance-sheet strength and pricing power are becoming more valuable characteristics in equity markets, favouring companies able to pass through higher costs without significant demand destruction.

Capital is already beginning to rotate accordingly. Markets aren’t simply absorbing the shock; they’re reallocating around it.

Asia’s structural growth story has not disappeared. Urbanisation, rising middle classes and ongoing industrial expansion remain intact over the medium term.

The current environment introduces a layer of complexity and pressure, but it also forces faster adaptation in energy sourcing, supply chain resilience and capital allocation.

Stagflation risk is real and rising. It does not, however, remove opportunity. It reshapes where it sits and how it is captured.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Stagflation risk is real and rising appeared first on Arabian Post.

Oil is repricing fast. Markets aren’t pricing the consequences.

Brent crude has surged more than 55% in March to around $115 a barrel, one of the sharpest monthly moves on record, as conflict involving the US, Israel and Iran intensifies and threats to energy infrastructure escalate.

Yet across equities, bonds and currencies, positioning still reflects the belief that this is temporary and reversible.

Markets are underestimating what follows, in my opinion.

Focus remains fixed on the speed of the move. Duration carries far greater significance. Oil at these levels, sustained rather than fleeting, feeds directly into inflation, growth expectations and asset pricing across the global system.

Energy runs through transport, manufacturing, agriculture and consumer pricing. The last inflation cycle demonstrated how quickly higher fuel costs cascade through economies.

Conditions now point to a renewed impulse, driven by disruption to supply routes and infrastructure rather than demand strength.

The Strait of Hormuz is central to this shift. Roughly 20% of global oil supply passes through this corridor. Pressure on flows is no longer theoretical. Delays, rising insurance costs and increased military presence are already affecting movement.

Any sustained constraint removes millions of barrels per day from accessible supply in a market where spare capacity remains limited.

Pricing frameworks built on rapid normalisation are being stretched.

Political signals are adding further complexity. Donald Trump has openly discussed taking control of Iranian oil assets, including the export hub at Kharg Island, while also indicating that a deal remains possible.

Markets must now incorporate policy intent as an active driver of pricing. Supply is shaped not only by production and demand, but by control over assets and transit routes.

This has immediate consequences for inflation expectations.

Oil above $100 feeds into headline inflation and then into core components through second-round effects. Transport costs rise; food prices follow. Businesses pass through higher input costs where possible and absorb them where margins are constrained. Both outcomes weigh on growth.

Bond markets are particularly sensitive.

Higher inflation expectations require higher yields. Government borrowing costs adjust accordingly. In major economies with elevated debt levels, even modest shifts in yields carry weight.

Sovereign bond markets, which have been anchored by assumptions of easing inflation, are now exposed to repricing.

Currency markets add another layer.

Energy-importing economies require more foreign currency as prices rise, widening trade deficits and placing downward pressure on exchange rates. Exporters benefit from improved terms of trade. This divergence is already emerging and is likely to widen if disruption persists.

Equities are beginning to reflect parts of this adjustment.

Energy-intensive sectors face rising costs, while producers benefit from higher prices. Regional divergence is becoming clearer, with markets more exposed to imported energy showing greater vulnerability.

However, broader positioning still leans on the assumption that oil will retreat and conditions will stabilise.

That assumption looks increasingly fragile.

Supply chains are tighter than in previous cycles, spare capacity is constrained, and risks now extend beyond extraction to include transport, infrastructure and political control.

Comparisons with recent geopolitical episodes are limited in their usefulness. The structure now developing points toward more persistent pressure rather than short-lived volatility.

The divergence between economies is becoming more pronounced.

Countries with substantial domestic energy production are better insulated from global supply disruptions.

Exporters benefit directly from higher prices. Import-dependent economies face rising costs, currency pressure and weaker growth prospects. This dynamic is reshaping capital flows and relative asset performance.

Investors allocate toward resilience. In an environment of elevated energy risk, capital tends to favour markets that benefit from higher prices or are less exposed to supply disruption. This shift is, I believe, still in its early stages.

The move in oil is already significant. The broader consequences are still unfolding.

Markets are pricing the headline. The adjustment across inflation, bonds, currencies and equities remains incomplete. The risk lies in the gap between current positioning and the reality of sustained higher energy costs.

Oil is repricing fast. The next phase is what it does to everything else.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Markets sleepwalking into an energy shock appeared first on Arabian Post.

Global bond markets are sending a message to the White House, and it’s one that cannot be ignored.

This comes even as President Donald Trump hails “productive” talks with Iran aimed at ending the conflict, signalling a potential diplomatic off-ramp. Yet despite this, markets remain unconvinced that tensions will ease quickly.

As tensions escalate between the US and Iran, investors aren’t responding in the way many would expect during a geopolitical crisis.

There’s been no broad flight into the safety of government debt. Instead, bond markets are selling off aggressively. Yields are rising across the world. Borrowing costs are climbing in real time.

This is not background noise. It’s a constraint on President Trump.

Oil has surged above $110 a barrel, driven by threats to critical energy infrastructure and the possibility of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, global equity markets have fallen sharply.

Under normal conditions, that combination would trigger a rally in government bonds as investors seek safety. But right now this is not happening.

US 10-year Treasury yields have pushed to multi-month highs. In the UK, 10-year gilt yields have moved above 5% for the first time since the global financial crisis.

European bond markets are following the same path. Prices are falling, yields are rising, and the repricing is broad-based and fast.

Bond markets are reacting to one dominant force: inflation risk.

Higher oil and gas prices are feeding directly into expectations that inflation will remain elevated for longer.

This is forcing a rapid reassessment of central bank policy. Expectations for rate cuts have been scaled back or abandoned entirely. In some cases, markets are beginning to price in the possibility of further tightening.

This matters because bond markets sit at the core of the financial system. They determine the cost of capital for governments, businesses and households. When yields rise sharply, financial conditions tighten. Growth slows. Fiscal flexibility shrinks.

And that’s where the geopolitical dimension becomes critical.

The United States enters this period from a position of relative energy strength. Domestic production and reserves provide a buffer against immediate supply shocks, which has contributed to the divergence between Brent crude, which reflects global seaborne risk, and WTI, which is more insulated.

But that insulation has limits.

The US economy is deeply interconnected with global demand and capital flows. A sustained rise in global energy prices does not remain contained overseas. It feeds back into inflation, into financial markets, and ultimately into domestic economic conditions.

Bond markets are already reflecting that reality.

Rising Treasury yields signal that investors are demanding higher compensation to hold US debt in an environment of elevated inflation and geopolitical uncertainty. The move is not trivial.

It tightens financial conditions at a time when the economy is already navigating high borrowing costs.

The political implications are immediate.

Trump has warned of further escalation, including potential large-scale strikes on Iranian infrastructure if key shipping routes are not reopened. Iran has signalled it will respond in kind, targeting energy and water facilities across the region.

Markets are watching closely, and reacting quickly.

Each escalation in rhetoric and action pushes oil prices higher, reinforces inflation expectations, and drives yields upward. Each move in yields raises the cost of financing government debt and increases pressure on the broader economy.

This creates a feedback loop.

Escalation drives higher energy prices. Higher energy prices drive higher yields. Higher yields tighten financial conditions and increase economic risk. That, in turn, raises the cost of further escalation.

Bond markets are not making political decisions, but they are imposing economic consequences.

The scale of the US debt burden amplifies this effect. With trillions in outstanding obligations, even modest increases in yields translate into significantly higher interest costs over time. At the same time, a large share of US assets is held by overseas investors, whose confidence is sensitive to both financial and geopolitical developments.

If that confidence wavers, the adjustment in yields could accelerate.

This is where bond markets begin to act as a form of guard rail.

They don’t prevent escalation directly, but they shape the cost-benefit calculation. A prolonged or intensified conflict that drives energy prices higher will not only impact global markets; it’ll feed directly into US borrowing costs, financial conditions, and economic stability.

There are already signs of this constraint emerging.

The repricing in rate expectations has been swift. The move in yields has been sharp. Traditional safe-haven dynamics have broken down, with bonds falling alongside equities rather than offsetting risk.

This is the market signalling that inflation risk now outweighs safety demand.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that further escalation carries immediate and measurable economic consequences. It tightens the financial environment, it raises the cost of debt, and it increases pressure on households and businesses through higher borrowing costs.

None of this occurs in isolation.

Global bond markets are moving together. The UK, Europe and the US are all experiencing rising yields. The UK, in particular, is at the sharp end, with gilt yields above 5% and significant losses in bond portfolios. But the underlying driver is shared.

Energy shock is becoming financial shock.

The US may begin from a stronger position than many of its peers, but it is not immune to the dynamics now unfolding.

The bond market is making that clear.

In previous crises, government bonds provided a cushion. Today, they are transmitting pressure.

That shift changes the equation.

It means that escalation is no longer just a geopolitical decision. It is an economic one, with immediate consequences priced into markets.

Bond markets are not passive observers in this environment. They’re active participants, and their message is unmistakable. Push further, and the cost rises—fast.

And that, it would appear, is acting as a potential ‘safety net’ against Trump’s more aggressive instincts.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Bond markets are becoming Trump’s guard rail on war appeared first on Arabian Post.

Dubai’s property market is showing a level of consistency in 2026 that stands out given the broader geopolitical backdrop.

Activity has remained elevated into the first quarter, following record transaction levels in recent years. Price growth has also been significant, with residential values rising by roughly 50–60% since the 2020 market trough. These trends point to sustained engagement rather than a short burst of activity.

What sits behind this is a demand base that has broadened and deepened over time.

Dubai’s population growth continues to feed directly into the housing market. The emirate is attracting professionals, entrepreneurs and high-net-worth individuals from Europe, Asia and Africa, many of whom are relocating on a long-term basis.

This shift has a direct impact on transaction volumes and occupancy, particularly across established residential areas and well-positioned new developments.

International capital flows are reinforcing the same trend. Investors are placing greater weight on net returns, and Dubai’s structure remains a key draw.

The absence of capital gains tax and tax on rental income creates a clear advantage when compared with traditional markets. Rental yields, typically in the 6% to 10% range, continue to attract income-focused investors alongside those seeking capital appreciation.

The composition of buyers has also evolved. There is a more visible presence of end-users alongside long-term investors, reflected in rising activity within completed properties as well as the off-plan segment.

This balance supports a steadier transaction profile and reduces the influence of short-term trading behaviour.

The regulatory framework is another important factor too. The market now operates with tighter oversight, established escrow protections and more disciplined development pipelines.

These changes have introduced a level of structure that was not always present in earlier cycles, and it is influencing how the market absorbs external pressure.

Supply remains an area of focus. Forecasts suggest that around 180,000 new residential units could be delivered between 2026 and 2028.

Delivery at that scale is significant, although it’s being met by a growing population and continued economic expansion.

‘Absorption rates’ in well-located and high-quality developments remain strong, indicating that demand is keeping pace with new inventory in key segments.

Geopolitical developments continue to shape investor behaviour. Periods of uncertainty tend to redirect capital towards markets that offer stability and operational clarity. Dubai has consistently benefited from this pattern, supported by its regulatory environment, infrastructure and position as a global financial and business hub.

Recent transaction data reflects that dynamic. High-value deals continue to be completed, particularly in prime areas, and international buyers remain active. Activity has not narrowed to a single segment; it is spread across multiple price points, which reinforces overall market liquidity.

Price growth is expected to continue at a more measured pace as the market matures. This aligns with a shift towards more sustainable expansion, particularly as supply increases and affordability becomes a more relevant consideration for parts of the market.

Dubai’s broader economic base supports this trajectory. Trade, tourism, financial services and tech are all contributing to growth, creating multiple sources of demand for residential property. The diversification strengthens the underlying demand profile and reduces reliance on any single driver.

The current cycle is, I believe, being shaped by structural factors rather than short-term momentum.

Population growth, international capital inflows and policy consistency are all contributing to a market that continues to generate transactions and attract investment at scale, despite the geopolitical issues.

Dubai property, it seems, is not pausing; it’s pressing ahead.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Dubai property pushes ahead despite global uncertainty appeared first on Arabian Post.

A few sentences from Donald Trump erased roughly $30 from the price of oil and lifted global equities.

The US president told reporters the war involving Iran could end “very soon,” although he also indicated the conflict would likely continue beyond the coming week. Financial markets reacted immediately.

Brent crude, which had surged toward $120 a barrel during the height of escalation fears, dropped sharply and slipped back below $90.

Equity markets moved the other way. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both closed higher in New York, while major indices across Asia, from Japan’s Nikkei 225 to South Korea’s Kospi and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng, rebounded in early trading after several sessions dominated by geopolitical caution.

No ceasefire agreement had been announced. No diplomatic breakthrough emerged. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responded firmly to Trump’s remarks, stating that the end of the war rests “in Iran’s hands.”

Markets moved anyway.

Financial markets increasingly react to presidential language almost as if it carries the force of policy itself. Political signalling now moves capital across the world in seconds.

Oil markets demonstrate the phenomenon most clearly.

Iran produces about 3.2 million barrels of crude oil per day, accounting for roughly 3% of global supply. Geography makes the country even more influential. Iran sits directly beside the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime passage through which around 20% of global oil consumption—approximately 21 million barrels per day—travels.

Even the perception of risk to that corridor can send prices soaring.

During the early phase of the conflict, traders rushed to price the possibility of supply disruption, pushing crude more than 12% higher in just a few days. Brent nearing $120 reflected a market bracing for regional escalation.

Trump’s comments introduced a different narrative: a possible path toward de-escalation.

Energy traders reacted immediately. Oil reversed sharply. Equity markets rallied as investors reduced the probability of a prolonged conflict disrupting global supply chains and pushing inflation higher.

Such rapid swings have become common in modern markets.

High-speed information flows and algorithmic trading systems monitor headlines constantly. Political speeches, military developments and diplomatic statements are processed by trading models within milliseconds. Capital then moves across asset classes with extraordinary speed.

Markets now frequently respond to signals before events themselves unfold.

Trump’s communication style amplifies the effect. His comments during both presidencies have repeatedly triggered immediate movements across currencies, commodities and equities.

Yet investors should be cautious about allowing political commentary to dominate investment decision-making.

Geopolitical headlines can move markets quickly, but long-term investment performance still rests on far more durable foundations.

Corporate earnings growth remains the primary driver of equity valuations. Analysts expect companies in the S&P 500 to deliver earnings growth in the region of 8% to 10% over the next year, supported largely by continued expansion in AI and tech investment.

Major technology firms are committing enormous capital to artificial intelligence infrastructure. Global spending on AI data centres alone is projected to exceed $200 billion over the coming years as companies race to expand computing capacity and develop new digital services.

Consumer strength also continues to underpin the global economy. In the US, household spending accounts for roughly 70% of economic activity, and labour market data show continued resilience through employment growth and rising wages.

Corporate balance sheets remain relatively strong, particularly among large-cap companies. Many firms accumulated substantial cash reserves during the past decade and continue to invest heavily in automation, AI systems and productivity-enhancing tech.

Global liquidity conditions are another key factor. Interest rate reductions across several major economies have begun easing borrowing costs for businesses and investors, encouraging capital flows back into equities and growth sectors.

These forces—earnings growth, innovation driven by AI and tech, consumer demand, capital investment and liquidity—shape market performance over years rather than days.

Geopolitical developments create volatility. Fundamentals determine long-term outcomes.

Periods dominated by political headlines can easily distract investors from those deeper drivers. Rapid market reactions to comments from political leaders often encourage short-term decision-making that runs counter to long-term investment strategy.

Professional financial advice plays an essential role during such moments.

Experienced advisers help investors filter the noise, assess geopolitical developments in proper context and keep portfolios anchored to economic fundamentals rather than reacting to every headline.

Diversification across sectors, geographies and asset classes also helps mitigate the risks associated with sudden geopolitical shocks.

Energy markets, equities and currencies can all move sharply in response to political developments. Balanced portfolios designed around long-term economic trends are far better positioned to absorb such swings.

Recent trading suggests markets currently lean toward a scenario of contained escalation followed by eventual de-escalation.

Oil below $90 and rising global equities reflect growing confidence that supply disruptions will remain limited.

Iran’s response serves as a reminder that geopolitical outcomes rarely follow market expectations precisely. Strategic decisions in Tehran will play a decisive role in determining the trajectory of the conflict.

Financial markets often move first and confirm later.

Investors seeking to protect and grow their wealth would be wise to not solely focus on geopolitics, which can change overnight, but to simultaneously keep attention on fundamentals, disciplined strategy, and sound professional financial advice.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Investors forgetting fundamentals amid geopolitical chaos appeared first on Arabian Post.

In recent months, headlines proclaiming the death of ESG investing have grown louder.

From record fund outflows to political pushback in the United States, it’s easy to fall into the narrative that the environmental, social and governance approach to investing has run its course.

Those stories, however, miss the deeper reality. ESG is not dead, it’s adapting to a more complex market environment and evolving client expectations.

That said, there is no denying that 2025 was a challenging year for ESG-labelled funds.

According to Morningstar data, global sustainable funds recorded roughly $84 billion in net outflows over the past year, a sharp reversal from the $38 billion of inflows recorded in 2024. Outflows intensified in the final quarter, underscoring investor caution in certain regions and sectors.

Political opposition, alongside high-profile legal and regulatory challenges, has added friction. Several asset managers have adjusted product names or repositioned strategies to reduce the prominence of the ESG label.

Viewed narrowly, the optics appear negative.

Yet focusing solely on US flows distorts the global picture. Sustainable investing remains a multi-trillion-dollar segment of global capital markets.

In Europe, sustainable assets under management remain substantial, supported by regulatory frameworks such as the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. Article 8 strategies saw renewed inflows during parts of 2025, even as Article 9 products faced scrutiny and consolidation.

What this suggests is not abandonment, but that investors are becoming more selective.

Part of the US slowdown reflects politics rather than fundamentals. ESG became entangled in ideological debate, particularly around energy policy and fiduciary duty.

History teaches us that as investment terminology becomes politicised, hesitation follows. However, removing a label doesn’t eliminate the financial risks that the label sought to capture.

Climate transition risk continues to shape corporate strategy and valuation. Extreme weather events influence insurance pricing and infrastructure investment. Governance failures still destroy shareholder value with alarming speed. Supply chain resilience, labour practices and regulatory exposure directly affect earnings durability.

Investors who incorporate these factors into financial models are engaging in risk assessment, not advocacy.

Performance data complicates the narrative further. During several reporting periods in 2025, sustainable funds delivered returns broadly comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, conventional peers, particularly where exposure to energy transition, electrification and infrastructure modernisation was present.

Clean energy and climate-transition strategies ranked among stronger-performing categories during specific quarters, supported by renewed capital expenditure and policy commitments in multiple jurisdictions.

Market cycles have always influenced style leadership. The sharp rise in interest rates through 2022 and 2023 favoured traditional energy and value sectors, which diluted the relative performance of some ESG-heavy portfolios.

And as inflation pressures moderated and expectations around rate stability improved, sector rotation resumed.

Of course, demographics remain a powerful undercurrent. Younger investors consistently express a stronger preference for sustainability-linked allocations.

With significant intergenerational wealth transfer expected over the coming decades, capital allocation priorities are likely to reflect those preferences. Institutional asset managers recognise this trajectory, even when short-term flows fluctuate.

Perhaps more importantly, ESG is undergoing maturation.

Early iterations often relied on broad exclusion screens and composite scoring methodologies that lacked transparency.

Regulatory scrutiny in Europe and elsewhere has tightened disclosure requirements and heightened sensitivity to greenwashing. Investors are demanding clearer evidence of financial materiality and measurable impact.

This refinement is healthy, I believe. Integration is moving closer to core financial analysis. Carbon pricing assumptions are being embedded into discounted cash flow projections, board composition and executive incentives are examined through the lens of capital allocation discipline, and exposure to environmental regulation is factored into risk premiums and credit spreads.

These considerations are increasingly mainstream, regardless of whether a fund carries an ESG label.

Global capital expenditure patterns reinforce this trajectory. Investment in electrification, grid resilience, battery storage and industrial decarbonisation continues across major economies.

Corporates are adjusting supply chains to meet both regulatory and consumer expectations; financial institutions are incorporating climate stress testing into risk frameworks; and insurance markets are recalibrating pricing based on environmental exposure.

ESG investing benefited from a powerful narrative tailwind in the late 2010s and early 2020s. The recent period has exposed weaknesses in branding and methodology, forcing consolidation and discipline.

What remains, I expect, is a more rigorous approach, increasingly anchored in measurable financial risk and opportunity.

Claims of its demise overlook this evolution.

The acronym may feature less prominently in marketing materials, particularly in the US, but the underlying integration of environmental, social and governance factors into valuation and portfolio construction continues.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article ESG investing isn’t dead. It’s evolving under pressure. appeared first on Arabian Post.

Financial markets are moving at unprecedented speed. AI and tech stocks surge on earnings momentum, then retrace on valuation concerns. Oil whipsaws on geopolitical complexities. Crypto rallies sharply on liquidity optimism, only to correct just as quickly. Currency markets adjust in real time to growth differentials and fiscal developments.

There’s no doubt that investors are trying to protect and grow their wealth in an environment defined by rapid repricing.

Amid this intensity, fixed-income products are regaining strategic relevance far earlier in the portfolio construction conversation than they have for more than a decade.

A fixed-income product designed to deliver a defined payment at regular intervals during its term offers something increasingly valuable: visibility.

While growth assets fluctuate daily in response to shifting expectations, predictable coupon streams accumulate quietly in the background.

In today’s market, that quiet accumulation is powerful.

Of course, volatility is not a negative force. It’s an essential feature of functioning capital markets. Sharp pullbacks in high-quality growth companies often create compelling entry points.

The AI and tech sectors continue to reshape productivity and business models globally. Innovation remains a structural driver of long-term returns. Digital assets, too, have demonstrated their ability to generate significant upside when macro conditions align.

However, volatility requires structure to be harnessed effectively.

For decades investors were conditioned to deprioritize income. With yields compressed and capital cheap, the dominant strategy was to pursue capital appreciation. Fixed income frequently played a marginal role, offering limited compensation relative to risk.

But the landscape has changed. Yields on high-quality government and corporate debt remain meaningfully above their pre-pandemic norms.

Investors can now access fixed-income products that provide defined, recurring payments at levels that materially contribute to total return. Income is once again competitive.

This shift alters portfolio dynamics.

First, predictable cash flow reduces reliance on price appreciation alone. Investors are no longer entirely dependent on market timing to meet objectives. Regular income introduces a measurable component of return that does not fluctuate with sentiment.

Second, fixed-income products enhance tactical flexibility. When equity markets experience sharp corrections, or when thematic sectors temporarily overshoot to the downside, investors receiving dependable income are better positioned to deploy capital without liquidating core holdings.

And third, the re-emergence of meaningful yield improves overall portfolio efficiency. Diversification regains substance when bonds offer genuine return potential rather than negligible coupons. The interaction between asset classes becomes more constructive, particularly during ‘risk-off’ phases.

Recent market behavior underscores the importance of this balance. Equity leadership has rotated quickly, with growth sectors delivering strong bursts of performance followed by pronounced pullbacks. Also, currency markets have reacted to fiscal trajectories and relative economic momentum, and alternative assets have experienced heightened sensitivity to liquidity expectations.

A portfolio anchored by fixed-income products that deliver defined payments can absorb volatility with greater composure.

When valuations compress or sentiment suddenly changes, the presence of steady cash flow mitigates the behavioural impulse to exit positions prematurely.

In essence, investors can hold quality assets through turbulence because part of their return profile is already secured.

There’s also a compounding advantage that’s often underestimated.

Regular payments reinvested over time enhance total return in a manner that does not rely on optimistic projections. In a market where forward expectations are continually revised, the certainty of contracted income carries weight.

Importantly, embracing fixed income today doesn’t imply a defensive retreat. It represents strategic recalibration within a higher-yield framework. Both growth and income are complementary drivers of long-term portfolio performance.

The most resilient portfolios in the current cycle are likely, I believe, to be those that recognize this integration. Exposure to innovation and expansion remains intact, but it is paired with structured income that strengthens the overall architecture of returns.

Markets will continue to move sharply, earnings seasons will surprise in both directions. digital assets will reflect shifts in liquidity and sentiment, and wealth will rotate across regions and sectors.

Through all of it, defined income payments can continue to accumulate.

Investors who bring fixed-income products back to the core of their allocation strategy are, typically, positioning themselves to pursue it from a stronger foundation. By combining exposure to growth with reliable cash flow, they likely create portfolios capable of withstanding turbulence while remaining fully engaged to the upside.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article In a world of noise, fixed-income speaks loudly appeared first on Arabian Post.

Washington is debating the future of digital assets just as dollar-backed stablecoins are reaching escape velocity in global payments.

With Congress weighing the Clarity Act and regulators refining oversight frameworks introduced under last year’s Genius Act, the question is no longer whether stablecoins matter — but whether the US will shape the infrastructure now emerging around them.

Behind the policy discussion sits a hard commercial reality. After filtering out inorganic activity, stablecoins transferred more than $12 trillion in value last year, placing them within striking distance of the roughly $17 trillion processed annually by Visa. Those flows are not theoretical.

They represent cross-border business settlements, trading liquidity, remittances, treasury operations and an expanding share of online commerce.

The significance lies in how those transactions settle. Stablecoins operate on blockchain networks where transfer and finality occur almost simultaneously.

There’s no multi-day reconciliation across correspondent banks, and no layered clearing chain recalibrating ledgers after the fact. Settlement is embedded in the transaction itself.

Cost differentials follow naturally. Legacy cross-border payments frequently involve intermediary banks, foreign exchange spreads, card network fees and compliance overhead that compound across jurisdictions.

Stablecoin transfers can do business at a fraction of that cost, particularly for high-volume or international flows.

For now, much of the activity remains concentrated among crypto-native users and globally active enterprises.

Yet integration with established financial institutions is accelerating. Payment providers are experimenting with stablecoin rails. Fintech platforms are embedding blockchain settlement behind conventional interfaces.

But as that integration deepens, end users may not even register when they’re using tokenized dollars rather than traditional deposits.

From the consumer perspective, the functional distinction narrows. A properly structured stablecoin is backed one-for-one by dollars or equivalent high-quality liquid assets.

If mechanisms are credible and transparent, the token behaves economically like a digital bearer instrument denominated in dollars. The technical wrapper becomes secondary to speed, cost and reliability.

More importantly, blockchain infrastructure introduces programmability. Transfers can incorporate automated compliance checks, escrow conditions, or conditional release of funds triggered by predefined events.

Money begins to operate as code — composable within broader software systems rather than confined to bank-specific ledgers.

Policy will determine whether this architecture scales within the US regulatory perimeter or beyond it.

The Genius Act established clearer guardrails for reserve management and issuer supervision, reducing ambiguity that previously constrained institutional participation.

The Clarity Act now under consideration seeks to define the treatment of blockchain networks and digital asset markets more broadly, addressing jurisdictional overlaps between agencies.

Regulatory clarity is the catalyst for capital formation. Large financial institutions require predictable rules before committing balance sheet resources and client integration.

If US frameworks provide that certainty while preserving competitive neutrality, stablecoin infrastructure could consolidate around dollar-denominated networks under US oversight.

The transition will not occur overnight. Consumer trust, regulatory oversight, cybersecurity resilience and reserve transparency remain decisive variables.

Episodes of instability in parts of the broader crypto ecosystem have underscored the need for rigorous supervision. Stablecoins that aspire to mainstream adoption must meet standards comparable to systemically important financial institutions.

Yet the direction of travel is evident. Digital tokens pegged to sovereign currencies represent an emerging settlement layer that challenges assumptions about how value moves across borders.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Stablecoins going mainstream as Washington debates appeared first on Arabian Post.

I’ve seen enough tech cycles to recognise when markets are merely correcting excess and when they are confronting something more fundamental. What investors are grappling with now belongs firmly in the second category.

Close to $1 trillion has been stripped from software and broader tech valuations in days. Speed explains part of the shock and meaning explains the rest. Markets are reassessing whether large parts of the software industry will retain the same economic relevance in an AI-first world.

For two years, AI was sold as an upgrade. It would sit alongside existing products, enhance workflows, and justify higher prices. Incumbents embraced that narrative because it preserved the status quo. Investors accepted it because disruption felt distant.

But this comfort has evaporated.

Recent advances made something unavoidable clear to markets: AI is no longer just augmenting software, it’s starting to compete with it directly. Tasks that once required layered platforms, licences, and long contracts are being completed faster and more cheaply by AI systems that operate outside traditional structures.

Once investors internalised this shift, repricing became inevitable.

Software stocks led the decline because they face the most immediate exposure. Many business models depend on being the indispensable layer between users and outcomes.

When AI begins delivering outcomes itself, that position weakens. Markets moved quickly because they understand how fast demand curves can change once alternatives reach acceptable quality.

The absence of earnings warnings didn’t slow the selloff because markets were never focused on last quarter. Capital prices future durability. When confidence in durability cracks, valuations adjust long before revenues reflect the pressure.

Credit markets confirmed the signal. Loans tied to tech firms slipped into distressed pricing without a wave of defaults or liquidity stress. Credit investors do not make that move lightly. They are expressing doubt about long-term cash generation, not short-term solvency. Equity investors followed with speed and force.

Some selling has clearly gone too far. High-quality businesses with strong customer retention and real switching costs are being punished alongside weaker operators. That creates opportunity. Markets always overshoot when they move this fast.

Still, pretending this episode is driven by fear alone would be a mistake. Artificial intelligence introduces substitution risk on a scale that markets have rarely had to price in real time. Some software categories will shrink. Some pricing models will fail. Some companies will discover that what they sell no longer commands the same premium once AI alternatives become good enough.

Investors are right to take that seriously.

This is the early phase of a sorting process that will define the sector for years. Companies that control critical data, infrastructure, or deeply embedded systems will defend their relevance. Those that rely on convenience, interface, or incremental functionality face sustained pressure. Markets are beginning to draw that distinction now, and it will sharpen.

Volatility will remain elevated because assumptions are still adjusting. Expectations about adoption speed, margin stability, and competitive barriers are being rewritten. Confidence will swing, but directionally the shift is clear.

For two years, investors spoke about AI changing how business works. Markets have now decided that conversation is over, with the focus turning to consequences. A trillion-dollar selloff feels dramatic because it marks recognition, not a bolt out of the blue.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article This AI selloff is about survival appeared first on Arabian Post.

President Donald Trump is close to nominating Kevin Warsh as the next Federal Reserve chair, and markets have already delivered a verdict.

Stocks and bonds dipped while the dollar strengthened as investors priced in a chair perceived as less inclined toward deep interest-rate cuts.

This reaction matters. A Fed chair perceived as less willing to ease policy, tightens financial conditions before a single decision is made.

As we’re seeing in real-time, yields rise, the dollar firms, credit conditions tighten, and equity valuations move downward.
In a debt-heavy economy, even marginal tightening can carry outsized consequences.

Warsh’s reputation is built on scepticism toward ultra-loose monetary policy and a preference for a smaller central bank balance sheet. He’s criticized post-2008 monetary expansion and is associated with a framework that markets interpret as structurally cautious on easing.

Even if he publicly supports rate cuts, investors doubt how far, how fast, and how persistently he’d move once in office.

The macro backdrop argues for a decisively growth-supportive Fed chair. US public and private debt levels are historically elevated, and interest expense is rising as a share of federal spending. Higher real rates compound fiscal stress, raise household borrowing costs, and tighten global dollar liquidity.

Monetary policy remains the primary macro stabilizer in a political environment where fiscal policy is constrained.

There are other candidates better aligned with this reality, in my opinion.

For example, Kevin Hassett, an economist and policy adviser, has argued that there’s ample room to cut rates, signalling a clear bias toward easing when growth risks build.

His framing offers political cover for rate cuts while maintaining a data-driven narrative, which is exactly the balance markets seek.
Rick Rieder, Chief Investment Officer of Global Fixed Income at BlackRock, is viewed by investors as distinctly dovish.

Market participants expect him to support multiple rate cuts and to lean toward financial-conditions easing. Bond markets respond immediately to perceived dovish reaction functions, and that repricing feeds directly into equities, housing, and credit.

There’s also Christopher Waller, a current Federal Reserve Governor, who has emphasized the employment side of the Fed’s mandate and has supported rate reductions when labor market risks increase.

A Chair with a lower threshold to ease when jobs weaken tends to anchor risk assets during late-cycle phases.

Warsh, by contrast, is perceived as a regime-change candidate with a tilt toward normalization and balance-sheet restraint.

In the current environment, even the perception of doctrinal tightening is enough to move markets. A stronger dollar exports tighter financial conditions globally, pressures emerging markets, compresses multinational earnings, and weighs on commodities.

The initial market reaction to Warsh underscores that dynamic.

Supporters argue Warsh would restore discipline to the Fed. Discipline matters, but rigidity can become a liability when the system is rate-sensitive.

Bull markets depend on falling discount rates and ample liquidity.

Warsh may be an excellent technocrat and reassure institutional purists. But markets are signalling a preference for a Chair with an easing bias. Investors are already telling policymakers who they believe will cut first, cut faster, and cut further.

The choice isn’t theoretical. It’ll shape financial conditions, capital flows, and asset prices from day one.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Warsh is wrong Fed Chair for markets, growth, investors appeared first on Arabian Post.

The sharp fall in the dollar and the sudden sell-off in US equity futures this week are early signals of a deeper problem with President Donald Trump’s escalating confrontation over Greenland.

What’s being framed by the White House as a strategic gambit risks becoming an economic and financial self-own, with consequences that undermine the very US interests the policy claims to defend.

Markets react first not to ideology, but to uncertainty. By declaring that “there can be no going back” on plans to seize Greenland while simultaneously threatening tariffs on Europe, the administration has injected geopolitical risk directly into currency, equity and trade expectations.

A near-1% slide in the dollar in a single session reflects more than short-term nerves. It reflects a reassessment of US policy credibility and institutional restraint under pressure.

The tariff threat is central to this dynamic. A proposed 10% levy on European imports, explicitly linked to Greenland and broader security claims, signals that trade policy is now being weaponised for territorial and diplomatic disputes.

Investors remember where this path leads. Tariffs imposed for political leverage invite retaliation, disrupt supply chains, and ultimately feed back into domestic inflation and corporate earnings. The US has little insulation from these effects.

Large-cap US firms derive a substantial share of revenues from Europe, and any escalation that dampens European growth will boomerang back into US balance sheets.

There is also a currency angle that deserves attention. Tariffs framed as coercive tools weaken confidence in the dollar as a neutral reserve currency. When the US signals that economic access can be conditioned on acquiescence to unrelated political demands, trading partners respond by hedging exposure.

The process is slow, but cumulative. The dollar’s drop against a basket of peers suggests that markets are already pricing a marginal erosion of trust. Over time, higher borrowing costs and reduced foreign demand for US assets follow.

The Greenland issue itself compounds the risk. Framing the acquisition of an autonomous territory tied to Denmark as a non-negotiable objective places the US in direct confrontation with allies, NATO partners, and European institutions.

Denmark’s decision to reinforce its military presence in Greenland underlines how quickly the issue has moved from diplomatic disagreement to security tension.

From an investor perspective, this matters. The US premium in global markets rests partly on alliances that reduce tail risk. When those alliances are strained, the premium narrows.

European leaders have responded with language that markets cannot ignore. Commitments to a “united and proportional” response and calls for deeper European independence suggest a shift toward economic self-protection.

This includes accelerating trade diversification, strengthening internal capital markets, and reducing reliance on US financial infrastructure. None of this happens overnight, but direction matters. The more Washington leans on pressure, the faster Europe’s incentive to decouple at the margins.

Within the US administration itself, the messaging gap is notable. Calls from the Treasury secretary for partners to “take a deep breath” sit uneasily alongside presidential posts declaring permanence and inevitability.

Markets read coherence as stability. Mixed signals weaken confidence. When policy appears driven by impulse rather than process, volatility rises and valuations fall.

The domestic consequences should also concern US policymakers. A weaker dollar raises import prices, complicating the inflation outlook at a moment when households remain sensitive to cost pressures. Equity market declines directly affect retirement accounts and consumer confidence.

Tariff-induced uncertainty discourages capital expenditure, particularly among manufacturers exposed to transatlantic supply chains. They translate into slower growth and tighter financial conditions at home.

Strategically, the approach risks achieving the opposite of its stated goals. Should Greenland be viewed as critical to Arctic security and resource access, alienating allies who share those interests weakens collective leverage.

If tariffs are meant to project strength, the immediate market response suggests fragility instead. Power that unsettles allies and markets simultaneously tends to be self-limiting.

Financial markets are not passing moral judgment on the Greenland dispute. They are issuing a practical warning. Policies that blur the line between trade, security and territorial ambition raise the cost of capital and reduce strategic flexibility.

The dollar’s decline and Wall Street’s sell-off are early indicators, not the full nor final chapter.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Trump’s Greenland gamble risks economic backfire for the US appeared first on Arabian Post.

Apple will pay an estimated $1 billion a year for access to Gemini’s large language models, instantly extending Google’s AI reach across one of the most powerful consumer ecosystems on the planet.

I believe the Apple-Google AI alliance marks the moment artificial intelligence stops being a story about potential and starts becoming a story about profits.

For more than a decade, investors rewarded ambition, vision and experimentation. From this point forward, markets reward execution, scale and earnings power. This deal draws a hard line under the shift.

When the world’s most valuable consumer tech company turns to its fiercest rival for AI firepower, investors should pay close attention.

The message to global markets is unmistakable. AI leadership now means commercial dominance, not just technical brilliance.

Performance matters more than promise. Distribution matters more than declarations. Returns matter more than roadmaps.

For years, AI has inflated valuations on expectation. Capital flowed on hope and share prices climbed on ambition.

It would appear that era is ending fast. Investors have entered what I have previously described as AI’s year of reckoning for profits.

Trillions already poured into chips, data centres, cloud infrastructure and large language models. Shareholders now demand results.

The Apple-Google partnership stands as the clearest signal yet that monetization has moved from theory into reality.

AI has reached its commercial inflection point. Spending cycles are enormous and tolerance for vague timelines has vanished. Markets want proof of earnings impact. Strategic alliances of this scale emerge only when leaders recognise that speed, relevance and revenue matter more than pride in going it alone.

From Apple’s perspective, the logic couldn’t be clearer. The company commands the most powerful consumer platform on earth, yet competition in AI-driven services accelerated at breathtaking speed.

Waiting for internal systems to mature would have meant surrendering momentum. Choosing Gemini reflects urgency and discipline.

Shareholders understand discipline in capital allocation far better than loyalty to self-sufficiency.

Smart companies know when to build and when to buy. Apple gains immediate relevance in the next phase of computing. Investors gain confidence that the company intends to shape the AI era rather than trail it.

For Alphabet, the implications perhaps run even deeper. Distribution defines tech empires.

Embedding Gemini across Apple’s global user base transforms Google’s AI platform from a powerful tool into a dominant commercial force. Revenue opportunities expand across services, enterprise integration and subscription models. From an investment standpoint, the profit horizon widens dramatically.

Scale changes everything. AI only delivers its full economic power when it reaches billions of users.

This partnership multiplies Alphabet’s monetization potential and reinforces its position at the centre of the global AI economy.

Beyond these two companies, the deal shows capital markets that AI has entered a phase where collaboration matters as much as competition.

Ecosystems now carry more weight than isolated brilliance. Integration drives more value than invention alone. Investors who still treat AI as a speculative theme risk missing its evolution into an industrial transformation.

Capital is already separating builders from beneficiaries. The winners in this phase of AI will be companies that turn intelligence into infrastructure and insight into income.

Hype had its moment. Earnings take control from here.

This is the year investors stop backing who talks best about AI, and start backing who earns most from it.

Apple and Google have fired the starting gun for that race.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Apple and Google ignite AI’s year of profit reckoning appeared first on Arabian Post.

Investors heading into 2026 face a familiar challenge: markets continue to evolve faster than habits do.

Strong returns in recent years have rewarded certain behaviours and masked weaknesses in portfolio construction.

The next phase, I believe, will favour discipline, balance, and clear decision-making.

Rebuild diversification properly

Diversification has been weakened by success. Long runs in US equities and large-cap technology have encouraged portfolios to drift into concentration, often without investors fully recognising it.

An investment resolution for 2026 should involve a hard reset. Geographic balance, sector exposure, and asset allocation all deserve review. Market leadership doesn’t stand still forever, and portfolios built around a narrow set of winners tend to struggle when conditions change.

Stop reacting to normal market movement

Volatility remains the most misunderstood feature of investing. Price swings are uncomfortable, but they are not unusual, and they are rarely the real threat to long-term outcomes. The greater danger comes from abandoning strategy at the wrong moment.

A sensible resolution for next year is to commit to process over emotion, particularly when markets become unsettled. Investors who stay disciplined during uncertain periods are, typically, rewarded for it.

Treat currency exposure as a core decision

Currency effects are often ignored until they become painful. For those with globally invested portfolios, exchange-rate movements can materially influence returns and future spending power.

Inflation trends, fiscal policy, and interest-rate differentials continue to drive currency markets. One of the most practical resolutions, without question, is to address currency exposure deliberately, with a clear understanding of where capital is invested and where it’ll ultimately be used.

Shift focus from gross returns to what’s retained

Headline performance figures tell only part of the story. Tax remains one of the largest drags on long-term investment outcomes, yet it is frequently addressed too late. Capital gains planning, inheritance considerations, and cross-border structures all shape real returns.

A meaningful investment resolution for 2026 would be to align portfolio construction with tax efficiency from the outset, rather than treating it as an administrative detail.

Approach long-term themes with restraint

AI and tech, energy transition, and healthcare innovation continue to reshape the global economy, and those trends will remain central to investment strategy. The mistake investors make is assuming that every company linked to a strong theme will deliver strong returns. Valuations, balance sheets, and execution still matter.

For next year, the resolution should be to pursue structural growth with selectivity and discipline, not enthusiasm alone.

Revisit income and liquidity assumptions

The way people earn, invest, and draw income continues to evolve. Longer working lives, flexible careers, and multiple income streams are becoming more common. Portfolios need to reflect that reality.

Investors should use 2026 as a point to reassess income strategies, liquidity needs, and withdrawal plans, ensuring they are realistic under a range of market conditions.

Define risk limits before markets test them

Risk tolerance is often theoretical until markets move sharply. Clear parameters around drawdowns, time horizons, and liquidity requirements help investors stay rational when conditions become difficult. One of the most valuable resolutions for the year ahead is to set those boundaries in advance, so decisions remain structured rather than reactive.

Stay engaged with the strategy

Investment oversight is not a one-off exercise. Assumptions change, markets evolve, and portfolios require regular review. The resolution for 2026 should be to remain actively involved, reviewing periodically with an adviser, and questioning whether current positioning still aligns with long-term objectives and adjusting when necessary.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article 8 investor resolutions for 2026 appeared first on Arabian Post.

The investment landscape of 2026 is being shaped by a set of forces that are measurable, global, and impossible for any serious investor to overlook.

The noise around short-term market swings has masked the reality that structural trends—not sentiment—are driving the next decade of value creation. Investors focused on what actually moves markets should concentrate on seven megatrends that are now setting the pace.

The first is the scale of artificial intelligence as a capital deployment engine. Global AI investment is on track to exceed previous estimates, with major corporates committing tens of billions annually to data centres, chip development, and automation.

Power demand for AI infrastructure is rising at double-digit rates, and the companies building these systems are materially influencing supply chains from semiconductors to specialist metals. Investors with exposure to firms capable of converting this spending into productivity gains are positioned well; those still treating AI as a thematic bolt-on are not.

AI is now a capacity story, a margin story, and a national competitiveness story, and markets are adjusting accordingly.

The second trend is the shift toward broader geographic allocation. US equities still account for roughly 60% of global market capitalisation, yet the ratio of expected returns across major regions is narrowing.

Europe is ramping industrial spending; Japan has posted steady corporate reforms that improve shareholder returns; emerging markets are benefiting from higher domestic consumption and expanding monetary flexibility. Investors who diversify now are not attempting to time cycles; they are recognising that concentration risk has reached levels that no institutional portfolio would normally accept.

The third megatrend is the recalibration of monetary and fiscal dynamics. Policy rates remain elevated relative to pre-pandemic norms, but the direction is shifting, and bond markets have started to reflect that. Roughly one-third of global sovereign yields sit above their 10-year averages, offering income that investors have not had access to for years.

Credit markets are benefitting from this environment: spreads remain attractive, refinancing risks are clearer, and policy direction is no longer pulling volatility up with every announcement. Investors re-entering fixed income are rediscovering pricing power that had disappeared during the tightening phase.

A fourth trend is the resurgence of commodities and real assets. Demand for copper linked to electrification and AI infrastructure is rising at rates that current supply pipelines struggle to match. Lithium markets are adjusting after a period of overshooting, but the medium-term demand outlook remains strong as energy systems transition. Infrastructure spending—public and private—is expanding across multiple regions as governments respond to domestic energy constraints, ageing transport networks, and the need for resilient grids.

Real assets are offering investors not only diversification but also exposure to long-cycle structural investment programmes that rarely reverse once underway.

The fifth megatrend is the quiet migration of wealth across borders for tax reasons. This movement is not dramatic enough to dominate headlines, but it is powerful enough to reshape capital flows, housing markets, and the financial architecture of multiple jurisdictions.

High-net-worth individuals are relocating to countries with clearer, lower tax regimes, such as Dubai, lower administrative burdens, and more predictable policy environments. Capital never travels alone; it brings business activity, investment behaviour, and liquidity with it. Jurisdictions attracting these individuals are seeing rising demand for financial services, real assets, private markets, and long-term portfolio structures.

Meanwhile, countries losing wealthy residents face diminished investment bases and increasing fiscal pressure.

For investors, the implications are direct: follow the capital. Wealth concentration in favourable jurisdictions pushes up demand for investment products, high-quality advice, and globally diversified solutions. The shift is subtle, but its market impact is not.

A sixth trend is the reconfiguration of sector leadership. Technology keeps its weight in indices, but the valuation premium has moderated. Healthcare spending continues to rise as ageing populations reshape national budgets; automation and industrial innovation are driving capital investment into areas that previously lagged; and companies with pricing strength are being rewarded as inflation settles at levels above prior cycles.

Investors using sector weighting strategies that rely on conditions from a decade ago will misread the opportunity set. Sector dispersion is widening, which gives disciplined allocators more room to capture differentiated returns.

The seventh megatrend is demographic influence. Around one billion people globally will be over 65 by the mid-2030s, shifting demand across healthcare, savings products, housing structures, and labour dynamics. Working-age populations are declining across major economies, pushing firms toward automation and productivity-enhancing investment. Meanwhile, younger cohorts are reshaping consumption, financial behaviour, and technology adoption. Investors who align portfolios with these long-cycle forces benefit from durable, predictable demand curves rather than reacting to each quarterly surprise.

Investors need to understand how these trends interact.

AI expansion drives commodity demand. Fiscal spending influences sector rotation. Policy easing supports credit. Demographics amplify healthcare demand. Global diversification reduces reliance on a single economic cycle. And silent tax migration recalibrates where capital accumulates—quietly creating winners and exposing weaknesses across global markets.

These aren’t isolated developments; they operate as a network of structural forces reinforcing each other.

Investors should recognise that structural trends set the investment environment more reliably than short-term predictions. They’re running through earnings, national budgets, supply chains, migration data, and policy agendas already.

The opportunity lies with those willing to engage with these forces directly rather than waiting for confirmation that arrives long after the market has moved.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Investment megatrends for 2026 appeared first on Arabian Post.

Forecasts from major US banks suggest the bull market will remain intact in 2026, with some projecting the S&P 500 above 7,500 by year end.

The latest Financial Times survey, covering nine major investment banks, reinforces this confidence with an average forecast of roughly 10% upside from current levels.

I understand why that optimism exists. The US economy continues to outperform expectations, corporate earnings have held up, and the narrative around AI has become a powerful driver of sentiment.

Even so, I believe 2026 will be far more nuanced than these forecasts imply.

A strong finish is possible, but the path to get there will be, I argue, far more volatile, uneven and unforgiving than many investors expect.

A rising year-end target does not guarantee a comfortable journey. Markets can deliver positive annual returns while subjecting investors to sharp reversals and rapid shifts in tone, and I expect that to define the year ahead.

AI sits at the centre of this dynamic. The scale of investment across 2024 and 2025 has been extraordinary—far beyond anything seen in previous tech cycles.

Companies are pouring billions into data centres, computing power and next-generation infrastructure. This tells me two things.

The first is that the long-term potential remains enormous. The second is that expectations have reached a point where even small disappointments will trigger aggressive reactions. Costs arrive immediately, revenues don’t.

This creates a setup where earnings seasons become a collection of profit tests rather than routine updates.

Some companies will justify their valuations and outperform. Others will fall short as soon as the market demands real evidence of monetisation. Investors need to be ready for both outcomes. Those who assume the entire sector will move in unison are setting themselves up for avoidable losses.

A second challenge is the extreme concentration driving markets. A small number of mega-cap names now influence index performance to an extent that distorts signals and suppresses breadth.

This isn’t a benign feature of the current cycle. It introduces fragility, because a single earnings miss or strategic pivot from one of these giants can shift sentiment across global markets. Investors who look only at headline index levels risk missing the structural vulnerability underneath.

Trade policy adds further unpredictability. The tariff shock last April—an almost immediate 15% drop over a few days—showed how exposed markets are to sudden political decisions. The rebound that followed was encouraging, but it did not eliminate the risk. Tariff policy remains a live instrument, and its impact on supply chains, input costs and margins will remain a key variable throughout 2026.

Monetary policy will add another dose of complexity. Rate cuts are widely expected, yet expectations surrounding timing and magnitude remain inconsistent. Inflation has cooled but has not settled into a predictable pattern.

Growth signals across key economies are mixed. Any misalignment between market expectations and central bank action could produce short bursts of volatility. Investors should avoid treating the prospect of lower rates as a guarantee of stability.

Consumer dynamics also deserve attention. While higher earners continue to spend, lower-income households face persistent pressure from housing and credit costs. This divergence feeds directly into company earnings, especially for firms reliant on broad-based consumer demand. Investors who assume uniform strength across all categories will encounter surprises.

My central message is that 2026 rewards clarity of thought and punishes complacency. Broad enthusiasm powered the post-pandemic rally and the recovery after the tariff-driven selloff, but the next phase requires more precise judgment.

Investors must differentiate between companies capable of converting heavy investment into sustainable profit and those relying on momentum or narrative alone.

I expect more volatility because the conditions for it are already in place: elevated expectations, narrow leadership, geopolitical tension, ambitious AI spending and uneven economic data.

These characteristics do not produce smooth markets. But they do produce opportunities for disciplined investors and traps for those who assume last year’s playbook still applies.

The bull market may continue, but its behaviour will change. Gains will be lumpy. Leadership will shift. Earnings will matter more than they have in years.

Investors who approach 2026 with discipline, selectivity and realism will find compelling openings. Investors who treat the year as a simple extension of the recent past will learn how quickly sentiment can turn.

Judgment will decide outcomes next year. All investors should take that seriously.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Wall Street says bull run intact for 2026 – I see a more testing year appeared first on Arabian Post.

Stablecoins have moved from the fringe of digital finance to the centre of American geopolitical strategy with astonishing speed.

A year ago, many analysts still dismissed them as an experiment, an irritant or a regulatory problem. Today they sit at the heart of a much bigger financial vision inside Washington.

The Trump administration, I now believe, is using stablecoins as a new mechanism to strengthen the dollar’s international pull and to push back against efforts to dilute America’s monetary influence.

This is not a theoretical debate. Issuers of dollar-based stablecoins now hold vast quantities of US Treasuries. Their combined positions exceed the holdings of several established sovereign investors.

That fact alone signals a profound change in how global liquidity is flowing. It means private digital-asset firms have become major participants in the market that underpins America’s fiscal power, and their role is expanding rapidly.

The White House understands the strategic advantage this creates. Dollar-linked stablecoins circulate in regions where accessing traditional dollar instruments is difficult or politically constrained.

They give individuals and businesses in emerging markets a reliable digital gateway to the dollar without relying on local banks or fragile domestic currencies. This matters because every additional user adopting a dollar-denominated stablecoin reinforces the dollar’s relevance at a time when rival nations are trying to shift global settlement into alternative systems.

I see this dynamic strengthening, not weakening. Rising adoption of stablecoins outside the United States pulls more international savings into dollar assets. It also deepens foreign demand for short-dated US government debt because any regulated issuer must hold high-quality, liquid reserves.

As the sector grows, so does the structural bid for Treasuries. This is why the Treasury Secretary is giving the market so much attention. The inflows are already material and may become systemically significant.

The regulatory framework recently adopted by Congress signals how seriously Washington is approaching this transition. Mandating full reserve backing with liquid assets is not a trivial step. It hardwires the stablecoin market into the US government’s funding architecture.

Also, it ensures that these digital instruments remain anchored to the credibility of the dollar rather than drifting toward experimental collateral. The Treasury’s task now is to implement clear rules that formalise this responsibility while encouraging the next wave of adoption.

Some industry voices have pushed for yield-bearing stablecoins. I do not expect the administration to support this. Banks are opposed because such products could drain deposits, and policymakers recognise the systemic implications.

The more likely outcome is a model that keeps stablecoins simple, safe and fully backed. That structure protects the banking system while preserving the geopolitical advantages that come from widespread digital-dollar use.

The economic consequences could be profound. If global demand for dollar stablecoins accelerates, issuers will need increasingly large reserves. In practice, that means more Treasuries flowing into digital-asset balance sheets.

Analysts across the industry have suggested that this could place downward pressure on yields in a way that mirrors periods of aggressive asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. I consider that plausible. The scale of expected growth is enormous and the reserve requirements are strict. The combination has the potential to shift long-term financing conditions inside the US.

These forces will not develop in isolation. They interact with a broader contest over the future of global savings. Some central bankers worry that rising debt burdens in advanced economies are creating a glut of sovereign bonds that will push borrowing costs higher.

It’s a scenario may well materialize outside the United States. Within America, stablecoin-driven demand for Treasuries could offset part of that pressure. If global investors channel savings into digital dollars, the outcome will look very different from the rest of the world’s trajectory.

This creates challenges for Europe and for emerging markets. A surge in stablecoin adoption would shift financial power further toward Washington. It could reduce demand for non-US government bonds and channel domestic savings into instruments beyond the reach of local authorities.

Some economists argue that this amounts to a privatised form of seigniorage, where digital issuers capture value that once flowed to sovereigns. Others worry about the implications for tax collection and financial supervision. These concerns are valid and deserve serious debate.

For investors, the message is clear. The digital-dollar system is expanding fast, and it is being encouraged by policymakers who see strategic advantage in its rise. Stablecoins are no longer simply a convenience for traders or a tool for crypto exchanges.

They’re becoming an international distribution channel for the dollar itself. Their ability to operate across borders with speed and scale gives the US a monetary reach that traditional banking channels cannot match.

The administration recognizes this. It sees stablecoins as a way to counter de-dollarisation narratives, reinforce the Treasury market and entrench the dollar in the daily financial lives of millions of people who have never interacted with an American bank. Investors who overlook this shift will misread how the next phase of global finance is taking shape.

I believe we are entering a period in which digital-dollar instruments play an increasingly decisive role in the structure of global liquidity. The consequences will reach far beyond the crypto sector. They’ll influence interest rates, capital flows, sovereign funding and geopolitical leverage.

Stablecoins are, I believe, becoming a central part of America’s financial strategy. They deserve far more attention than they’re currently receiving.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Trump’s Treasury is quietly rewiring global finance appeared first on Arabian Post.

The world’s largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, fell swiftly this week as a sustained sell-off put the token on track for its steepest monthly decline since 2022. It slipped as much as 7.6 per cent to around $80,553 before trimming losses, while the broader crypto market cap fell below $3 trillion for the first time since April.

Forced liquidations, institutional outflows and thin liquidity emerged as key drivers of the slide. Analysts at Ergonia pointed to a convergence of derivative blow-outs and structural selling via exchange-traded products as factors creating a “particularly vulnerable state” where even stabilisation efforts face immediate supply pressure. Futures liquidations exceeded $1 billion, and data highlight more than 30 per cent in market cap erasure since early October.

While Bitcoin climbed to an all-time high near $126,000 in early October, the recent downturn amounts to roughly a 25 per cent retreat within the month. Bloomberg data confirm this represents the largest monthly fall since June 2022. The correction has triggered a reevaluation of year-end positioning, with derivatives markets assigning around a 50 per cent chance that Bitcoin finishes the year under $90,000 — marking a significant sentiment shift in a matter of weeks.

One root cause of the near-term pressure lies in the unwind of leveraged positions. Many traders who piled into futures and perpetual contracts saw funding rates turn against them, triggering cascaded liquidations. Binance chief executive Richard Teng described the move as a “healthy consolidation” for the industry, albeit one that comes amid rising risk aversion and tighter macro conditions. The wave of deleveraging has spilled into alt-coins and broader risk assets, emphasising how crypto still mirrors the wider market’s orientation toward volatility and liquidity stress.

Institutional-product flows add another level of challenge. The launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs earlier this year raised expectations of large capital inflows, but the current environment has seen outflows, particularly from funds that repositioned, hedged or redeemed positions. This structural selling has combined with retail and leveraged exits to deepen the draw-down.

Despite the short-term strain, some analysts suggest the correction may clear the way for a healthier structure going forward. Liquidity indicators normally near major crypto rallies are showing signs of restocking, and some models view the current phase as a reset rather than the end of the cycle. However, sceptics caution that macro risks — including higher rates, regulatory headwinds and geopolitical stress — continue to hang over the sector and may dampen the timing or pace of any recovery.

Among market participants, sentiment has shifted markedly. Portfolio manager Nigel Green of deVere Group noted that heavy borrowing in speculative positions meant “any reversal triggers liquidations that accelerate the move”. Others highlight that although corrections of 20–30 per cent have occurred in past Bitcoin bull markets, the current confluence of leverage, product flows and liquidity outflows is unique, suggesting this phase may represent more than a standard dip.

With December positioning now in focus, the coming days will be closely watched. The monthly close looms large — if Bitcoin avoids a full 25 per cent drop it could blunt the signal of stress; if it does not the message to markets could be more definitive. The broader crypto ecosystem will also look for signs of capitulation or stabilisation — levels of derivative stress, fund flows and institutional signals will inform whether this is a tactical pull-back or the early stages of a deeper consolidation.

As one of the first major asset-classes to undergo structural institutional adoption, Bitcoin’s current draw-down serves as a test of how the market absorbs large-scale flows and macro shocks. The unfolding developments will have implications well beyond the crypto world, casting light on how digital assets behave within the larger financial system.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Bitcoin Slides Amid Sharp Monthly Losses appeared first on Arabian Post.

Global markets are showing the strain after an extended period of exuberance, and the sudden shift in mood has unsettled investors who had come to expect uninterrupted gains across AI and tech, gold, cryptocurrencies, and equities.

The turn has been swift. Gold has given back a meaningful portion of its late-October surge, bitcoin has slipped under $90,000, and equity markets worldwide have recorded several sessions of broad declines.

The MSCI world index has fallen over multiple consecutive days, an indication that the pressure is not confined to a single asset class.
The underlying reasons are not mysterious. Valuations, especially in AI and tech, had been stretched. Global data has softened in places where resilience had been assumed.

Meanwhile, expectations around December policy from the Federal Reserve action have shifted with striking speed. A rate cut once regarded as close to certain is now regarded as far from assured. When assumptions move that sharply, markets react accordingly.

Periods like this often highlight a difficult truth: many investors anchor their decisions to momentum rather than structure.
When prices rise, conviction grows. When prices fall, that conviction evaporates at a pace that has little to do with long-term fundamentals.
A week of turbulence becomes a catalyst for rash decisions, despite the fact that such episodes are a normal part of investing.
The correction doesn’t signal a deeper breakdown. It signals an adjustment and, also, opportunity.

The themes that powered markets through the year had run far ahead of themselves, and the scale of the pullback reflects that. Investors should treat this phase as a test of discipline, not as a summons to abandon strategy. Three principles deserve particular attention.

1. Diversification must remain the core of portfolio construction
Broad declines across gold, crypto, AI and tech, and wider equities have exposed the risks taken by investors who concentrated too heavily in a narrow set of ideas. The belief that a single theme could carry an entire portfolio through every environment was never sustainable. A downturn becomes far more damaging when the portfolio lacks genuine balance.

Diversification is frequently presented as a static concept, but its relevance is most visible during periods like this. Breadth allows one part of the portfolio to absorb weakness while another offers stability or opportunity.

Markets are delivering a reminder that concentration magnifies both gains and losses, and investors who rely on a single driver must accept the volatility that comes with that choice. Those who built a wider structure across sectors, asset classes, regions, and even currencies, have more room to manoeuvre during stress.

2. Rebalancing should bring structure back to centre stage

The ease with which investors allow portfolios to drift away from their intended balance is striking, especially after a strong run in AI and tech and in alternative assets.

Gains are allowed to compound unchecked, and exposure becomes misaligned with the original plan. Then a pullback arrives, and the consequences become obvious.

Rebalancing is the mechanism that restores discipline. It converts past gains into future resilience. It also turns volatility into a source of selective opportunity.

When markets rise too far too quickly, trimming reduces future vulnerability. When markets fall too far too quickly, a careful shift into undervalued assets sets up future growth.

This process does not require perfect timing; it requires clarity about the role each asset plays within the portfolio.

Investors who treat rebalancing as an administrative formality underestimate its importance. It’s one of the most effective tools for improving outcomes during uncertain periods, particularly when sentiment shifts abruptly.

3. Independent advice is invaluable

Market narratives change rapidly during selloffs. Every decline produces a new storyline, and investors are tempted to respond immediately.
The shift into cash becomes the default reaction for many, even when it does little to protect long-term objectives. Cash doesn’t offer growth, and its appeal often stems more from anxiety than strategy.

Independent advice provides distance from short-term emotion. A professional can distinguish between legitimate risks and momentary overreaction, identify genuine dislocations, and reinforce structure when uncertainty rises.

Investors frequently underestimate how much the quality of decisions improves when influenced by objective analysis rather than market noise.

This period requires that level of guidance. It is not a crisis; it’s a readjustment of expectations after an extraordinary year. Investors with access to informed perspective are far better positioned to respond with consistency rather than impulsiveness.

Remember that the current environment is not an indictment of long-term investing. It’s a natural response to excessive optimism, stretched valuations, and shifting assumptions about policy.

Markets are revising prices, not rewriting the entire story. Investors who remain invested, committed to diversification, disciplined rebalancing, and independent advice will treat this episode as part of the cycle rather – with opportunities embedded – than a rupture in it.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Top 3 ways to protect your investments amid market slide appeared first on Arabian Post.

Every bull market has its blind spots. There comes a point in every economic cycle when optimism feels effortless, when valuations stretch, and when extraordinary developments start to look normal. Only later, with the benefit of hindsight, do we realise which signals were genuine warnings.

Today, investors are once again wrestling with that question. Global equities are trading near record highs, liquidity is returning as US interest rates fall, and the transformative potential of artificial intelligence is driving a powerful rally in risk assets.

The enthusiasm feels well-founded, as AI is clearly real and lower borrowing costs support risk-taking. Yet there are reasons to pause and ask whether we’re seeing rational conviction or the first signs of speculative excess.

Four recent developments in particular reveal this tension between progress and peril.

Overinvestment in AI

No other trend has attracted capital on such a vast scale as artificial intelligence. America’s largest technology firms, the so-called “Magnificent Seven,” collectively spent around $112 billion on capital projects in just one quarter, the majority linked to AI infrastructure and data processing capacity. The sums are unprecedented.

Still, unlike the debt-fuelled spending binges that preceded previous market crashes, these investments are largely funded from corporate cash flows. Tech giants are sitting on immense balance sheets and can absorb setbacks without threatening their stability.

If AI delivers anywhere near its expected gains in productivity, logistics and automation, the spending could prove entirely rational.

The more fragile side of the story lies in the smaller companies and start-ups borrowing heavily to chase the same dream. Many of these firms are turning to non-bank lenders to raise expensive capital, a setup that leaves them exposed if the market mood turns. It’s here, in the shadows of the system, that misallocated investment could become problematic.

Valuations at the Limit

Take the example of Palantir, the AI-oriented software and security group. Even after a double-digit decline in its share price last week, the company still trades at around 200 times expected earnings.

For perspective, the broader US equity market sits closer to 23 times, itself already elevated above its 20-year average of roughly 16.

Numbers like these make many investors uneasy. But expensive does not necessarily mean irrational. Great growth companies often look overpriced in the moment. Investors once said the same of Amazon and Microsoft. Those who took the long view were rewarded.

High valuations become dangerous only when they lose their connection to potential earnings growth. If AI truly transforms efficiency and profitability across industries, current multiples may hold up. If expectations prove inflated, the correction will be swift. For now, we are in the zone where optimism and overconfidence are indistinguishable.

Executive Rewards on a Grand Scale

Few figures capture today’s exuberant spirit more clearly than Elon Musk’s immense compensation plan at Tesla, a potential $1 trillion payout if demanding performance goals are met.

To critics, it’s a symbol of a market drunk on success and a reflection of an era when corporate pay can appear detached from restraint.

Yet in this case, the terms are heavily conditional. The reward is tied to market capitalisation and operational milestones that would require extraordinary execution. Should Musk meet them, shareholders would have benefited far beyond the cost of the bonus. It’s excessive, yes, but not necessarily evidence of corporate excess gone wild.

Still, it’s a reminder that every bull market breeds its icons of ambition, and that such headlines often coincide with the later stages of the cycle.

Credit Risk: Rational or Reckless?

Another sign that has raised eyebrows came quietly out of China. The government issued three- and five-year dollar-denominated bonds at the same yields as equivalent US Treasuries. On paper, that means investors see China as equally creditworthy as the United States, despite the fact that the US, as the issuer of dollars, can always create the money it needs to repay its debt.

This is remarkable. It suggests global investors are beginning to weigh fiscal discipline and policy stability more heavily than monetary sovereignty. Given the chaotic fiscal management and ballooning deficits under President Trump’s administration, some see China’s balance sheet as the steadier option.

The logic may not be wrong, but it underscores how perceptions of “risk-free” assets are changing.

Bubble or Breakthrough?

So, are these signs of excess or simply evidence of a new phase of growth? The answer is almost always clear only in retrospect. Every cycle has elements of both exuberance and genuine progress, and it’s rarely possible to separate them in real time.

What history does teach us, however, is that trying to pinpoint the exact peak of a market is usually a mistake. Investors who attempt to time the top often sell too late, after momentum has already reversed, and then re-enter only once the strongest phase of the recovery has passed. The result is missed opportunity, not protection.

A more effective approach is to remain invested, but to do so intelligently. That means adhering to a disciplined investment strategy designed to cushion the blow if markets do correct. Diversification remains the most reliable defence, as does managing exposure to the most inflated sectors that tend to fall hardest when optimism fades.

Bubbles only reveal themselves with hindsight. The wiser course is to stay invested but prepared. Participating in growth while setting clear limits on risk is how investors endure volatility and preserve long-term gains.

In every era of innovation, those who combine discipline with conviction are the ones who prosper.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Are we in a market bubble—or new era of growth? appeared first on Arabian Post.

The dominance of the Magnificent 7 now defines the shape of global markets. Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia, and Tesla account for more than a third of the S&P 500’s total value, up from about 12% a decade ago.

Their performance has lifted the index even as most of the remaining companies have moved sideways. The question for investors is whether these firms are overvalued or whether they are the only part of the global economy still delivering real growth.

The data points one way. Between 2015 and 2024, the Magnificent 7 rose by more than 700% compared with less than 150% for the rest of the index. In 2023 alone, they gained around 70% while the S&P 500 as a whole rose about 24%. Their combined earnings this year are expected to grow by roughly 14%, compared with about 3% for the other 493 companies.

By historic measures, valuations in the sector are demanding. Yet these firms are not speculative outliers.

They provide the infrastructure for modern productivity, communication, and AI. They underpin the digital systems that drive energy, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing. Their scale and relevance make them central to how the world’s economy functions.

Technology has become the foundation of global growth rather than a segment within it. That shift makes comparisons with past market cycles less meaningful. These firms generate large and predictable cash flows, enjoy operating margins above 30%, and are reinvesting at levels that most other sectors cannot match. High valuations reflect the scarcity of reliable earnings growth in a slow global economy.

The dominance of the Magnificent 7 does create concentration risk. When seven companies represent such a large share of the market, the performance of the entire index becomes heavily dependent on their results.

If investor sentiment weakens or earnings guidance falls short, the wider market follows. Recent trading sessions have shown that sensitivity clearly.

Prudent investors should avoid excessive exposure while maintaining core positions. Selectivity is vital. Diversification across semiconductors, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure helps reduce reliance on a handful of firms.

The aim should be to stay exposed to long-term tech growth without building a portfolio around a single theme.

The wider economic backdrop explains why capital continues to concentrate in technology. Productivity growth in developed markets remains weak, and corporate profits outside the sector have been flat.

Higher borrowing costs, rising taxes, and muted consumer demand are all holding back traditional industries. Against that environment, technology remains the only consistent source of earnings expansion and margin resilience.

AI has intensified this trend. Global spending on AI systems and infrastructure is set to exceed 400 billion dollars next year, up from about 240 billion in 2023. Companies investing in the technologies that enable that shift are driving a new cycle of capital expenditure. The benefits are already visible in stronger revenue growth across software and hardware producers.

None of this means that valuations can rise indefinitely. The sector’s rapid appreciation has already compressed future returns, and greater competition is emerging.

Regulation will also shape how these firms operate as governments look more closely at market power, data use, and taxation. Investors should expect more volatility even if the long-term direction remains upward.

The rational approach is to recognise both the strength and the risk. The Magnificent 7 have become the main drivers of index performance, but they cannot carry global markets alone.

Over time, other areas such as healthcare, clean energy, and industrial automation may begin to capture more of the growth narrative. Until that happens, tech will continue to dominate flows and investor attention.

The core issue is not whether the sector is overvalued, but why it commands such a premium. In a world of low productivity and constrained fiscal space, tech is still generating new value at scale. These companies are expensive because they are growing when most others are not.

Investors who understand that balance can maintain exposure without overreliance. Tech will remain central to portfolios because it continues to lead earnings growth and global innovation. Prices may fluctuate, but the structural story is unchanged.

The firms shaping digital infrastructure and AI remain the primary engines of expansion in an otherwise subdued global economy.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Is tech overpriced or is it the only thing growing? appeared first on Arabian Post.

The US stock market continues to surge, its strength underpinned by robust earnings and an easing policy stance from the Federal Reserve. AI remains the defining force, lifting productivity expectations and propelling capital spending.

Wall Street is still the engine of global growth, but attention is beginning to turn elsewhere. A growing number of market participants see the next major wave forming in Asia, led by China and Japan.

The US bull run has substance. Corporate America is still expanding margins, and analysts expect further double-digit earnings growth in 2025. Companies are deploying record levels of cash into AI infrastructure, automation and efficiency improvements.

For now, the combination of falling interest rates and resilient profits keeps the upward momentum alive. Yet a striking concentration has taken hold: a small cluster of tech giants now accounts for an outsized share of total market performance.

This imbalance may not matter day to day, but it limits diversification. In this environment, many global investors are exploring how other regions could complement, rather than compete with, US exposure.

China’s equity recovery this year has been one of the most significant global market stories.

The MSCI China Index has climbed more than 35% year to date, one of its best performances in over a decade. This is not a speculative rebound. It reflects deliberate policy choices and a shift in the country’s economic engine. Beijing has placed advanced technology, manufacturing and self-reliance at the heart of its 2026–2030 development plan.

The country’s investment narrative has evolved: from property and infrastructure toward innovation and productivity.

Liquidity conditions have improved, and domestic participation in the equity market has deepened. Retail and institutional investors inside China are now more active than at any point since the mid-2010s. That internal demand provides stability that foreign capital alone cannot. At the same time, valuations remain far below their peaks. Chinese equities continue to trade at a steep discount to US benchmarks despite solid earnings prospects.

The result is a market regaining credibility, with structural growth potential rather than cyclical noise at its core.

Japan’s trajectoru is just as compelling. The Nikkei 225 has gained more than 25% this year, reaching record highs as global capital returns to Tokyo. The story behind this surge is one of reform and modernisation.

Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has revived the spirit of Abenomics with a focus on pro-growth policies, industrial renewal and national competitiveness. Corporate governance changes are forcing companies to address balance-sheet inefficiencies, reward shareholders and pursue higher returns.

For decades, Japan was seen as a market with value trapped in its corporate structures. That is changing. Share buybacks and dividend hikes are accelerating, boards are opening up to activist pressure, and foreign ownership is climbing.

The result is a long-term rerating built on real structural shifts rather than currency weakness alone. Japanese companies exposed to infrastructure, technology supply chains and defence are benefiting most from this transformation, and the momentum looks set to persist as reforms continue.

The appeal of Asia is not simply about chasing performance, it’s about understanding where new cycles are forming.

Both China and Japan are operating under clear strategic frameworks designed to strengthen their domestic growth bases.

In contrast, the US story, though still powerful, is increasingly reliant on a narrow group of companies and the continuation of easy financial conditions.

The broader backdrop also favours a wider global view. With US rates moving lower and inflation pressures easing, the dollar has lost some of its edge.

History teaches us that periods of softer US currency have coincided with stronger relative performance across Asian and emerging markets. Capital often follows opportunity where monetary conditions and earnings growth intersect.

This does not imply an end to the US rally — far from it. The fundamentals behind it remain solid. But a truly global perspective now requires an appreciation of where policy, valuation and innovation are converging beyond American shores.

The world’s next phase of equity leadership may be taking shape not in Silicon Valley or New York, but in Shanghai and Tokyo.

The shift is subtle, but it matters.

As markets broaden and economic power continues to rebalance, the smartest conversations in finance are no longer about which US tech giant will dominate next quarter’s earnings season, but which regions are quietly preparing to lead the next decade.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article US rally roars on, but is Asia where the next wave builds? appeared first on Arabian Post.

For years, the cryptocurrency debate has centred on price. Every discussion returned to charts, volatility, and market speculation. The fixation on value swings has distracted from a much more important story.

The future of digital finance is not about price movement. It is about infrastructure.

Regulated stablecoins are emerging as the foundation of a new global financial system. They combine the trust of established currencies with the speed and efficiency of blockchain technology, and they are moving from the fringes into the heart of the monetary system.

Across Europe, the UK, and the United States, regulators are finalising frameworks that bring stablecoins firmly within the financial mainstream. These rules represent a turning point. They legitimise a technology once treated as an outsider and open the path to large-scale adoption.

Stablecoins were once seen as tools for traders to escape volatility. They are now becoming the rails of the next generation of payment systems. This evolution marks a structural shift in how money circulates and how economies connect.

Ethereum’s creation laid the foundation. Its designers envisioned a decentralised computer that could execute transactions automatically and transparently. From that vision grew an ecosystem now managing hundreds of billions of dollars. For years, it operated separately from traditional finance, using only native tokens.

Stablecoins changed that. By linking blockchain tokens to real-world currencies, they enabled a bridge between decentralised and traditional systems. Anyone with an internet connection could access dollar-based assets directly, bypassing banks and intermediaries.

The growth has been extraordinary. Leading issuers have become some of the most profitable businesses in existence, achieving this in an uncertain regulatory climate. The period of ambiguity is now ending, replaced by clearer and more consistent oversight.

Europe’s MiCA regulation and the US GENIUS Act establish comprehensive standards for issuance and supervision. The shift in tone is remarkable. Policymakers once viewed stablecoins as speculative risks. Now they are recognised as strategic financial tools.

In Washington, legislators see stablecoins as a way to strengthen the dollar’s influence. Because most are backed by US Treasuries, every token issued increases demand for government debt. This supports both the dollar’s global position and America’s fiscal strength.

Such alignment between public policy and private innovation is rare. Stablecoins are reinforcing the dollar’s role while offering new efficiencies for global markets.

Regulation, however, comes with complications. Under MiCA, issuers and intermediaries cannot pay interest to holders, ensuring all returns from the reserves go to the issuer. The US framework takes a more flexible approach. While issuers themselves cannot pay interest, affiliated platforms can. This distinction is already shaping competition in the market.

Yield offerings on regulated dollar tokens have drawn the attention of banks, which are lobbying for tighter boundaries. They see the risk of losing traditional advantages as the digital finance model expands.

Meanwhile, established financial institutions are entering the sector at speed. Banks, asset managers, and payment companies are developing their own blockchain systems. Many are opting for private networks that prioritise compliance and control. These systems are efficient but centralised.

Public blockchains provide a different model. They are open, transparent, and accessible to anyone. Both approaches will compete for adoption in the years ahead, defining how much openness the future financial system allows.

Central banks remain part of the contest. They continue to explore digital currencies, but progress has been slow. Stablecoins are already operational, regulated, and used globally. As this gap widens, the private sector gains the advantage. Governments have built the guardrails but have yet to lead with their own innovation.

The result is likely to be a hybrid system. Central banks will continue issuing base money, while regulated private issuers provide programmable layers for settlement and payments.

The model mirrors the evolution of the internet, where closed systems gave way to open networks.

The benefits are substantial. Stablecoins enable instant global transfers, automated financial contracts, and real-time treasury management. They streamline cross-border trade, corporate finance, and remittances.

Beyond payments, tokenisation opens entirely new frontiers. Financial logic can now be encoded in software, allowing self-executing contracts and decentralised risk management. Artificial intelligence systems can deploy capital within preset parameters. These innovations are already in practice, not distant speculation.

The speculative era defined the first decade of cryptocurrency. The next will be about structure, regulation, and scale.

Stablecoins sit at the centre of this new phase. They are transforming digital finance from an experiment into an operational part of the global economy. What began on the fringes of technology is now forming the foundation of modern money.

The transition is underway. The challenge for established financial institutions isn’t whether to engage, but how fast they can adjust to a system already being rebuilt around them.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Stablecoins are redefining global finance appeared first on Arabian Post.

ASML’s blowout third-quarter orders tell the real story of the global economy right now. The world is not slowing down — it’s retooling itself for the AI age.
The Dutch company, which makes the advanced lithography machines needed to produce the most powerful AI chips, reported €5.4 billion in new bookings for the quarter, well above forecasts.
This figure matters far beyond Europe’s borders. It signals that hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure investment are now translating into physical demand — chips, data centres, power, and bandwidth.
This is what an industrial revolution looks like in real time.
The implications could be immense for investors. The centre of economic gravity is shifting again, and this time it’s being driven by silicon, not oil. The surge in demand for chip-making tools shows how deeply embedded AI has become in corporate and national strategy.
OpenAI alone has reportedly struck deals for data centres and chips exceeding $1 trillion. Its partners, from Microsoft to Broadcom, are scaling up as if the digital economy were being rebuilt from the ground up. In many ways, it could be.
This momentum helps explain why European technology stocks have rallied and why the AI buildout is reshaping global markets faster than policymakers can react. The demand for computer power, storage, and advanced chips is unlikely to be cyclical; it looks structural. It marks a once-in-a-generation reallocation of capital toward the infrastructure of intelligence itself.
But investors should resist the temptation to see this as a simple technology boom. It is also a geopolitical contest. The world’s most advanced chip-making tools are as strategically sensitive as they are commercially valuable.
They sit at the centre of a tug-of-war between Washington and Beijing, with the US restricting what can be sold to China and Beijing threatening supply lines with rare-earth export controls. Last week, a US House committee accused semiconductor-equipment suppliers of “supporting China’s military capacity.” These are not the headlines of a normal earnings season.
This tension shows that the AI arms race is not only about speed but also control. The nations that can design, produce, and supply the most advanced semiconductors will set the tempo of technological progress for the next decade. The equipment enabling that production has become essential infrastructure — and a strategic choke point.
For Europe, that brings opportunity and responsibility. The continent now hosts arguably the most strategically important technology manufacturer in the world. Its success underscores the fact that European equities are more relevant to the global growth story than they have been in years, though they are also increasingly exposed to policy risk.
From an investment standpoint, the signal is that the AI economy could be moving from abstraction to execution. The capital already committed to computer capacity is driving a new wave of industrial investment, not just in chips but across energy, materials, logistics, and cybersecurity.
The multiplier effect will ripple through supply chains, capital markets, and national growth models. The most interesting opportunities may emerge among firms that enable or secure this expanding ecosystem.
There is, however, a line between conviction and concentration. The scale of capital chasing a small cluster of semiconductor names has created a narrow market. Valuations now assume a near-perfect continuation of AI investment. That may hold, but the path will not be smooth. Regulatory intervention, export restrictions, and resource constraints could puncture exuberance at any point.
Still, the direction of travel seems clear. Every new dataset, every algorithm, every generative AI model requires more computational power, and that demand is reshaping the global economy. The chip sector sits at the heart of that shift, and its supply chain will likely continue to define the rhythm of innovation and growth.
This moment offers both a warning and an opportunity. The AI investment wave could be vast, but it will not reward complacency. The next phase will favour those who understand the strategic stakes as well as the financial ones.
ASML’s results capture more than a quarterly surge. They reflect how the geography of global investment could be shifting.
The Netherlands, once peripheral to the tech supercycle, now finds itself at the heart of the AI economy. It’s a reminder that the next trillion in investment may not flow where it once did, but to where innovation, precision, and strategic importance now converge.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article ASML’s breakout shows where the next trillion in AI investment could be heading appeared first on Arabian Post.

Washington’s plan to sharply raise the cost of H-1B visas—the key route for skilled overseas professionals into the United States—has consequences far beyond immigration policy.
It signals a potential reallocation of talent, capital and innovation that could redefine where the next wave of technology growth takes place.
If the US prices out the world’s top engineers, data scientists and entrepreneurs, those individuals will gravitate toward regions offering a clearer path to opportunity.
Few are better positioned to capture that flow than the Gulf states, which have spent years preparing to become a global technology powerhouse. For investors searching for growth markets, this could be a pivotal development.
The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have already committed billions to artificial intelligence, cloud computing and advanced research. These investments are part of long-term national strategies designed to diversify their economies beyond hydrocarbons.
They’re not merely writing cheques; they are building entire ecosystems, including research parks, digital infrastructure and venture networks, which can absorb the world’s brightest minds and transform their ideas into scalable businesses.
Rising US visa fees effectively increase the cost of doing business for American technology firms, pushing talent and, eventually, capital toward alternative hubs.
Investors who want exposure to the next wave of AI breakthroughs or fintech innovation should note that the Gulf is offering not just competitive pay for specialists but a regulatory and fiscal environment that supports rapid growth. Low personal tax rates, streamlined business licensing and long-term residency permits give entrepreneurs and highly skilled professionals the confidence to settle and build.
The Middle East’s appeal goes beyond lifestyle benefits. By attracting a critical mass of technologists, the region sets off a chain reaction: venture capital follows talent, multinational firms establish regional operations and ancillary industries, such as education, healthcare, consumer services, expand to meet new demand.
Each link in this chain represents opportunities for equity investors, private equity funds and strategic corporates.
Saudi Arabia’s large-scale development projects, backed by one of the world’s deepest sovereign wealth funds, illustrate the scope. These initiatives are designed to be magnets for next-generation industries, from robotics to renewable energy. As global technology leaders set up in these new cities, early investors gain access to ground-floor opportunities in markets that are still underrepresented in global portfolios.
For venture investors, the message is equally compelling. Start-ups founded or relocated in the Gulf will benefit from generous funding pools, a supportive regulatory climate and ready access to global markets across Asia, Europe and Africa. That combination shortens the path from prototype to commercial success.
The competitive advantage is reinforced by immigration policy. While some Western economies tighten restrictions or add bureaucracy, the Gulf offers multi-year residency options and renewable “golden” visas for highly skilled individuals and their families. This stability is a powerful lure for innovators who might otherwise face years of uncertainty in the United States or parts of Europe.
From an asset-allocation perspective, investors should evaluate the region’s growing technology clusters alongside established centres like Silicon Valley, Shenzhen and Bangalore.
The Gulf is unlikely to displace those hubs overnight, but its momentum is undeniable. Public listings, private placements and cross-border joint ventures are all likely to increase as capital flows chase the talent influx.
This shift also provides diversification benefits. Technology projects in the Gulf are supported by government-backed funding and long-term strategic plans that are less sensitive to electoral cycles and policy swings that can disrupt Western markets.
For institutional investors seeking stable, policy-driven growth, this can be an attractive counterweight to more volatile geographies.
Higher US visa fees may create an unintended transfer of human capital and innovation to the Middle East. Investors who recognise this trend early will be better positioned to capture value as the Gulf consolidates its role as a global hub for advanced technology.
The key is to look beyond today’s headlines and position portfolios for a future in which Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh sit alongside Silicon Valley and Singapore as centres of world-class innovation.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Investors eye the Gulf as US visa hikes reshape global talent map appeared first on Arabian Post.

Defence stocks will rally and global investors will be paying attention, I believe.

The reason the bullish analysis is a catalyst came the moment President Donald Trump, after meeting Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the UN General Assembly, declared that Kyiv can reclaim all territory seized by Russia, an abrupt and market-moving pivot from his earlier calls for compromise.

In a single statement, the world’s largest economy effectively signalled that Europe’s biggest war in decades is not entering a lull but an escalation, and capital markets reacted instantly.

European defence shares climbed within hours of Trump’s comments, with the STOXX aerospace and defence index touching fresh highs. BAE Systems, Rheinmetall, Thales and Saab all gained as traders absorbed the likelihood of heavier European weapons commitments and sustained US logistical support through NATO.

This wasn’t a routine bounce. It was the market pricing in a structural shift: a US president who now frames Ukrainian victory as achievable and urges Europe to bankroll the effort.

The implications reach well beyond Eastern Europe. NATO members are already increasing defence outlays at the fastest pace since the Cold War.

The alliance has pledged to lift collective spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 and is openly debating a 5% target by the mid-2030s. Germany’s special defence fund—€100 billion at its launch—is nearly fully allocated and Berlin is planning a follow-up package. Poland is on course to devote 4% of GDP to defence this year.

France and Italy are expanding procurement budgets for drones, missile systems and cyber-defence, while the UK has committed to a multiyear uplift in military investment.

Globally the numbers are staggering. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that military expenditure hit a record $2.6 trillion in 2024 and is tracking higher in 2025.

The US defence budget alone is set to exceed $900 billion, and Asian powers are racing to match pace: Japan’s five-year plan tops $300 billion, while India’s defence allocation has risen by more than 12% year-on-year. This is not temporary wartime spending; it is a re-rating of security as a core economic priority.

Investors know that modern defence is not confined to tanks and fighter jets. Demand now spans satellites, hypersonic propulsion, autonomous systems, quantum-secure communications and AI-driven surveillance.

These technologies are attracting venture capital as well as public money, and they feed directly into listed companies with the scale to supply governments at speed. From Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in the US to Europe’s Thales, Leonardo and Saab, order books are lengthening and margins expanding.

Supply constraints add fuel. Even after record revenue of roughly $950 billion in 2024, the global aerospace and defence industry faces labour shortages and bottlenecks in critical components such as semiconductors and precision metals.

This tightness creates pricing power and protects profitability, a combination equity markets reward. Analysts tracking the sector already report double-digit earnings growth forecasts through 2026 and a steady pipeline of government contracts that extend visibility for years.

The war in Ukraine remains the immediate spark, but the investment case is broader. Trump’s shift underscores that Washington’s security guarantees, and its weapons transfers, will continue regardless of debates over direct US troop involvement.

Europe, newly conscious of its own vulnerability, is accelerating joint procurement and defence-industrial integration. Asia is responding to tensions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait with parallel spending commitments.

All of this points to sustained momentum for defence equities. The MSCI World Aerospace & Defence index has already risen more than 25% this year, outpacing global benchmarks.

Technical analysts highlight fresh buy signals in names ranging from AeroVironment, a specialist in unmanned aircraft, to Howmet Aerospace, a key supplier of advanced alloys. Private equity is circling mid-tier suppliers to consolidate fragmented niches such as electronic warfare and space-based sensing.

Investors weighing risk should of course account for political scrutiny and the perennial possibility of peace breakthroughs.

Yet even a negotiated settlement in Ukraine would not reverse the multi-year rearmament plans now enshrined in government budgets. Defence is being recast as economic infrastructure—a pillar of resilience alongside energy and digital networks.

Markets are telling the story already. As Trump embraces a strategy of Ukrainian victory and Europe commits to funding it, defence stocks are not merely a hedge. They are becoming a core growth trade for the decade ahead.

Global capital is moving accordingly, and those who understand the scale of this geopolitical realignment will be the ones to capture it.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Defence stocks set to surge as Trump signals Ukraine shift appeared first on Arabian Post.

The Federal Reserve sets the price of money for the world’s largest economy, but the battle now unfolding in Washington is about far more than the next rate decision. President Donald Trump and his economic advisors are pushing to narrow the central bank’s mission and pull it closer to the White House.

For international investors, this is not a distant Beltway turf fight. It’s a direct threat to the stability of global capital markets.

For decades, the Fed’s independence has anchored confidence in the US dollar, the ultimate reserve currency.

The credibility allows the United States to borrow more cheaply, and it gives global investors a benchmark for pricing risk everywhere from Frankfurt to Singapore. Undermine that independence and the dollar’s special status will begin to fray, sending tremors through every asset class.

I have warned repeatedly that central bank autonomy is not a technocratic nicety. It’s the foundation of modern markets.

If traders start to believe that interest rates are being set to serve a political timetable—whether to juice growth ahead of an election or to finance ambitious spending plans—yields will rise to compensate for the added risk. The immediate impact would be higher borrowing costs for Washington. The wider consequence would be a repricing of risk across the world.

President Trump has made no secret of his intentions. He and senior advisors have floated proposals to strip the Fed of its dual mandate, which now balances price stability with maximum employment, and to limit its discretion over policy. Some have even suggested subjecting monetary decisions to review by the Treasury or Congress.

The aim, it seems, is to tighten political control over an institution that was designed, deliberately, to operate at arm’s length from the administration of the day.

History offers plenty of cautionary tales. Turkey’s lira crisis, Argentina’s chronic inflation, even episodes in post-war Britain all illustrate the dangers of letting elected officials dictate monetary policy.

Once credibility is lost, restoring it requires painful measures—steeper rate hikes, fiscal austerity, and years of rebuilding market trust.

The stakes for international investors could not be higher. The US Treasury market is the backbone of the global financial system. It sets the risk-free rate that underpins everything from corporate bonds in Europe to property loans in Asia. If doubts emerge about the Fed’s independence, foreign demand for Treasuries could waver. That would push yields higher, drive volatility across currencies, and complicate investment strategies everywhere.

Already we’re seeing early warning signs. The dollar has softened in recent weeks as traders digest reports of potential structural changes to the Fed. Gold has climbed as investors look for hedges against policy uncertainty. Emerging-market currencies, which often suffer when US policy becomes unpredictable, have started to wobble.

For portfolio managers in Dubai, London, New York or Hong Kong, this is not a theoretical debate. It shapes real decisions about asset allocation, hedging strategies, and risk management. A credible, independent Fed allows global investors to plan with confidence.

A politically constrained Fed would inject a new layer of uncertainty into every forecast.

None of this is to argue that the Fed should be above accountability. Transparency and communication are essential. But independence does not mean immunity from scrutiny; it means freedom from short-term political pressure so that policy can focus on long-term economic health. That principle has served the US, and by extension the world, exceptionally well.

International investors should be vocal in defending it. The dollar’s role as the global reserve currency is not a birthright.

It’s earned through sound governance and consistent policy. If the perception takes hold that monetary decisions are driven by politics rather than data, alternatives will gain ground. Other major economies are already exploring ways to reduce reliance on the dollar in trade and reserves.

Undercutting the Fed’s independence would accelerate that shift.

The global economy is entering a period of slower growth and heightened geopolitical tension. Stable, predictable monetary policy is more valuable than ever. Politicizing the Federal Reserve at such a moment would be reckless.

I urge policymakers, and market participants everywhere, to recognize what is at stake.

This isn’t merely an argument over interest rates or balance-sheet policy. It is a contest over the institutional framework that supports global finance.

International investors cannot afford to be bystanders. The credibility of the world’s most important central bank is on the line.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Why investors should care about Trump’s bid to reshape the Fed appeared first on Arabian Post.

Markets are sending urgent signals.

Gold has burst above $3,600 an ounce, a record that reflects both anticipation of rate cuts and a broader scramble for safety. Treasury yields have swung sharply, with shorter maturities pulled lower by expectations of central bank easing while long-dated bonds creep toward multi-year highs, and across equities, momentum has become fragmented, with volatility rising around political headlines and economic uncertainty.

These are not isolated moves. They are symptoms of a deeper shift in the market environment.

The long era defined by relentless disinflation, falling interest rates, and abundant liquidity is behind us. What’s emerging is what many analysts are now calling a ‘post-modern; market cycle.

It’s an era defined by debt burdens that are historically high, demographic shifts that strain fiscal systems, the unwinding of globalization, and an inflationary undertone that refuses to disappear.

This changing backdrop means the forces that powered portfolios over the past two decades cannot be relied upon to do the same in the next.

The safe assumption that central banks will always provide a backstop is giving way to a more unstable equilibrium where policymakers are constrained by debt, politics, and credibility. Investors are already responding to this recalibration by seeking havens and shortening horizons.

 The surge in gold is a prime example. It is not simply a hedge against inflation but a hedge against systemic uncertainty.

Bond markets are another barometer. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and now increasingly across Europe, long-term yields are grinding higher not because growth expectations are roaring but because demand for government debt is thinning.

Central banks are no longer hoovering up supply, while pension funds and institutional buyers are hesitant to lock in decades of exposure to uncertain fiscal trajectories. This repricing has profound consequences.

When the backbone of the financial system demands higher compensation, the cost of capital rises everywhere. That shift reshapes equity valuations, real estate financing, and corporate borrowing strategies.

Equities remain caught between optimism over monetary easing and realism about slowing growth. Rate cuts may come, but they will not replicate the past. When inflation proves sticky, cuts are modest and temporary, and the floor under borrowing costs rises.

This creates a choppier environment where sector leadership is more contested and where sentiment swings quickly with each new data release or policy signal. The result is markets that feel less predictable and more headline-driven.

For Europe, this transition is especially stark. Political instability in France, with the Bayrou government fighting for survival in a confidence vote, has pushed French yields higher and reminded investors of the fragility in one of the eurozone’s core economies.

At the same time, the European Central Bank (ECB) is under pressure to juggle conflicting priorities: anchoring inflation expectations, maintaining financial stability, and navigating divergent economic performance across member states. The euro, already volatile, has been sliding as traders reassess risk premiums in a bloc where fiscal cohesion is strained.

The interplay of these forces suggests we are in the early stages of a structural market evolution. Safe havens such as gold will command higher strategic weight as uncertainty becomes the norm rather than the exception. Sovereign debt markets will be more volatile, reflecting both supply dynamics and questions of political credibility.

Currencies will be more sensitive to domestic instability, especially in economies where fiscal discipline and growth prospects are in doubt.

The challenge for investor is not simply surviving volatility but understanding its causes. The post-modern cycle is not a temporary phase. It reflects the hard realities of aging populations, ballooning deficits, geopolitical fragmentation, and inflation that central banks cannot permanently suppress.

These realities are colliding with markets that had grown accustomed to a very different set of assumptions. This collision is why gold is at records, why bonds are demanding higher yields, and why currencies are under strain.

The urgency now lies in recognising that markets are operating under new rules. The comfortable patterns of the past—falling rates, reliable central bank support, and predictable disinflation—have been replaced by a messier, more unstable order.

This doesn’t spell the end of opportunity, by any means, but it should mark the end of complacency.

Investors who misinterpret today’s signals as temporary noise risk being wrong-footed. Those who accept that the environment itself has changed and who seek advice will be better position to grasp what comes next.

We’re standing at the edge of a new market epoch. Gold’s surge, bond market tensions, and political shocks in Europe are not disparate stories. They’re chapters of the same book. The task now is to read that book with clarity.

The post-modern market is here, and it is rewriting the rhythm of global finance.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Markets in a Post-Modern era: New reality investors face appeared first on Arabian Post.

Central bankers rarely admit defeat. But Jerome Powell’s latest remarks left little doubt: the Federal Reserve now sees the labour market faltering before inflation is fully tamed.
This shift in focus – from bringing down prices to protecting jobs – marks a profound change in the policy backdrop. For investors, it is a wake-up call.
For two years, the dominant story was inflation. Central banks tightened aggressively to restore credibility and slow surging prices.
Now the risks have flipped. Job creation is slowing, participation rates have plateaued, and business surveys point to softening demand. Even while inflation persists above target, the Fed is preparing to cut. That is no small matter.
History suggests this mix – weaker growth but stubborn inflation – is the most treacherous combination of all: stagflation. In the 1970s, oil shocks exposed the limits of monetary policy. Policymakers who eased prematurely locked in years of high prices, eroding household wealth and leaving markets volatile for a generation.
Today’s context is different – technology, globalisation, and capital flows are more advanced – but the challenge is remarkably similar.
The Fed now finds itself forced to balance two contradictory risks. On the one hand, inflation is not dead. Core measures are still running above 2%, with services and housing showing resilience.
On the other hand, labour market indicators – job openings, quits, wage growth – are sliding. Powell’s decision to prioritise jobs signals tolerance for higher inflation. That tolerance has huge implications for savers and investors.
Cash, often seen as a safe harbour, becomes toxic in this environment. Every month of above-target inflation quietly destroys purchasing power. And when central banks cut despite inflation, they effectively accelerate that erosion. Investors clinging to cash balances risk sleepwalking into wealth destruction.
This is why the message now is to own assets.
In a stagflationary world, traditional defensive strategies – government bonds, money-market funds – lose their protective qualities. The returns may look stable, but in real terms they are negative. Wealth preservation requires instruments with intrinsic value or pricing power.
Equities that can raise prices without losing demand remain critical. Firms with global reach, strong brands, and essential goods or services can defend margins when costs rise. Energy producers, resource exporters, and industrial firms tied to infrastructure often thrive in inflationary periods. Hard assets such as real estate, particularly in supply-constrained locations, offer a measure of protection. Infrastructure assets, which often carry inflation-linked revenues, can be resilient. And gold has for centuries served as a store of value when currencies weaken.
Newer hedges are entering the conversation too.
Bitcoin, with its finite supply, is increasingly viewed as a counterweight to policy-driven debasement of fiat money. It is volatile, but its appeal as “digital gold” is growing as deficits expand and central banks accept higher inflation as the price of supporting growth.
The policy context reinforces the urgency. Trade tensions are already lifting input costs. Tariffs and supply-chain frictions feed through directly to consumer prices. Meanwhile, soaring government deficits are pumping demand into an economy still running above its long-term capacity.
These dynamics make it almost impossible for central banks to restore 2% inflation without creating a recession. The Fed has effectively chosen not to push that far. The result will be higher prices for longer.
None of this means investors should despair. Opportunity is born in periods of dislocation. Stagflation widens the gap between winners and losers, creating both risks and extraordinary gains for those who position early. But what it does demand is decisiveness.
Waiting on the sidelines is not neutral; it’s actively destructive. Inflation compounds against savers every month. Rate cuts against that backdrop lock in the erosion.
By the time mainstream commentary catches up to the word “stagflation,” the best opportunities will already have moved.
The winners will be those who accept the new reality now. Diversified portfolios anchored in real assets, exposure to sectors with pricing power, and strategic allocations to inflation hedges will protect and, in many cases, enhance wealth.
The lesson from Powell’s shift is bigger than one speech. It is that we are entering a new policy regime. Inflation is no longer enemy number one.
Growth and employment carry the priority. That means investors can no longer expect central banks to defend the purchasing power of their cash. They must take that responsibility themselves.
The choice could not be starker: deploy capital into assets with enduring value, or watch savings corrode.
History teaches us that in stagflationary periods, indecision is the most costly mistake of all.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article The Fed’s pivot is a warning: own assets or lose wealth appeared first on Arabian Post.

Global stock markets are basking in record highs, but the mood beneath the surface is far from confident.

This isn’t a calm, sustainable rally. It’s one built on fragile assumptions, stretched valuations, and dangerous complacency. The higher equities climb, the more brutal the eventual reckoning could be.

This summer has rewarded investors handsomely. The S&P 500 and FTSE 100 broke into new territory just over a week ago. Japan’s Nikkei 225 set a fresh peak last Monday. The MSCI World Index has risen around 14% in dollar terms since January. In sterling, the gains look smaller because of dollar weakness, but the scale of the rebound is undeniable.

For many, the scars of April’s “Liberation Day” sell-off now look like a distant memory.

Why the optimism? US corporate earnings have defied expectations, with most companies sidestepping the immediate damage from tariffs. Tech giants in particular have posted robust results, helping to propel markets higher.

Investors outside the US are, it would seem, simply relieved that the feared global trade war has not fully detonated. Adding fuel, the Federal Reserve has bowed to political pressure and trimmed interest rates. Whether justified by economic fundamentals or not, lower borrowing costs have only added to the sense of euphoria.

But this is not a balanced picture. Nerves are showing – and rightly so.

US equities are trading at valuations that are difficult to defend by any measure. The technology sector, in particular, is priced for perfection. Even a modest earnings miss or a shift in sentiment could trigger a sharp revaluation. T

ariffs, meanwhile, are only beginning to bite. The true economic cost of Washington’s import taxes will take time to filter through supply chains, and when it does, the damage will be real.

Bond markets are flashing their own warnings. U.S. Treasuries, the cornerstone of the global financial system, have been described as “eerily quiet.” But this calm is deceptive.

Auctions of new debt have already shown cracks, with weaker demand compared to the past. Investors are beginning to question the sustainability of America’s fiscal trajectory. Contrast this with the UK, where gilt auctions continue to attract strong demand. Washington is testing the patience of global creditors. This patience is not infinite.

High-yield credit adds another layer of concern. Spreads over Treasuries remain wafer-thin, implying investors are demanding little premium for taking on much greater risk.

This suggests markets are underpricing danger not just in equities but in corporate debt as well. If defaults rise or growth slows, those holding riskier credit instruments could face severe losses.

What we’re witnessing is likely the triumph of hope over caution. Investors are assuming corporate earnings will stay strong, tariffs will remain manageable, rate cuts will offset weakness, and debt markets will continue to fund US deficits without revolt. This is a series of optimistic bets stacked precariously on top of one another.

History shows how dangerous such periods of complacency can be. Markets can drift higher for weeks or months while risks quietly accumulate. But when sentiment turns – and it always does – the correction is rarely smooth.

With valuations stretched and safety margins razor-thin, the next shock could be far more punishing than investors expect.

For those serious about preserving and growing wealth, this is the time for vigilance. Blindly chasing the rally is reckless. Diversification is essential. Exposure to defensive assets such as quality government bonds, gold, and even cash should not be dismissed.

Positioning portfolios with resilience in mind is the only rational response when markets are pricing in perfection.

This is not a call to exit markets wholesale. Equities can, and likely will, continue to make gains in the short term. But ignoring the warning signs would be a grave mistake. Risks are mounting, and those who fail to act now will be the most exposed when volatility returns.

Financial markets are cyclical. Periods of exuberance always give way to turbulence. Today’s record highs, thin credit spreads, and strained government finances are precisely the conditions that precede sharp corrections. Investors must not confuse today’s calm for safety. It’s likely the calm before the storm.

The summer surge has been exhilarating. But markets are not invincible, and history has little patience for complacency. Those who prepare for the downturn now will not just survive it; they’ll emerge stronger on the other side.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Markets are soaring, but cracks are widening appeared first on Arabian Post.

Wall Street surged on Friday as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s address at the Jackson Hole symposium signposted a shift in policy direction, lifting the Dow to its highest closing level of 2025. The Dow climbed by around 1.9 per cent, the S&P 500 rose 1.5 per cent, and the Nasdaq jumped by roughly 1.9 per cent. This rally reversed a recent downturn and came amid rising expectations for an interest-rate cut in September.

Investor sentiment pivoted sharply as Powell acknowledged mounting economic headwinds. He emphasised that with growth slowing to approximately 1.2 per cent in the first half of the year and inflation climbing—tariff effects lifting core PCE prices to 2.9 per cent year-on-year—downside risks to employment and upside pressures on inflation have become more pronounced. Despite these challenges, he maintained that monetary policy remains data-dependent and underscored that the shift in the balance of risks “may warrant adjusting our policy stance”.

Market reactions were swift. The Dow added over 800 points to mark its first record close of the year, while S&P and Nasdaq also advanced strongly. Small-cap stocks outperformed, exemplified by a 3.9 per cent rise in the Russell 2000, as investors placed renewed bets on rate-sensitive sectors. Futures markets priced in an approximately 83–85 per cent likelihood of a rate cut at the September meeting, up sharply from 75 per cent just prior to Powell’s remarks.

The speech drew cautious optimism, with analysts noting that Powell maintained the central bank’s flexibility. Nigel Green of deVere Group observed that Powell “kept the door open” to easing, offering reassurance to households and businesses that the Fed remains attentive to evolving conditions. Yet others warned that one cut alone might not significantly stimulate consumer spending and flagged risks from rising tariffs.

Beyond macro trends, specific market segments stood out. Technology and regional banking stocks showed strong gains, while defensive sectors underperformed. Intel shares rose around 5.5 per cent following reports of a U. S. government stake acquisition, while Zoom posted its strongest quarterly revenue in nearly three years, garnering a nearly 13 per cent share price jump.

Despite the wave of bullishness, concerns linger. Analysts cautioned that the upswing may be a classic “late-summer rally,” driven by short-term optimism amid thin participation—conditions that could reverse in coming months. Retirees and fixed-income investors face frustration. With bond yields falling in response to the dovish tone, savers reliant on income streams are seeing diminished returns, even as inflation remains above the Fed’s long-term objective.

Powell’s comments also highlighted domestic political pressures. He signalled concerns over tariffs and immigration policies, warning they could exacerbate inflationary trends and suppress labour force growth. He reiterated the importance of the Fed’s independence, even as internal dissent grows—with two governors voting against the last rate decision.

The article Markets Rally as Powell Signals Rate Easing Ahead appeared first on Arabian Post.

The article Markets can’t afford to ignore Bessent’s warning shot appeared first on Arabian Post.

US markets have been hitting record levels this week, and the catalyst of growing conviction that the Federal Reserve will cut rates in September.

The Dow surged 463 points on Wednesday, the S&P 500 notched another all-time high, and the Nasdaq also finished at a record for the second straight day.

The optimism is being driven by a tamer-than-expected inflation report that has traders assigning a near 100% probability to a rate cut at the Fed’s next decision. Add in a resilient earnings season, with even small caps showing renewed strength, and you have a market rally that is no longer confined to the usual megacap tech leaders.

When the cost of borrowing falls, capital becomes cheaper for companies, financing becomes less of a drag, and equity valuations tend to expand.

Lower rates also give consumers more room to spend, which can ripple quickly through corporate revenues.

This is why rate expectations are such a potent driver of equity markets, and why we’ve seen the rally broaden beyond the so-called ‘Magnificent Seven’ to small- and mid-cap stocks, with the Russell 2000 gaining 2% on Wednesday alone.

But this is not just a US story. The US is still the primary engine of global capital markets, and when Wall Street moves, liquidity, sentiment, and valuation re-rating tend to spill across borders.

Emerging market equities, for example, often benefit disproportionately when US rates come down – capital flows in search of higher yields and growth potential can accelerate. Developed market exporters, particularly in Europe and Asia, can also see upside if a weaker dollar boosts their competitive position.

The near-term picture, if the Fed does deliver in September, is a global risk-on environment. Equities would likely extend their gains, credit spreads could tighten, and certain currencies sensitive to growth and risk sentiment, such as the Australian dollar or the South African rand, may strengthen. Commodities tied to industrial activity, including copper, could get a boost as the growth narrative firms.

Of course, markets rarely move in straight lines. The risk is that optimism runs ahead of reality, especially if economic data turns quickly or if central bankers signal that cuts will be more measured than investors hope.

Inflation, while easing, has not disappeared, and the Fed will want to avoid the perception that it is acting too aggressively.

For investors, this is a moment that demands both clarity and discipline.

The broadening of the rally is a healthy sign – it suggests that markets are no longer reliant on a small cluster of giants – but it also means that opportunities are appearing in areas that have been overlooked for much of the past year. This includes sectors and regions that stand to benefit directly from a lower cost of capital and a potential reacceleration in global trade.

It also calls for an awareness of currency implications.

A Fed rate cut would likely weaken the dollar, which could enhance returns for non-US assets in dollar terms, but it could also introduce volatility in foreign exchange markets. Investors with global exposure need to understand how this might affect both portfolio performance and risk.

We are entering a period where positioning ahead of policy moves can have a material impact on outcomes. The market is already pricing in a September cut – which means the real opportunity lies in anticipating how capital will reallocate once that cut is delivered.

It’s a question of identifying the sectors, asset classes, and geographies best placed to benefit in the first phase of easier policy, while also protecting against the possibility of a bumpier path than markets currently expect.

The Fed’s next move is not just about rates. It’s about resetting the tempo of the global financial system after two years of aggressive tightening. As always, such a reset will create winners and losers – and the difference between them will come down to preparation.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Rate cut expectations drive markets to new highs appeared first on Arabian Post.

Many asset allocators I speak with are questioning valuations that appear stretched and overly reliant on a handful of technology giants. Although the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 reached fresh highs just last week, the rally already feels vulnerable.

Outside the United States, sentiment is notably more optimistic. In Europe, Asia, and across several key emerging markets, investors are finding better value and a wider range of opportunities.

There’s growing interest in cyclical and defensive sectors that are trading at more reasonable levels. Allocators are beginning to shift their focus globally in search of better-priced assets and broader exposure.

Bond markets have remained relatively calm. Both US Treasuries and UK gilts continue to offer yields that are comfortably above inflation, which is a positive for those seeking stable income.

This is particularly noteworthy given the large volume of new debt that both governments are expected to issue in the coming months. Despite the supply pressures, yields have remained steady, which suggests there is still confidence in these instruments.

Gold is another asset that continues to reflect a more cautious outlook. Prices remain close to all-time highs. This signals ongoing demand for safe havens, especially as political risk and long-term inflation concerns linger in the background.

However, the single biggest driver of uncertainty in markets right now is trade policy. Tariffs are back in focus, and the outlook is murky at best.

We should not expect clarity on the final shape of US trade policy until well into 2026. Many of the recent bilateral agreements signed by the United States, including those with the UK and the European Union, are little more than frameworks for future discussion. They do not provide investors or businesses with the certainty they need to plan ahead.

Last Friday, Washington announced a new 39 percent tariff on certain Swiss imports, a move that has already prompted calls from Switzerland for renegotiation. At the same time, the existing US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, signed in 2020, is only guaranteed for another 90 days. Talks to extend or amend it are still ongoing, and the outcome remains unclear.

We also do not yet understand the full implications of these new trade measures on corporate earnings, global growth, or inflation. The numbers themselves are higher than many had expected.

According to Yale University’s Budget Lab, the average tariff now being implemented sits around 18.3 percent. For months, the consensus had been that the figure would hover near 10 percent. That expectation has now been upended.

What complicates the picture further is the weak economic data coming out of the United States. Last Friday’s payroll report showed a decline in manufacturing jobs.

In response, President Trump dismissed the head of the government’s labour statistics office, a move that raised eyebrows. Then came a disappointing ISM services survey, which pointed to contraction in the services sector. This followed five consecutive months of contraction in the ISM manufacturing index.

Taken together, this makes for an uneasy backdrop to Wall Street’s high valuations.

While recent second quarter earnings were relatively strong and prompted some upward revisions in forecasts, those upgrades are now under pressure. If incoming data continues to disappoint, it is likely that we will see some of those expectations revised downward.

In this environment, investors would do well to maintain a globally diversified approach. Concentrating capital in a single region or sector that appears strong today carries risks that may not be fully visible until sentiment turns.

Exposure across different geographies and industries can help reduce vulnerability to localized shocks.

Many European and Asian markets are not only more attractively priced but are also less exposed to the fallout from US trade policy. Emerging markets offer the potential for growth that is driven more by domestic demand than by global trade flows.

For private investors in particular, well-constructed multi-asset funds remain an effective way to access this broader set of opportunities.

These vehicles are designed to deliver strong risk-adjusted returns over time and tend to offer more diversification than an individual investor could achieve alone.

The current market environment is a reminder of how quickly sentiment can shift.

High valuations, policy uncertainty, and mixed economic data are a potent combination. Rather than chase short-term gains, long-term investors should remain focused on balance, discipline, and diversification.

Now is the time to think globally, act selectively, and prepare for a wide range of outcomes.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Wall Street’s jitters highlight case for global diversification appeared first on Arabian Post.

President Trump has sharply shortened his own deadline for punishing buyers of Russian oil, catching markets off guard and forcing investors to price in a risk that had previously been dismissed.

On Monday, standing beside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, Trump announced that Moscow now has only 10 to 12 days to secure a peace deal over Ukraine.  

If it doesn’t, he says he will impose 100% tariffs on countries still buying Russian oil, which includes some of the biggest economies in the world, such as India and China. 

This threat, if acted on, would mark the most aggressive move yet in Washington’s effort to tighten the screws on Russian energy exports.  

It’s also a clear departure from Trump’s previous position. Just two weeks ago, he gave Russia 50 days. Now, that window has collapsed, and the consequences of action or inaction are closer than markets had anticipated. 

The shift in tone and timing has already started to move prices. Brent crude climbed nearly 3% on Monday. Not because sanctions were in place, but because the market was no longer comfortable assuming they wouldn’t be.  

When a major energy exporter faces a new access risk, and the message comes from the President of the United States, traders have no choice but to respond. 

What happens next is unknowable. Trump has backed down from dramatic threats before, especially when markets push back. He’s also shown a willingness to act when it fits his strategy.  

For instance, the airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June were not foreshadowed. They were carried out without warning, and they sent ripples through global markets. That’s part of what makes this current situation so tense. The unpredictability forces investors to prepare for both outcomes at once. 

There’s little doubt about the impact if Trump does move forward. Russia continues to export close to 4.7 million barrels of crude per day, and more than 2.5 million barrels of refined products, which represents a significant share of global supply.  

If secondary sanctions are imposed, the impact would be swift. Tanker routes would shift, buyers would scramble, and, clearly, pressure on pricing would intensify. 

The inflation risk is real. Energy prices remain a critical input in the broader inflation picture. If crude climbs on sanctions, the next inflation print could surprise to the upside.  

This would complicate domestic monetary policy just as Trump is publicly calling for interest rate cuts. He’s been consistent in arguing that borrowing costs are too high.  

However, if inflation rises because of his own actions, the Fed would have no space to ease. This could become politically awkward, particularly in a climate where inflation expectations are stabilising. 

Then there’s the geopolitical consequence. By threatening secondary sanctions, Trump is essentially asking India, China, and other Russian oil customers to pick sides.  

It brings new friction into a set of already fragile global relationships. It could also accelerate the slow fragmentation we’ve seen in global trade and finance over the last several years. 

For investors, this creates a multidimensional challenge. It’s not just about oil. It’s about policy, inflation, global alignment, and the credibility of US threats.  

This is why I don’t believe this can be ignored. Even if Trump chooses not to follow through, the possibility has already changed behaviour. 

This moment is now priced into the market. The only question is how far it moves from here. 

The timeline is tight. The signals are mixed. But the risk is on the table. 

Whatever Trump decides to do next, markets are no longer able to look past it.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Russia in Trump’s crosshairs—oil markets on alert appeared first on Arabian Post.

It’s tempting to call this a pause for breath—but make no mistake, what follows could determine whether bulls stay in control.

With 59 S&P 500 companies already reporting and a staggering 86% surpassing estimates, according to FactSet’s latest, the bar being set is high. It’s a message: optimism is winning, but only if it endures.

The spotlight now turns to the elite of the elite: Alphabet and Tesla. These two giants, part of the so-called “Magnificent Seven,” are poised to set the tempo. FactSet forecasts these mega-caps will deliver about 14% year-on-year growth, dwarfing the modest 3.4% gain expected from the remaining 493 S&P members.  If they execute, markets could ride that booster straight into orbit.

Look at Alphabet first. Here’s a conglomerate that dominates search, YouTube, cloud, and is now making serious AI inroads. Analysts expect around 15% growth in earnings, with cloud revenue expanding in double digits. That’s robust by any standard.

However, the test will lie in translating AI investment into sustained profit, and avoiding regulatory traps that could dampen its shine.

Then there’s Tesla, which is a polarizing force in the EV and tech arenas. Yes, deliveries are down about 13.5% year-over-year, and earnings are estimated to fall roughly 19–20%, with EPS north of $0.40.

But Elon Musk is doubling down, reportedly sleeping in the office, laser-focused on robotaxi and tech updates. If he delivers on those fronts, sentiment could swing sharply positive, even if top-line figures remind investors of lumpiness in the core auto business.

This is why this phase of earnings feels nothing like a routine check-in. We’re perched on a razor’s edge: confirmation that growth remains intact—or the first sign that valuations teeter on thin air.

The S&P’s forward P/E sits around 22.2, higher than its five- and 10-year norms of 19.9 and 18.4, respectively. That’s a premium tied to performance. With 19 quarters of revenue growth already behind us, it’s time for proof that earnings can keep pace.

The message from the banks so far paints a picture: financials and healthcare are lifting earnings, while sectors like energy are lagging. But if Alphabet or Tesla stumble, it could offset gains and invite a broader reassessment. Conversely, if they deliver, and perhaps outperform, this rally gains fresh legs.

Why is this crucial? Because the backdrop remains complex. Tariff chatter, Fed policy shifts, geopolitical worries, they’re all still in play. But right now, the market isn’t fixated on macro headlines. It’s banking on this micro foundation: corporate earnings. A strong season builds confidence that transcends volatility.

It’s about narrative, too. When the S&P hits new heights just as earnings season begins, there’s a constancy in the story. It’s not just that the market is high, it’s that earnings are expected to follow suit. Beat expectations, and that narrative deepens; miss them, and the rally becomes vulnerable to challenges.

So, here’s where we stand: the Opening Act is strong. Momentum is palpable. But what matters most is what happens next. Can the Magnificent Seven deliver? Will Alphabet stave off AI disruption and regulatory spanners? Can Tesla quell concerns about shrinking deliveries and keep investor passion alive through its tech ambition?

Their answers will echo far beyond their own results; they’ll shape how investors view the entire S&P.

So buckle up. This week’s script will write the next chapter in the bull story. No one wants to see forceful resistance here. The market’s high ambitions demand high execution. If that comes, the journey upward continues.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article If Big Tech earnings deliver, the bull run gets fresh legs appeared first on Arabian Post.

President Trump’s trade decisions are no longer a future threat; they’re now a present force reshaping European corporate performance. The timing is brutal.

What was expected to be a modestly positive second quarter for European earnings has shifted into decline, with weakness now concentrated in a few critical sectors.

Investors are bracing for confirmation that Europe’s earnings engine has stalled. The continent’s largest firms are being squeezed between softer demand and policy-driven pricing pressure.

The hardest-hit? Energy, consumer-facing multinationals, and financial institutions—all of which are deeply entwined with global trade flows, dollar liquidity, and sentiment cycles.

The latest data point to a shallow contraction in European earnings per share for the second quarter—just months after analysts were still forecasting robust growth.

This kind of whiplash signals something deeper than seasonal volatility. It reflects the speed and scale at which expectations have been rewired in response to Trump’s aggressive trade stance and the rising cost of doing business across borders.

The energy sector has been among the swiftest to feel the impact. Oil prices, already under pressure through much of Q2, found no relief in tariff announcements. On the contrary, producers now face increased uncertainty around demand, pricing structures, and the stability of international supply chains.

Crude has recovered somewhat since Trump’s latest volley of trade threats, but that rebound masks the structural challenges beneath. Tariffs hit everything from upstream investment to downstream distribution.

The big European energy names are not just contending with weak prices—they are navigating a much more unstable commercial environment than their US counterparts, who now benefit from friendlier domestic regulation and renewed geopolitical leverage.

The consumer sector has its own set of problems, and they are compounding quickly. Currency pressure from a weakening dollar has lifted the euro to multi-month highs—bad news for exporters relying on US demand. But it’s the tariff shock that has most dramatically reset the mood.

European brands selling into the US market now face an awkward mix of falling margins and unclear guidance. From luxury icons to mass-market manufacturers, the story is turning sour. Investors are no longer looking for growth; they’re looking for resilience.

That’s especially true for discretionary names with high exposure to the US consumer. As inflation softens stateside but tariffs rise, spending patterns are shifting in unpredictable ways. European brands reliant on price stability and repeat purchases may now struggle to justify forward earnings multiples.

Some will hold the line. Others will crack. Commentary accompanying these results will be closely parsed for signs that demand has deteriorated faster than expected.

Then there’s the financial sector—until recently, the unshakable pillar of European earnings growth. That pillar is now wobbling. Bank profits have ridden high on rising rates, deal speculation, and net interest income. But tariffs, by design, depress cross-border investment. They cloud merger activity, discourage capital flow, and introduce costs that even the most efficient lenders can’t hedge away.

While forecasts still point to slight profit expansion this quarter, the momentum is clearly fading.

The bigger concern for investors is whether this is the beginning of a trend. European banks are heavily exposed to global supply chains, especially those facilitating trade between the EU and the US. Tariff policy disrupts those flows.

It also raises credit risks for firms caught in the middle—many of which are mid-sized manufacturers or logistics players dependent on transatlantic trade routes. The revaluation of these risks is already underway, and the sharp rally in European bank stocks earlier this year now looks increasingly out of step with the operating reality on the ground.

Put simply: the Europe-versus-US divide is growing. While Trump’s tariffs are raising costs in Europe, the US is simultaneously offering support to its domestic industries, including energy and digital assets.

This divergence is altering the investment case for entire sectors. Europe is still the world’s largest trading bloc—but trade is exactly what’s under siege. It makes this earnings season less about individual company performance and more about policy drag.

For long-term investors, this is a wake-up call. Valuations built on the assumption of stable, rules-based global commerce are being tested. In a world where tariffs can be imposed by tweet, diversification across regions isn’t enough. Sector exposure, policy sensitivity, and forward guidance credibility all need to be reassessed.

This reporting season will deliver more than financial updates. It will reveal which companies are best-positioned to survive the age of economic confrontation—and which are still clinging to a fading version of globalisation.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Tariffs bite into Europe as earnings season begins – which sectors will be hit hardest? appeared first on Arabian Post.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Sterling’s strength exposes the dollar’s decline appeared first on Arabian Post.

This would not be a measured repricing. It would be a sharp reflex from investors who have, until now, largely overlooked the rising threat of a wider regional war in the Middle East.

Equities across the US, Europe and Asia are still trading near record highs. Confidence has been built on assumptions of rate cuts, stable oil prices, and easing inflation. Those assumptions are now vulnerable. The prospect of a broader military conflict—especially one involving the world’s largest economy—threatens to knock markets off balance.

Oil has already climbed nearly 9% since the initial Israeli strikes on Iran. That alone sends a clear signal. Energy traders are building in the possibility of deeper supply disruptions. If US forces join the offensive, that risk multiplies. Supply chains would be at risk. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could be affected. The effect on crude would likely be immediate and severe.

Higher oil prices feed directly into inflation expectations. After a long and painful stretch of monetary tightening, many central banks have just begun preparing to pivot. Those plans would stall. Rate cuts expected later this year would be pushed back, or possibly cancelled altogether, if energy costs spike again.

This matters for equity markets because so much of the recent rally is based on an expectation of easier policy ahead. Investors have leaned heavily into risk, chasing yield and growth stories on the belief that borrowing conditions will soon improve. If inflation returns, that narrative collapses. And with it, much of the positioning tied to it.

We are already seeing hints of a shift. The US dollar has strengthened modestly against safe-haven currencies like the yen and Swiss franc. Treasury yields have edged lower as capital moves into government bonds. None of this is extreme, but all of it reflects a market sensing that something is changing.

A direct US strike on Iran would remove all ambiguity. The market’s tolerance for risk would drop instantly. The initial reaction would likely hit tech stocks, high-beta names, and emerging market assets first. Liquidity would shrink. Volatility would surge. Many investors would step to the sidelines, awaiting clarity that may not come for days.

There’s also the issue of timing. Should US action occur suddenly—overnight or during a weekend—it would leave global markets scrambling to price in the consequences before trading resumes. That sort of blind repricing creates wider gaps and sharper drops.

None of this is about the long-term value of businesses or the global economy’s trajectory five years from now. It’s about near-term risk tolerance. The kind of rapid repricing triggered by geopolitics tends to override valuation logic. It pulls markets down in broad strokes.

What makes this situation particularly sensitive is how underprepared markets seem to be. Despite the headlines and military posturing, positioning remains optimistic. Risk appetite has returned. Rate-sensitive trades are back in fashion. Many investors appear to be assuming that the conflict will remain contained.

That assumption is weak. The Middle East remains highly interconnected. A move by the US opens the door to a wider confrontation, including proxy responses across multiple borders. Markets will struggle to measure the implications if those scenarios begin to unfold.

Even a limited US strike would likely bring airspace closures, shipping route disruptions, and the possibility of further retaliation. All of this increases complexity for supply chains, commodities, and corporate earnings. The most affected companies may not be the most obvious ones—but the reallocation of risk would be fast and indiscriminate at the start.

Investors should be using this moment to assess exposure. That doesn’t mean exiting markets entirely. But it does mean understanding where the pressure will come first, and how it could spread. Diversification, liquidity access, and contingency planning all become more important in periods of sudden geopolitical stress.

What’s unfolding is not just a regional military story—it’s a global market risk. If the United States escalates its involvement, the reaction will not be slow or orderly. It will come in a wave of de-risking that hits asset prices across regions and sectors.

Markets have recovered from shocks before. But the damage often comes from being unprepared when the first move hits. The cost of ignoring this risk is far greater than the cost of adjusting for it. Investors need to be alert now, not later.

When geopolitics meets stretched valuations and overconfidence, the result is rarely subtle. If Washington acts, markets will move—and they will move fast.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Markets aren’t ready for a US move on Iran appeared first on Arabian Post.

For investors, I believe, this is a short-term fix within a long-term rivalry, and portfolios must be positioned accordingly.

President Donald Trump’s statement that a deal is “done” follows two days of talks in London. The agreement grants the US access to China’s rare earth supplies—crucial for technologies such as electric vehicles, AI hardware, and clean energy infrastructure—and allows Chinese students to resume academic programs in American universities.

These are valuable tactical steps, but they don’t alter the fundamental dynamics of the relationship.

Despite the optics, this is not a breakthrough. It is a limited détente that restores parts of the status quo that existed before tensions escalated in April. Core barriers remain in place, tariffs are still elevated, and export restrictions have not been meaningfully eased.

Washington continues to block the transfer of advanced chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to Chinese firms. Beijing, in turn, retains its controls on critical mineral exports and has gained no concessions on auto trade or technology access.

What’s emerged is a narrow deal that skirts the real issues: national security-driven economic policy, supply chain sovereignty, and long-term technological supremacy.

Neither country has deviated from its strategic course. The US is forging ahead with reshoring initiatives, stricter investment screening, and targeted industrial subsidies. China is accelerating domestic substitution, bolstering financial insulation, and pushing regional integration through its Belt and Road initiative and the expansion of the digital yuan.

Two distinct economic systems are taking shape. One revolves around the US and its allies, the other around China and its partners. This deal doesn’t halt that divergence—it simply slows the pace of public confrontation.

Investors must be alert to what this means in practice.

First, resist the temptation to interpret diplomatic progress as economic resolution. While this agreement may ease some bilateral friction, it leaves the overarching trajectory of decoupling untouched. Investors should not assume that sectors sensitive to geopolitical risk—especially technology, semiconductors, and energy—are any less exposed than they were a month ago.

Second, increase geographical diversification. Relying heavily on one region or trade bloc is increasingly risky in a world where policy decisions are being driven by strategic alignment as much as by economic rationale. Exposure to multiple markets, not just across developed and emerging economies, but across different regulatory and geopolitical frameworks, is now a necessity, not a luxury.

Third, seek companies that are actively building multi-country supply chains. Firms expanding into Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Eastern Europe are preparing for the next phase of trade fragmentation. Investors should prioritise businesses demonstrating adaptability and resilience over those optimised purely for cost efficiency.

Fourth, identify sectors set to benefit from government-supported self-reliance efforts. These include domestic manufacturing, clean energy, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure. Both the US and China are deploying substantial public capital into these areas, and investment opportunities will follow.

Fifth, be cautious around industries reliant on predictable global rules. The WTO framework that governed decades of expansion in global trade is being steadily eroded. Where once investors could count on relatively open and rules-based flows of goods and services, they must now contend with shifting export controls, sanctions, and sudden regulatory interventions.

Sixth, monitor the development of parallel financial systems. The coming divide may be less about products and more about money itself. Competing digital currencies, payment infrastructure, and capital controls are likely to feature more prominently. This financial bifurcation could have serious implications for cross-border investment flows, corporate funding, and monetary policy transmission.

Investors should also be prepared for policy reversals. One of the defining characteristics of this era is that agreements are made with one hand and suspended with the other.

Executive discretion in trade, tech, and security matters has expanded. Deals can be signed, then shelved, with minimal warning. Stability is no longer the default setting.

This doesn’t mean abandoning international investment. On the contrary, it means rethinking how to do it. The old model of betting on ever-deepening global integration is gone.

What comes next is a world of selective engagement; one where investors must evaluate not only business models and earnings forecasts, but also geopolitical alignment and supply chain security.

We’re living through a reordering of the global economy. This agreement, modest as it is, fits into a broader pattern: occasional truces, punctuated by strategic divergence. Investors who adapt their approach now—diversifying intelligently, backing resilient enterprises, and anticipating future decoupling—will be in a stronger position to weather the volatility and capitalise on emerging opportunities.

The US-China rivalry is not a story of one-off negotiations. It is a structural transformation with far-reaching consequences. This deal changes the tone, not the substance.

For long-term investors, the challenge is to move beyond short-term noise and position for the future we are actually heading towards: one of competing economic blocs, disrupted trade flows, and heightened sensitivity to national interest.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article US-China deal offers relief, not resolution, for global investors  appeared first on Arabian Post.

Behind the move is a growing body of evidence that the world’s most dynamic developing economies are demonstrating real economic resilience, despite a chaotic external backdrop.

For investors, it’s a signal that deserves immediate attention.

The surge in sentiment has been supported by improved financial market conditions, stronger currencies, and narrowing bond spreads.

Business surveys across Asia, Latin America, and parts of Africa are showing signs of renewed confidence. Equity inflows are rising, and most importantly, this isn’t happening in a vacuum.

Domestic demand in key economies, such as India, Brazil, China, is holding up under pressure. Investment pipelines are active, consumption is steady, fiscal authorities are continuing to support internal growth engines while inflation stabilizes, and central banks in these markets have, in many cases, built credibility by managing monetary conditions proactively. This combination is drawing capital.

None of this implies that the broader global environment is benign. The OECD has just downgraded its global growth forecast. Trade uncertainty, partly driven by the United States’ renewed tariff regime under President Trump, remains a persistent threat.

But emerging markets are proving they’re not passive players in this story.

Some are less directly exposed to the US economically. Others are adapting in ways advanced economies haven’t yet matched.

In recent months, we’ve seen evidence of supply chain diversification, targeted currency interventions to manage volatility, and increasingly localized energy transitions in countries where energy policy isn’t caught in political paralysis.

There’s also the dollar dynamic. A softer US dollar is offering emerging markets a window. Dollar denominated debt burdens are easing, allowing governments and corporates to service obligations more efficiently.

For international investors, this reduces repayment risk and boosts the appeal of local-currency bonds and equities in markets that had previously priced in excessive external pressure.

Sentiment has also improved following the partial rollback of Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.

While uncertainty remains, the retreat from some of the most punitive measures has eased concerns over a sudden shock to global trade flows. For emerging markets, this shift has meant more than just an improvement in headline risk. It’s reopened space for asset repricing.

We’ve already seen this reflected in EM bond spreads, which have tightened against US Treasuries in recent weeks.

Currencies that had been under pressure, like the Brazilian real and the Indian rupee, have regained footing. This is the market acknowledging that fundamentals in many of these economies remain intact despite the noise coming from Washington and other developed capitals.

What stands out most is the policy contrast. In several advanced economies, monetary and fiscal tools are constrained—either by debt ceilings, political deadlock, or inflation expectations.

In many emerging markets, those tools remain available. Central banks in Latin America, for instance, have already raised rates and created room to cut. This puts them in a stronger forward position than many G7 peers.

At the same time, energy policy in emerging markets is moving in a clearer direction. While the US retreats from its green energy commitments, countries from Southeast Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa are pushing ahead with clean and affordable energy solutions, often backed by multilateral institutions and regional partnerships.

These transitions are unlocking new capital flows and investment themes that are only beginning to be priced in.

Supply chain resilience is another factor driving structural reallocation. With multinationals under pressure to diversify away from single-country dependencies, emerging markets—especially those with political stability, labour depth, and infrastructure readiness—are stepping in.

Investors who view EM exposure as a high-volatility add-on to a developed market core may miss the point. The current rebalancing is more fundamental. It’s about aligning with growth, where it’s available, and stability, where it’s being actively built. Yes, risk remains—and always will.

However, the return outlook in real terms, adjusted for inflation and currency, increasingly favours selectively chosen EM allocations over a blanket overweight to legacy markets.

Of course, not all emerging markets are positioned equally. Countries with fragile current accounts, poor governance, or inconsistent monetary policy remain vulnerable to external shocks.

yet those with strong domestic demand, manageable debt loads, and credible institutions are showing they can manage global volatility with greater confidence than they could a decade ago.

What’s clear is that investors need to rethink the way they approach these regions. EM exposure should no longer be treated as peripheral or tactical. In a world where policy in developed economies is becoming more reactive, EM policy—where credible—is increasingly strategic.

The opportunity now lies not in riding a risk rebound, but in identifying where long-term value is emerging ahead of full recognition.

This requires active allocation with solid financial advice, a close understanding of political and monetary developments, and an appreciation for the growing role these economies play in global capital markets.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Emerging markets are surging amid legitimate optimism  appeared first on Arabian Post.

But quietly, away from the hype, a growing number of individual investors are making a different move: they’re locking in perhaps 5–6% yields from something that doesn’t flash on your phone every minute or swing 4% a day.

They’re buying corporate bonds.

No, they’re not glamorous; and no, they won’t double in price overnight. But for investors looking for steady income, less stress, and real returns above inflation, corporate bonds are increasingly hard to ignore.

Today, the yield on a high-quality (Aaa-rated) corporate bond is around 5.67%, according to Moody’s data as of May 22. Even Baa-rated investment-grade bonds are yielding over 6.1%. By comparison, the 10-year US Treasury yield is hovering around 4.5%. And many dividend stocks still yield less than 2%.

So, if you can get 5–6% from the bonds of companies like Johnson & Johnson or Procter & Gamble—businesses that have weathered wars, pandemics, and recessions—that starts to look like a pretty solid deal.

The backdrop matters. The Federal Reserve has so far held rates steady in the 5.00% range through 2025, and while markets earlier priced in cuts by July, that timeline has been pushed back.

Fed officials, including Governor Lisa Cook and Vice Chair Philip Jefferson, have recently emphasized the need for “greater confidence” that inflation is under control before easing policy—making a July cut unlikely.

Meanwhile, inflation is easing but still sticky. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.3% year-on-year in April, while core inflation remains higher at 2.8%, still above the Fed’s 2% target. Growth has also cooled: US GDP contracted by 0.3% in Q1, marking the economy’s first negative print since 2022.

At the same time, the fiscal picture is worsening. The White House’s FY2025 budget request includes $849.8 billion for defence spending alone, while the broader discretionary budget proposes multi-year infrastructure investments that push total federal obligations sharply higher. According to the Congressional Budget Office, US federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 116% of GDP by 2034—and independent forecasts suggest it could exceed 130% within the decade if current spending trends persist.

That raises an uncomfortable but increasingly relevant question: could high-quality corporate bonds be more reliable than government debt?

It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. Over the past few years, corporate America has quietly cleaned up its balance sheet. Many companies refinanced at low rates during the pandemic, extended maturities, and built cash reserves. According to S&P Global, less than 7% of high-yield US corporate debt matures before 2027, offering insulation against short-term refinancing pressure.

Let’s not forget what we’ve seen this year. In April, markets briefly wobbled after the Iran–Israel drone exchange. Then came renewed tension in the Taiwan Strait. Oil prices jumped. Equities dipped. But investment-grade bond spreads barely moved.

This kind of resilience matters, especially for individual investors who want a portfolio that can absorb shocks.

Of course, bonds come with trade-offs. Prices can dip when rates rise, and lower-rated bonds carry more risk. But with rate cuts now a matter of when, not if, the direction of travel for bond prices in 2025 likely tilts upwards, offering potential capital gains on top of attractive yields.

More importantly, corporate bonds pay you to wait. They deliver consistent income in a market where growth expectations are getting murkier and stock valuations are starting to look stretched. For investors nearing retirement, or those just tired of chasing performance, that kind of predictability is worth more than ever.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Why smart individual investors are looking beyond stocks appeared first on Arabian Post.

Last week’s sharp warning from Chair Jerome Powell confirmed what many of us in the global financial community have anticipated for months.

Slower growth, persistent inflation, and rising unemployment are converging in a way that should set off alarm bells for investors worldwide.

Make no mistake—this isn’t an abstract risk for the United States alone.

When the world’s largest economy hits a stagflation wall, the consequences are not contained by borders. The ripple effects will punch through supply chains, distort currency markets, and upend asset allocations from Dubai to Shanghai.

And this isn’t some theoretical hazard brewing in the distance. The Fed now concedes that inflation is proving sticky, particularly in core measures like PCE, which remain well above target.

At the same time, the US job market is flashing warning signs. Jobless claims are rising, wage growth is softening, and business investment is stalling.

All of this might be manageable in isolation. But factor in President Donald Trump’s erratic trade policies —and we’ve got a textbook case of stagflation.

The central bank is finally saying it aloud, but investors should have already been acting.

The market reaction has been swift, if uneven. Treasury yields are lurching, the dollar is wobbling, and equities—particularly those tethered to domestic consumption—are jittery. But this isn’t just short-term turbulence.

What we’re staring at is a structural shift in the macro environment, and that demands serious portfolio recalibration.

Historically, stagflation is one of the most difficult regimes for policymakers and investors alike. The tools to fight inflation—higher rates—exacerbate the slowdown. The tools to support growth—lower rates—add fuel to price pressures. And when trade policy is a wild card, the typical playbook goes out the window.

This isn’t the time for complacency. Investors must take a hard look at their exposure to inflation-vulnerable assets. Portfolios overly reliant on growth stocks or consumer-sensitive sectors could suffer disproportionate damage. Similarly, bond allocations must be stress-tested against the possibility of rates staying higher for longer—not just in the US, but globally, as central banks wrestle with the implications.

It’s not all bleak. These environments, while punishing for the unprepared, create powerful opportunities for those who pivot fast and decisively.

Real assets, especially those with pricing power, tend to shine. Commodities, infrastructure investments, and certain inflation-linked securities offer insulation and, in some cases, outperformance.

International diversification becomes not just a strategic choice, but a defensive necessity. If the dollar comes under sustained pressure due to policy contradictions or ballooning deficits, having exposure to foreign currencies and global markets will be vital.

Trump’s trade policies have historically injected enormous volatility into emerging markets, but selective positioning there, especially in commodity-exporting nations, could prove highly beneficial.

The psychological factor also matters. Prolonged stagflation saps consumer and investor confidence. That erosion in sentiment can be just as damaging as the economic data.

Positioning portfolios to withstand not just the numbers but the mood swings is a crucial aspect of long-term strategy.

This is where high-quality financial advice becomes essential. Every investor’s needs are different—there is no one-size-fits-all response to a stagflation scenario. But doing nothing is the worst option of all. Those who wait for clarity will miss the window to protect their wealth.

What the Fed has now publicly acknowledged is not news to those of us who have been watching the data and reading the political signals.

For more than three months, we’ve been warning clients that the combination of sticky inflation, trade disruption, and slowing output would corner the economy into a stagflation trap.

Now that the central bank has said the quiet part out loud, global investors must respond with urgency and precision.

Markets hate uncertainty, but they loathe paralysis even more.

The coming months will not be calm. Policy may become erratic. Headlines will be loud. But amid that noise, opportunity exists, especially for investors who remain active, informed, and forward-thinking.

This is not a drill. Stagflation in the US is real, it’s contagious, and it will test every assumption investors have made about the post-pandemic recovery.

Now is the time to seek expert advice, reassess risk, and build a portfolio that doesn’t just survive turbulence, but capitalizes on it.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Stagflation in the US is back—and global investors can’t afford to sit still appeared first on Arabian Post.

Capital is realigning. Central banks, institutions, and private investors are adjusting their positioning in response to clear macro realities: weakening currencies, structural inflation, declining real yields, and geopolitical instability.

In this environment, gold is gaining strength as a trusted reserve, a core holding, and a strategic anchor.

Central banks have made their intent clear. The world’s biggest reserve managers—particularly in Asia and the Middle East—are increasing gold holdings at the fastest sustained pace in modern history.

This accumulation is methodical. It reflects a desire to diversify away from the dollar, limit exposure to sanctions, and reduce reliance on foreign debt markets.

These institutions are building resilience into their balance sheets. Gold allows them to hold wealth outside political systems and above currency risk. It requires no promises, no policies, and no permission. That’s exactly what many governments want right now.

The broader financial system is shifting too. With interest rates peaking and rate cuts returning, real yields are falling again. Inflation, though off its highs, continues to damage purchasing power. Governments are spending heavily with no credible path to fiscal repair. These dynamics are weakening fiat currencies and fuelling investor demand for hard assets.

Gold is absorbing that demand. Sovereign mints are recording sustained physical sales. Gold ETFs are attracting fresh flows.

Family offices, wealth managers, and long-term investors are repositioning portfolios to include a higher allocation to metals. These decisions are not being made out of fear; they’re being made as part of a rebalancing toward reliability.

The price of gold is responding. What was once treated as a ceiling is now acting as a base. The current level near $3,400 reflects investor recalibration across all asset classes. In a system where fiscal excess and monetary unpredictability dominate, gold is being repriced as a primary asset.

Demand from Asia is reinforcing the move. The People’s Bank of China has continued to buy gold every month.

Private Chinese investors are turning to bullion in response to domestic market uncertainty and capital restrictions. In India, gold remains a trusted store of wealth amid persistent inflation and currency concerns.

Global supply, meanwhile, remains tight. Mine output has stagnated. Major new discoveries are rare. Environmental constraints and rising costs are limiting future capacity. That tightness is colliding with accelerating demand—and the pressure is showing up in the market.

Among institutional allocators, gold is being viewed differently. It’s not being treated as an alternative or hedge. It’s being assessed on fundamentals: durability, neutrality, liquidity, and global acceptance. In that comparison, gold is standing out more clearly than at any point in the last 15 years.

Momentum is growing. Every leg higher brings more participation. Technical buyers, macro strategists, and long-horizon allocators are reinforcing the move. With each new record, more capital is drawn in by conviction and confirmation of trend.

The $5,000 level reflects these conditions. It reflects sustained demand, limited supply, macro stress, and the reassertion of gold as a credible, independent store of wealth. As currencies weaken and public finances deteriorate, this repricing is gaining speed and scale.

Investors are no longer asking if they should own gold. They’re asking how much to own, and how quickly to build their allocation.

Gold has become central to modern risk management. It’s playing a role across private and public balance sheets as a stable, globally recognised, politically neutral asset.

The trajectory is solid. The demand drivers are durable. The supply constraints are real. And the need for stability is becoming more urgent in every corner of the global economy.

The case for $5,000 gold is grounded in continuation—continuation of inflationary pressure, soft monetary policy, fiscal excess, and a shifting geopolitical map. All of that is already in place.

Gold is responding to reality. And the price reflects the world investors are living in, not the one they used to expect.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Gold poised to hit $5,000—and here’s why it matters appeared first on Arabian Post.

ESG investing should and will return to favour, not just because it’s aligned with the challenges and priorities of our time, but because it remains one of the most rational long-term strategies for investors and economies alike.

The numbers from 2024 were stark. Global sustainable fund inflows halved. In Europe, fund closures outpaced new launches. And overall, ESG strategies suffered their worst year since 2018, shedding $36 billion in capital.

The retreat was driven by a convergence of pressures: anti-ESG backlash in the US, regulatory drag in the EU, and disappointing short-term performance, particularly in clean energy stocks bruised by high interest rates.

It was also the year Donald Trump returned to the White House, buoyed by a wave of climate scepticism and campaign attacks on ESG as a “scam.” That narrative helped shift the centre of gravity in US finance away from sustainability, making it harder for asset managers to justify ESG commitments in an increasingly politicised environment.

But short-term sentiment does not change long-term reality. And the reality is this: climate risk is financial risk. Social cohesion impacts productivity and growth. Good governance underpins resilience. These are not ideological statements, they’re financial truths. And they are not going away.

The backlash may be loud, but it is unlikely to last.

ESG’s fundamentals are too strong. Investors will come back not because they’re under pressure to do so, but because the case for sustainability remains economically sound and strategically necessary.

Consider the structural shifts that haven’t gone away: the transition to low-carbon energy is still underway. Regulatory scrutiny is increasing globally, not decreasing. Consumers, especially younger generations, continue to demand transparency and ethics from the companies they support. The long-term risks facing portfolios—extreme weather, political instability, demographic inequality—are only growing.

Yes, clean energy stocks had a painful year in 2024. But interest rate cycles turn. Policy support will return and valuations today reflect pessimism that rarely stays static. We’ve seen this before: after a boom, ESG suffered a setback, but in every previous cycle, it has rebounded with renewed strength, reshaped by lessons learned.

Some are now asking whether ESG was just a passing phase.

We believe that’s the wrong question. ESG is not a niche, it’s a framework. It doesn’t guarantee outperformance, but it helps investors identify resilience, manage downside risk, and allocate capital toward the future instead of the past.

The rise in passive sustainable fund inflows at the end of last year, particularly in Europe, suggests this shift may already be underway.

Investors are looking for cost-efficient, diversified ways to maintain their values alignment without overexposure to short-term volatility. This is the next phase: less hype, more discipline.

The ideological attacks on ESG may score political points, but they ignore market reality. The world is not rewinding to 2010. Businesses that fail to account for environmental transition risks, human capital, or governance flaws will be more exposed—not less. Investors who disregard those risks today may face larger consequences later.

This isn’t about morality. It’s about materiality. And material risks don’t disappear because one election changes the tone of the conversation.

We believe that 2025 and beyond will see ESG rebuilt on firmer ground—more rigorous, more results-driven, and more global in its outlook. It will be less about labels and more about substance. And in that shift lies an opportunity for investors to lead, rather than react.

The right side of history is not always the easiest side to occupy in the short term. It often requires conviction in the face of noise. But history tends to reward that discipline.

ESG investing, when done correctly, isn’t a trend. It’s a signal of where capital is going and where it should go. That hasn’t changed, and that’s why we’re confident it will return to favour across portfolios, institutions, and policy agendas alike.

Over time, markets reward clarity, risk management, and forward thinking. ESG delivers all three.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Investors will relearn ESG’s value appeared first on Arabian Post.

Markets are still reeling from the deepening fallout of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff offensive.

After his aggressive trade moves last week — dubbed Liberation Day by the White House — equities have suffered one of the heaviest beatings in years. Contracts tracking the S&P 500 fell 4.7% on Monday, while the Nasdaq sank 5.2%.

Asian markets endured even deeper losses, with Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index plunging more than 13% — its worst single-day fall this century.

Europe has fared little better, with the Stoxx 600 down 5.7% and Germany’s DAX briefly crashing more than 10% at the open.

This turbulence is not a one-off. It’s an adjustment period that will likely continue through the summer as the global economy absorbs the shock of new tariffs, tightening financial conditions, and heightened political uncertainty.

Meanwhile, bond yields have dropped and haven currencies are strengthening, signalling that investors are recalibrating their expectations for growth, inflation, and risk.

Yet while the headlines are alarming, they are not a call to abandon ship. Quite the opposite. They are a signal that intelligent positioning now could create extraordinary opportunities for investors who are ready to act with clarity and discipline.

When markets are driven by fear, prices often disconnect from fundamentals, creating openings that are invisible during calmer periods.

Already, strong companies with solid earnings, global reach, and pricing power are trading at valuations that would have been unthinkable only weeks ago.

In times like these, patience and selectivity are not luxuries — they’re essential.

Investors must resist the temptation to rush to cash. Although it may feel comforting in the short term, cash is not a shield against the long-term erosive power of inflation. Nor does it offer protection from the opportunity cost of missing sharp recoveries, which often happen when sentiment is still overwhelmingly negative.

Some of the strongest rallies in market history have started just when many believed things would only get worse.

The key now is active management, meaning reviewing portfolios, identifying vulnerabilities, and making strategic adjustments without panic.

It’s about being positioned for volatility rather than being blindsided by it.

There are important shifts to watch. Supply chains are being redrawn at an accelerated pace, meaning that some sectors and geographies could benefit even as others struggle. Domestic-focused businesses may outperform exporters exposed to retaliatory tariffs.

Companies with strong pricing power and low debt levels could prove to be the bedrock of portfolios. Meanwhile, sectors aligned with long-term structural trends — including energy transition, digitization, and healthcare innovation — are likely to remain resilient despite short-term turbulence.

It’s also vital to be globally minded. While the US remains a core engine of global growth, opportunities are emerging elsewhere, especially in regions less entangled in the new trade disputes. Diversification, both by geography and asset class, will be crucial in navigating the months ahead.

One of the major challenges — and opportunities — of this summer is psychological. Volatility tests resolve. It shakes confidence. It challenges assumptions. But it also demands that investors stay committed to long-term goals rather than reacting emotionally to daily swings.

Trump’s comments this week underscore that further market shocks are possible. By insisting that “sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” he made clear he is unlikely to pivot away from confrontation, even in the face of rising economic risks.

Investors must, therefore, build resilience into their strategies now, rather than hoping for quick fixes or reversals.

Periods of dislocation are always uncomfortable. They’re also when serious wealth is created for those willing to adjust intelligently and stay invested through the noise. Those waiting for perfect visibility will find that the recovery, when it comes, will move faster than they can react.

This summer is not about sitting back and hoping for calm. It’s about making the necessary adjustments — and preparing not just to survive, but to grow.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Why investors should prepare for ongoing market volatility appeared first on Arabian Post.

We’ve seen a 10% drop in markets this year. Historically, that’s not unusual—since 1950, there have been over 30 such corrections. But that doesn’t make it feel any easier when you’re in the middle of one.

The natural instinct is to retreat, sit on the sidelines, and wait for clarity. That’s not what I’m doing.

Right now, I’m investing with strategy, not sentiment. I’m choosing assets that reward patience, protect against downside, and offer real growth—even if a US recession does materialise, which remains a possibility. But I’m not betting everything on one outcome. I’m building in resilience and range.

I split my own capital between three key approaches.

The first is income-focused, defensive, and designed to preserve value: I’m allocating capital to a corporate bond fund—what Americans would call a money market strategy, but what we call the Smart Money fund.

It’s a portfolio that hunts out the best rates from high-quality companies and delivers attractive returns with low volatility. The aim here isn’t to beat the Nasdaq; it’s to secure predictable income with far less risk than equities. Right now, it’s yielding about 2% per quarter, and with central banks slowly pivoting, that’s extremely competitive.

It’s not glamorous. But wealth preservation rarely is.

At the other end of the spectrum, I’m using structured products to take tactical positions on stocks that have been sold off hard but whose long-term prospects remain intact. Three in particular stand out: Nvidia, Meta, and Amazon.

All three have pulled back recently. Nvidia, for example, is down 20%. But let’s be clear—this is a company at the heart of the AI revolution, and demand for its chips isn’t going away. Even if a recession hits, businesses will continue investing in automation and AI. Nvidia doesn’t just survive in that environment—it thrives.

Meta is another misunderstood story. It’s fashionable to write it off, but 3.5 billion people still use its platforms monthly. That kind of reach is unparalleled, and with monetisation opportunities growing—ads, subscriptions, AI-driven engagement—Meta is far from finished.

And then there’s Amazon. Recession or not, Amazon remains embedded in global consumption. Whether people are shopping less or simply shopping smarter, Amazon benefits from scale, logistics, and habit.

I’m not just buying these names outright. I’m using a structured note that combines them and offers a 17% annualised return—provided the worst of the three doesn’t fall by more than 25% each quarter.

There’s even a memory feature: if a coupon is missed in one period, it can be recovered later. If all three stocks stay above water, I get my capital back early and reallocate to the next opportunity. It’s a powerful way to back great companies while building in protection.

Of course, there are risks. No investment is bulletproof. If one of those stocks drops by more than 35% over four years, there’s potential capital erosion. But I’m comfortable with that, given the quality of the names and the backing of one of Europe’s strongest banks, BBVA, behind the product.

Smart diversification is how I think about it. No one asset class is a silver bullet right now. We’re in a world of policy shifts, unpredictable elections, and overlapping technology cycles. So I also hold equity funds managed by teams I trust—ones that understand where growth is emerging and where risk needs trimming.

For me, this is about balance. I want income and opportunity. I want risk exposure—but only where it’s justified. I want to be invested, not because it feels good, but because history shows time and again that markets recover. Whether the next 12 months deliver 2% or 12% depends partly on whether the US dips into recession. But either way, staying invested gives me options. Sitting in cash doesn’t.

And yes—cash has a place, too. But it has to work. It can’t just sit idle and get eaten by inflation. That’s why I’m so focused on the Smart Money fund. It gives me peace of mind and performance in one.

I’ll continue sharing where I’m putting my own capital throughout the year. This isn’t a static strategy—it evolves with the data and the opportunities. But the foundation remains the same: clear thinking, careful structuring, and conviction in the long game.

Right now, I’m not betting on certainty. I’m investing in resilience.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Where I’m Putting My Money Right Now—And Why appeared first on Arabian Post.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Are your investments Trump-proof? appeared first on Arabian Post.

This is why expert financial advice is more important than ever—because when the strategy of the world’s largest economy pulls in different directions, the risks and opportunities shift rapidly.

Take tariffs, for example. Trump positions them as a way to bring jobs back to the U.S., boosting wages and manufacturing. But tariffs also increase costs for businesses, which pass those costs onto consumers, driving up inflation.

The last time Trump imposed sweeping tariffs during the U.S.-China trade war, the result was higher prices on steel, electronics, and consumer goods.

If he imposes new tariffs on Canadian oil, the same dynamic will apply—energy prices could rise, fueling inflation, which could prevent the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates.

That’s a direct contradiction: he wants lower interest rates to boost the economy, yet his trade policies could force them higher.

Another example is tax cuts. Trump argues they put more money in people’s pockets, spurring economic growth. But cutting taxes while increasing government spending leads to ballooning debt.

During his first term, the corporate tax rate was slashed from 35% to 21%, but without spending cuts, the national debt soared.

Now, with U.S. debt surpassing $34 trillion, another round of tax cuts would only add to the problem, increasing the likelihood of future tax hikes or spending reductions. This means investors and businesses must prepare for policy whiplash—what seems beneficial in the short term can create long-term financial instability.

Energy is another area where contradictions emerge. Trump champions U.S. energy independence and cheap domestic fuel, yet his proposed tariffs on Canadian oil would drive up costs for American consumers and businesses.

The reality is that while the U.S. has increased oil production, it still relies on imports to balance supply and demand. Restricting one of the country’s closest energy partners could push prices higher, reducing disposable income and increasing business costs—again, the opposite of what he aims to achieve.

These contradictions are more than trade and taxes. Trump’s push for a strong U.S. dollar sounds appealing—it signals economic strength.

But a strong dollar makes U.S. exports more expensive for foreign buyers, hurting American manufacturers and farmers.

His previous calls for interest rate cuts were meant to weaken the dollar and make exports more competitive, yet his aggressive trade policies have often strengthened the currency by driving global investors toward the U.S. as a safe haven. The result is conflicting messages that require businesses and investors to remain highly adaptable.

In this radically unpredictable landscape, financial advice is essential. Economic policies will continue to shift, and contradictions will persist. Some policies will create short-term opportunities, while others will have long-term consequences that only become clear over time.

Investors, businesses, and consumers need a strategy that accounts for both the immediate impact and the broader economic forces at play.

Trump’s policies aim to achieve multiple, often conflicting, goals. This makes it difficult for individuals to chart a clear financial path without professional guidance.

Whether it’s managing inflation risks, adjusting portfolios for policy shifts, or preparing for potential tax changes, expert advice is the key to staying ahead. In a world where policy uncertainty can make or break financial outcomes, making informed decisions is a necessity.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Trump’s economic contradictions make financial advice essential appeared first on Arabian Post.