Connect with us

Analysis

The Next Banking Crisis Won’t Come From Bad Loans. JPMorgan Says It Will Come From Hackers.

Published

on

For decades, banking analysts have built crisis models around the same variables: non-performing loan ratios, capital adequacy buffers, liquidity coverage ratios, and contagion through interbank lending. JPMorgan has now argued, in terms that are difficult to dismiss, that all of those frameworks may be measuring the wrong risk.

In a research note published in late June 2026, JPMorgan analyst Kian Abouhossein declared that cybersecurity risk is “currently one of the biggest undiscounted risks not reflected in bank valuations” — and made the case that an AI-enabled cyberattack could trigger a liquidity crisis more dangerous than any traditional credit event the industry has faced in modern history.

AI Compresses the Timeline for Catastrophe

The mechanism Abouhossein identified is not subtle. Frontier AI models — he cited specifically Anthropic’s Mythos and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 — have been shown to “significantly reduce the timeline for discovering previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities from months and years to hours.” That compression is not an incremental improvement in the threat landscape. It is a structural transformation.

For banks, the significance is operational. A vulnerability that might previously have remained unexploited for six months while security teams patched exposed systems can now be weaponised within hours of discovery. The window between identification and remediation — which banks have historically relied on to contain damage — has effectively closed.

The Wrong Risk Framework

JPMorgan’s core argument is that regulators and investors are examining bank risk through an inappropriate lens. “Looking at cybersecurity risk through the lens of the capital framework is not the best approach,” Abouhossein wrote, arguing instead for infrastructure resilience testing and deposit-run liquidity haircut stress tests as the relevant metrics.

See also  Anthropic Suspends Latest AI Models After US Blocks Foreign Access

The distinction matters. A capital framework asks whether a bank has sufficient equity buffer to absorb credit losses. A cyber-crisis framework asks a different question: whether a bank can maintain operations, preserve customer access, and prevent panic-driven deposit outflows if its systems are compromised or publicly reported to have been breached.

JPMorgan’s note pointed to Credit Suisse as a precedent, arguing that social media could trigger “unprecedented volatility in deposit flows” in a cyber-driven crisis. The Credit Suisse collapse in 2023 was driven primarily by confidence dynamics rather than technical insolvency — a preview of how quickly narrative can overwhelm fundamentals. In a scenario where a major bank’s cyber breach is reported in real time across social platforms, the speed of a potential bank run could exceed anything regulators have stress-tested.

A Tiered Vulnerability Landscape

The report assigned a differentiated risk profile across banking systems. US global systemically important banks were assessed as better positioned, given higher absolute technology spending and earlier access to frontier AI models for defensive purposes. Technology costs averaged approximately 17 percent of global bank operating expenses in 2025, but that average conceals wide dispersion.

European banks were explicitly flagged as more vulnerable: lower technology budgets, delayed access to the most advanced models, and a more fragmented regulatory environment across jurisdictions. JPMorgan suggested that a valuation premium for US GSIBs over European and Japanese peers “could be justified due to lower cost of equity as the market factors in better cyber risk preparedness” — an argument that, if adopted by broader market consensus, would represent a significant repricing of European bank equities.

See also  Pakistan Budget 2026-27: Top 10 Proposals Explained

The Supply Chain Vector

The vulnerability is not confined to banks’ direct systems. Black Kite’s 2026 Financial Services Cybersecurity Report documented that confirmed breaches among the top 140 financial services vendors climbed from six to 39 in a twelve-month period. Among the top 20 most systemically significant vendors, the number with a confirmed breach rose from one to seven — a sevenfold increase in the most exposure-sensitive segment.

Direct attacks on financial institutions also rebounded sharply after a brief law enforcement-driven reprieve. Ransomware incidents in the finance sector climbed from 156 in 2024 to 202 in 2025. Q1 2026 alone recorded 65 incidents, a 76 percent increase over the same period in 2025. AI-assisted discovery tools entering the market in 2026 are expected to accelerate the volume of published vulnerabilities further, with over 48,000 CVEs published globally in 2025 already representing an 18 percent increase over the prior year.

Deposit Stickiness as a Strategic Moat

JPMorgan’s note concluded with a recommendation that reframes a traditional banking metric in a new context. The analyst suggested assigning a higher valuation multiple to banks with sticky, excess deposit bases — not because those deposits indicate lending capacity or net interest margin, but because a bank with low deposit velocity has a structural buffer against the confidence-driven outflows that a cyber crisis would produce.

The argument inverts conventional wisdom. In a normal credit crisis, floating-rate deposit franchises can be liabilities. In a cyber-driven confidence crisis, they become the most important form of institutional resilience.

The banking industry has spent the post-2008 era stress-testing for scenarios it already understands. JPMorgan’s note is an argument that the next crisis will arrive through a door the industry has not yet learned to guard — and that the market has not yet priced the risk.

Analysis

South Korea’s Won Slides to Its Weakest Since Lehman: Asia market impact

Published

on

South Korea’s won has not traded at these levels since Lehman Brothers collapsed and the world was sorting through the wreckage of its worst financial crisis in eighty years. That the currency has returned to those depths under entirely different circumstances — not a global credit event, but a sustained combination of dollar strength, political uncertainty, and structural capital outflows — makes the current episode more complex, and in some ways more concerning, than 2009.

The Numbers

On July 1, 2026, the won declined as much as 0.6 percent to 1,559.10 per dollar, following a prior session low of 1,562.20 — a level last seen in March 2009. Overseas investors sold a net 1.46 trillion won ($938 million) of stocks in the Kospi index on a single trading day, marking the eighth consecutive session of equity outflows from the Korean market.

“The dollar’s strength is such that a fresh low for the won would not be surprising,” said Moon Dawoon, an economist at Korea Investment & Securities. “If it does break through, it will be difficult to identify the next technical level, so from a qualitative perspective, the downside for the won should be kept open to around 1,600 per dollar.”

A breach of 1,600 would represent territory not visited since the 1997 Asian financial crisis — a threshold that carries both technical and psychological significance for regional currency markets.

Why the Won Is Falling

The 2026 won story is not a simple export slump. South Korea continues to run a current-account surplus — $18.70 billion in December 2025, $13.26 billion in January 2026. The fundamentals of the trade balance have not deteriorated dramatically. What has changed is the capital account.

See also  The European EV Ultimatum: How China’s Smartphone King is Engineering a Coup Against Elon Musk

Several forces are pulling simultaneously in the wrong direction. The US-Korea interest rate differential remains wide, making dollar-denominated assets relatively attractive to Korean investors. Structural outward investment — Korean residents and institutions consistently moving capital into foreign assets — keeps upward pressure on dollar demand. Trade friction and tariff uncertainty from the United States raise risk premia on Korean assets broadly. And geopolitical stress in the Middle East has driven a risk-off flight to dollar safety that penalises emerging market currencies disproportionately.

The IMF estimated Korea’s growth at 0.9 percent in 2025, with a projected rebound to 1.8 percent in 2026 — an improvement, but well below Korea’s historical growth trajectory. The Bank of Korea has held its base rate at 2.50 percent, balancing growth support against exchange-rate and financial stability concerns.

The Semiconductor Exposure

Korea’s currency vulnerability is amplified by its sector concentration. Samsung and SK Hynix together constitute a dominant share of the global memory chip market — and global memory chip markets are themselves being stress-tested by the AI infrastructure boom. The so-called “RAMageddon” dynamic, in which AI-fuelled demand for memory chips has sent prices soaring, has provided export revenue support. But it has also created concentration risk: a reversal in AI capex demand, which the BIS and Chinese hedge funds have been warning about, would hit Korea’s export base and currency simultaneously.

The Kospi index’s heavy weighting toward Samsung, Hyundai, and semiconductor-adjacent companies means that institutional investors who reduce technology sector exposure globally tend to sell Korean equities as a primary execution path. Eight consecutive days of outflows is the market expressing that thesis in real time.

See also  Meta Share Sale for AI: Why Zuckerberg Is Betting Billions

Regulatory Response

Following an earlier episode in which the won slid to its lowest since 2009 in June 2026, South Korean authorities convened an emergency meeting between the Bank of Korea governor and financial regulators. The government announced measures including stepped-up oversight of offshore currency derivatives, boosted inspections for suspected market misconduct, and investigations into potentially illegal foreign-exchange transactions.

The won briefly rebounded following those announcements before resuming its decline in early July. The pattern is familiar in currency management: administrative measures can slow momentum but rarely reverse the underlying capital flow dynamics that are driving the move.

Regional Contagion Signals

The won’s decline on July 1 led a broader retreat in Asian currencies, reflecting the dollar’s role as the default safe haven in periods of global risk aversion. The Japanese yen simultaneously extended losses to multi-decade highs against the dollar — a different dynamic driven by the US-Japan rate differential, but contributing to a picture of simultaneous stress across the major Asian currency pairs.

Emerging market investors are monitoring whether won weakness begins translating into spillover dynamics: whether Korean retail investors rotate into crypto as a won hedge (measurable through the “kimchi premium” on Korean crypto exchanges), and whether institutional outflows from Korean equity and bond markets intensify as currency losses erode total returns for foreign holders.

A currency at 1,562 per dollar, trending toward 1,600, with eight straight days of equity outflows and a semiconductor sector exposed to an AI capex cycle that global institutions are increasingly questioning — is not a crisis yet. But it is accumulating the conditions for one.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Japan’s $2.3 Trillion Bet: Takaichi’s AI-Semiconductor Moonshot and the Fiscal Tightrope It Requires

Published

on

Japan has never been timid about industrial policy. But the plan unveiled by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on June 24, 2026, represents an ambition of a different magnitude: JPY 370 trillion — approximately $2.3 trillion — in combined public and private investment across 17 strategic sectors over the 14 fiscal years ending in March 2041. It is the most consequential economic growth blueprint Japan has released in a generation, and it carries risks proportionate to its scale.

The Numbers and Their Logic

The plan’s centrepiece is AI and semiconductors, which together account for JPY 101.6 trillion — nearly one-third of the total. Of that allocation, the largest share targets semiconductor manufacturing. The government projects that domestic chip sales, currently at roughly 8 trillion yen annually, will reach 40 trillion yen by fiscal 2040: a fivefold increase that would require sustained policy commitment, significant private capital mobilisation, and a structural reconfiguration of Japan’s manufacturing base.

Beyond semiconductors, the plan earmarks $65 billion specifically for AI infrastructure — data centres, power capacity, and the hardware underlying large-scale AI deployment. Vertical AI tools, built for specific industries such as healthcare, manufacturing, and logistics, receive separate priority funding alongside physical AI systems. The government projects semiconductor investment alone will generate 443 trillion yen in economic spillovers by fiscal 2040, with physical and vertical AI adding a further combined 366 trillion yen.

Additional sectors covered include defence, space development, advanced manufacturing, shipbuilding, and critical minerals — all framed as pillars of economic security in an era of intensifying geopolitical competition.

The Political Context

See also  Southeast Asia's Tariff Breather: Trump's Duty Reset Offers Relief, But Uncertainty Looms Large

Takaichi became Japan’s first female prime minister in October 2025, following a decisive Liberal Democratic Party electoral victory in February 2026 that gave her government the political runway to pursue long-horizon strategies. The plan builds on prior investment commitments: since 2021, the government has channelled roughly 7.2 trillion yen into semiconductors and AI, including approximately 2.6 trillion yen in support for state-backed chip venture Rapidus.

The Nikkei 225 briefly surpassed 72,000 following the announcement — a level that reflected AI-adjacent stock enthusiasm, particularly around SoftBank and Tokyo Electron. The market signal was interpretable in two ways: confidence in the industrial vision, or exuberance about government-supported capital flows into a sector already attracting speculative premium.

The Fiscal Tightrope

The plan’s fiscal architecture is where complexity enters. According to the Japanese government’s roadmap, public funding accounts for slightly less than half of the total, with the remainder expected from private capital. Three long-term fiscal scenarios were released alongside the plan, with sharply divergent outcomes.

In the most optimistic case, the strategy delivers as intended: Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio declines steadily even as the government contributes 10 trillion yen in real annual spending. In the two alternative scenarios, where market demand or technological uptake falls short, the ratio resumes its upward trajectory during the 2030s.

Critically, all three scenarios assume inflation stabilises at around 2 percent. They exclude the potential costs of expanded defence spending and proposed consumption-tax reductions, meaning actual fiscal pressure could significantly exceed the government’s baseline projections. Meanwhile, Japan’s superlong government bond yields have risen to multi-decade highs — a market signal that investor confidence in fiscal discipline is not fully intact, even as the Nikkei rallied.

See also  Stocks Surge as US-Iran Deal Ignites Global Rally

The Bank of Japan, under Governor Kazuo Ueda, has signalled continued rate increases in response to above-target inflation and upside price risks. Deputy Governor Ryozo Himino reinforced that the BoJ expects to adjust policy in response to economic conditions and financial developments, while monitoring risks including the conflict in Iran. A government pushing expansionary fiscal policy while the central bank tightens monetary conditions is a combination that creates sovereign yield risk — precisely the kind of sovereign-financial nexus the BIS has flagged as a global vulnerability.

The Industrial Security Imperative

The plan’s framing as an economic security initiative, rather than purely a growth strategy, reflects Japan’s reading of the current geopolitical moment. Supply chain resilience, technological self-sufficiency, and domestic semiconductor capacity have become strategic imperatives for governments across the developed world in the wake of the pandemic disruptions and US-China technology competition.

Japan’s bid to quinttuple domestic chip sales by 2040 places it in direct competition with the United States’ CHIPS Act investments, the EU’s European Chips Act, and South Korea’s semiconductor cluster ambitions. The difference is that Japan is making the largest single national commitment to that competition — a bet that the country has identified the window for industrial transformation, and that the cost of missing it exceeds the fiscal risk of pursuing it.

Whether the numbers work depends on outcomes that no government roadmap can control: whether AI adoption curves justify the infrastructure being built, whether Rapidus can achieve competitive semiconductor yields, and whether private capital follows government funds at the scale the plan requires. The bet is large. The stakes are higher.

Continue Reading

Analysis

A 13% Surge in Billionaires, a Falling Median: The AI Boom’s Wealth Paradox

Published

on

The numbers are unambiguous, even if their implications remain contested. In 2025, global personal wealth rose at its fastest pace since 2017. Nearly one million new millionaires were minted. The billionaire population swelled by 13 percent. And in most of the 56 markets where the UBS Global Wealth Report tracks outcomes, median wealth — the wealth of the person sitting precisely in the middle of the distribution — actually declined.

That combination, record headline growth alongside falling typical household wealth, is the defining economic signature of the AI boom. It raises questions about the sustainability of an economic narrative built on aggregate progress.

What the UBS Report Found

The UBS Global Wealth Report 2026, released June 30 and built from data spanning 56 markets representing 92 percent of all global wealth, recorded 10.8 percent growth in personal wealth in 2025 — the fastest rate in at least three years. The millionaire population grew by 1.5 percent, adding close to one million people at a pace of roughly 2,680 per day.

More than 440,000 of those new millionaires were American — exceeding 1,200 per day — making the United States responsible for close to half of the worldwide increase. The United Kingdom added more than 43,000 new millionaires, while France, Spain, Japan, and India each added more than 30,000.

The report also counted 3,302 US dollar billionaires, an increase of 383 people, or 13.1 percent, over the prior year. Billionaire wealth grew by 25 percent on average in the year ended in April, compared with a 10.8 percent rise in average personal wealth. James Mazeau, an economist at UBS, attributed the outperformance directly to the AI boom in equity markets.

See also  Iran Activates Its 'Resistance Economy' to Survive the War: How Tehran Is Rewriting the Rules of Economic Warfare in 2026

The Median Paradox

UBS chief economist Paul Donovan acknowledged to Fortune what the headline figures conceal: “There is a concentration of equity wealth into the very highest wealth and income cohorts, which means that periods of strong equity performance will widen the gap between the two.” When asset markets rise and the gains are overwhelmingly held at the top of the distribution, aggregate averages can soar while the typical household experiences stagnation or decline.

The pattern is not incidental. Software and platform businesses scale at close to zero marginal cost, meaning that when an AI-adjacent product wins, it tends to win globally — and the revenue, profit, and equity all funnel into very few hands. The World Inequality Report 2026 sharpened the point with striking precision: just 56,000 ultra-wealthy individuals — the top 0.001 percent — now control more wealth than the poorest 4 billion people on Earth combined. Their share of global wealth has nearly doubled since 1995.

Since 1995, billionaire wealth has compounded at approximately 8.5 percent annually. The bottom half of the global population has grown theirs at roughly 3.4 percent.

The Ultra-Wealthy Tier Accelerates

Altrata, a wealth intelligence firm, tracked a 14.4 percent jump in 2025 in the number of people worth more than $30 million — reaching a record 556,850 worldwide. In mainland China, the $50 million to $100 million cohort has compounded in real terms at nearly 31 percent annually since 2000. The United States’ top 1 percent of households, per the Federal Reserve, now holds approximately 32 percent of the nation’s total wealth — the highest proportion since the Fed began compiling the relevant data in 1989.

See also  Southeast Asia's Tariff Breather: Trump's Duty Reset Offers Relief, But Uncertainty Looms Large

Within this hierarchy, the AI trade has functioned as a supercharger. Founders who hold large equity stakes in companies that have benefited from AI-driven market re-ratings have watched their personal wealth compound at the same exponential rates as the underlying businesses. The upcoming major IPOs — SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI — are projected to create a new cohort of billionaires and dramatically expand the existing ultrawealthy population.

The Political Economy of the K-Shape

Bloomberg’s K-shaped economy analysis projected that the divergence between asset holders and wage earners will deepen further. The political consequences are already visible. California Governor Gavin Newsom, in comments reported ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run, proposed a national wealth tax and an initiative to give Americans a direct stake in AI development. Former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos called for the bottom 50 percent of earners to pay zero federal income tax.

Axios reported that a growing number of tech billionaires are developing prescriptions for AI-fuelled inequality — not from altruism, but from a calculation that populist revolt represents a greater threat to their interests than redistributive taxation. “The pitchforks are here, they’re not just coming,” Newsom warned, predicting that resentment toward billionaires and AI-driven automation will dominate the 2026 and 2028 electoral cycles.

Donovan, the UBS economist, noted that governments are likely to seek to mobilise wealth to lower the cost of debt finance. What that means in practice — wealth taxes, forced investment mandates, or some novel fiscal instrument — remains the defining policy question of the decade the AI boom is creating.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2026 The Economy, Inc . All rights reserved .

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading