From IMF bailouts to burgeoning IT exports, Pakistan’s GDP forecast 2026–2031 tells a story of measurable risk and conditional hope. The clock is ticking.

If nations had horoscopes, Pakistan’s for 2026–2031 would not be written in the stars. It would be written in debt ledgers, inflation charts and poverty lines. The planetary alignment is already visible: slow growth circling a fragile fiscal core, inflation eroding household gravity, a widening poverty belt pulling millions toward economic vulnerability. There is no mystery in the forecast. The variables are measurable. The risks are documented. The consequences are predictable.

Over the next five years, Pakistan will either stabilize and reform — or drift into managed decline. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) can steady the ship temporarily and enforce macro-stability, and the State Bank of Pakistan can tighten or ease liquidity. They cannot generate growth.

That task falls to structural reform — a phrase that sounds bureaucratic until you see what absence of it costs. Consider: Pakistan’s Pakistan economic outlook 2026 is defined as much by what could be achieved as by what keeps being deferred.

The Stabilisation Phase: Progress That Doesn’t Yet Pay Household Bills

Pakistan enters mid-2026 with genuine — if fragile — macro-stabilisation. Inflation has cooled to 5.2%, down from the blistering 7.2% recorded just months prior, a relief felt in the bazaars of Lahore and the apartment blocks of Karachi. SBP foreign reserves have climbed to $11.5 billion, offering roughly two months of import cover. Remittances — the economic oxygen of millions of families — rose an impressive 10.5% to $19.7 billion in H1 FY26, a lifeline tied as much to the Pakistani diaspora’s love for home as to favourable exchange-rate incentives.

The current account swung to a surplus of $1.9 billion in FY25 — a number that would have seemed fantastical during the 2022–23 crisis — though analysts at the World Bank Pakistan Development Update (October 2025) warn this surplus is partly a reflection of compressed imports rather than genuine export dynamism.

The distinction matters enormously. A country stabilised by suppressing demand is like a patient who has stopped running a fever because they stopped eating. The vital signs look better; the underlying condition has not been addressed.

The Weight on the Scale: Debt, Poverty, and Climate Risk

Beneath the stabilisation headline runs a current of structural fragility that defines the Pakistan debt crisis as a generational challenge, not a cyclical blip. Debt stands at 70.6% of GDP — a number that crowds out spending on education, health, and infrastructure. Debt servicing now consumes an estimated 50 rupees of every 100 rupees in federal revenue, leaving the rest of government stretched across an impossibly wide mandate.

The IMF World Economic Outlook January 2026 projects GDP growth at 3.2% for 2026 — a figure that, while positive, barely keeps pace with population growth of approximately 2.4%. In per-capita terms, that translates to near-stagnation. For the 40.5% of Pakistanis living below the national poverty line — a figure cited in the World Bank’s FY26 assessment — near-stagnation is an abstraction; daily material deprivation is not.

Flooding, meanwhile, is not a metaphor but a recurring trauma. The 2022 floods destroyed $30 billion in infrastructure and livelihoods. Climate models and Pakistan’s own agricultural vulnerability suggest this will not be a one-off event. A country where 18–19% of GDP depends on agriculture, and where agriculture depends on monsoon cycles increasingly scrambled by climate change, cannot afford to treat climate adaptation as a low-priority agenda item.

The current account deficit is projected to widen back to -0.6% in FY26 as imports recover, while export share as a percentage of GDP has eroded from 16% to just 10.4% over a decade. That is the quiet catastrophe beneath the headline numbers — Pakistan’s integration into global trade has been shrinking, not growing.

Pakistan GDP Forecast 2026–2031: What the Numbers Say

The table below synthesises major institutional projections for Pakistan’s growth trajectory. The variance is not noise — it reflects the reform conditional nature of the more optimistic scenarios.

Source	FY2026 Forecast	FY2027–2030 (Reform Path)	Key Condition
IMF World Economic Outlook (Jan 2026)	3.2%	Up to 4.5% by 2030	Governance & tax reforms
World Bank Pakistan Dev. Update (Oct 2025)	3.0%	3.4% by FY27	Flood resilience, debt control
SBP Annual Report FY25	3.75–4.75%	N/A (monetary lens)	Inflation anchoring
UN WESP 2026	3.5%	Conditional on global stability	Climate & geopolitics
ADB Asian Dev. Outlook (Apr 2025)	3.3%	~4.0% medium-term	Energy & CPEC execution

Sources: IMF WEO Jan 2026, World Bank, SBP Annual Report FY25, UN WESP 2026, ADB Outlook Apr 2025

IMF Pakistan Reforms: Necessary but Not Sufficient

The IMF’s Extended Fund Facility has provided a critical macroeconomic anchor. But the IMF’s own analysis — echoing what The Economist noted in its analysis of Pakistan’s stabilisation — makes clear that execution is everything. Ambition without implementation is a vision statement, not a reform programme.

The Fund’s governance reform pathway offers a potentially transformative 5–6.5% growth boost — but it requires expanding the tax net (currently just 1.5% of Pakistanis file income tax), rationalising energy subsidies, privatising lossmaking state enterprises, and building provincial fiscal discipline. Each of these is politically costly. Collectively, they represent the most formidable reform agenda any Pakistani government has faced in a generation.

Compare this to the regional context: India is projected to grow at 4.9% in 2026, and Bangladesh — once the forgotten eastern wing — at 4.5%, having built a textile export base and improved social indicators with far less natural resource endowment. Pakistan’s Pakistan growth projections IMF scenario only makes sense if it closes the execution gap, not just the fiscal gap.

Green Shoots: Where Pakistan’s Economic Opportunity Lies

It would be dishonest — and analytically incomplete — to paint only a picture of structural distress. Pakistan has genuine vectors of growth that, with the right policy environment, could become engines of transformation.

IT and digital exports are the standout story. Exports from Pakistan’s technology sector grew 28% in FY25, reaching approximately $3.2 billion. With a median age of 22, a rapidly urbanising population, and a diaspora deeply embedded in Silicon Valley and London’s tech corridors, Pakistan has the human raw material for a digital economy. What it lacks is the regulatory coherence, internet infrastructure, and ease-of-business environment to scale it.

• CPEC Phase II, focused on industrial corridors and SEZs, carries the potential to attract FDI and generate manufacturing employment — though geopolitical tensions between China and the West introduce execution risk.
• IT exports (up 28%) signal a structural shift if supported by broadband rollout, freelancer tax incentives, and higher education investment in STEM disciplines.
• Urban reforms in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad — around property tax, land titling, and public transport — could unlock productivity gains estimated at 1–1.5% of GDP annually.
• Remittance formalisation, accelerated by digital payment corridors, strengthens foreign exchange stability while giving the SBP cleaner data for monetary policy.
• Agricultural modernisation — precision irrigation, crop insurance, and cold-chain logistics — could reduce climate shock impact and add 0.3–0.5% to annual growth.

Pakistan Fiscal Reforms 2031: The Fork in the Road

Pakistan’s economic narrative for 2026–2031 is, ultimately, a story of political will. The Financial Times observed in its analysis of Pakistan’s shrinking economic sovereignty that 3% growth and export erosion are not destiny — they are the default if nothing changes. Tribune’s economists put it more directly: Pakistan must choose growth, and the window for that choice narrows with every deferred reform cycle.

The UN World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 situates Pakistan within a broader cohort of frontier-market economies navigating the dual pressures of debt sustainability and climate adaptation. It is a cohort that can go either way. The countries that have escaped it — Rwanda, Vietnam, Bangladesh — did so through institutional improvement, not resource windfalls.

The IMF and World Bank can set the table. The State Bank can manage the liquidity. But the meal — the actual nourishment of 240 million people — requires domestic political consensus, business-environment reform, and an honest conversation with the Pakistani public about what sustainable growth demands.

Behind the Data: A Karachi Family’s Arithmetic

Think of a middle-class Karachi family in March 2026. The father works in a bank, the mother teaches at a private school. Their combined income has grown nominally, but energy bills have tripled in three years. Their eldest daughter is studying computer science, hoping to freelance for international clients. Their son is looking at applying to universities abroad, not out of ambition but because the domestic job market feels increasingly precarious.

This family is not in poverty statistics. They are not in the remittance data. They are the Pakistani middle class — the constituency that every administration claims to champion and that Pakistan’s macro-stability narrative most routinely forgets. For them, 3.2% GDP growth is not a triumph. It is, at best, treading water.

According to Statista’s GDP distribution data for Pakistan, the services sector — where this family earns its living — represents nearly 57% of economic output but receives a fraction of the structural reform attention directed at industry and agriculture. Fixing that imbalance is not incidental to Pakistan’s economic story. It is central to it.

The Forecast: Not Written in Stars, But Not Yet Written Either

Pakistan’s economic horoscope 2026 does not predict doom. It predicts consequence. Growth at 3–3.2% is survivable, not transformational. Reforms that unlock 5–6.5% growth are achievable, not inevitable. The Pakistan poverty trends — 40.5% below the poverty line — will not reverse without deliberate policy that connects macroeconomic stabilisation to household-level improvement.

The IMF Pakistan growth projections will remain exercises in conditionality unless Pakistan builds the institutions capable of converting external anchoring into internal momentum. That means tax reform that does not exempt the powerful. Energy pricing that does not reward the connected. Governance that does not treat public service as private opportunity.

There is no planetary alignment that guarantees Pakistan’s rise. But there is a roadmap, documented in the debt ledgers and the poverty lines, in the IT export growth numbers and the flood damage assessments. The stars did not write it. Pakistani policymakers, economists, and citizens will have to.

The question is not whether Pakistan can reform. History — from Ayub Khan’s Green Revolution era to the 2000s stabilisation — shows that it can. The question is whether it will, in the window that 2026–2031 represents, before the macro-stability documented by the ADB Asian Development Outlook 2025 gives way to the next crisis cycle. That is the only forecast that matters.

The Ocean Metaphor That Explains Everything Right Now

Picture two enormous waves, each born in a different ocean, each gathering force over years of invisible sub-surface pressure. The first is a geopolitical wave — dark, warm, and chaotic — driven by nuclear brinkmanship in Tehran, carrier fleets massing in the Strait of Hormuz, and a semiconductor cold war fought in export-control filings rather than trenches. The second wave is technological — cooler, brighter, almost luminescent — powered by $650 billion in AI capital expenditure, a once-in-a-century rewiring of computing infrastructure, and the earliest signs of genuine machine intelligence reshaping how entire economies function.

These are the moments when financial and geopolitical waves collide. Not a metaphor. A measurable, quantifiable event — visible in gold’s safe-haven surges, in oil’s volatility premium, in the divergence between defence stocks and software multiples. The collision zone is not some future horizon. It arrived on the morning of March 1, 2026, as smoke cleared over Iranian skies and data centres in Virginia drew more power than mid-sized nations.

Understanding this collision — and profiting from it, or at least surviving it — requires a new mental model. Scholars of risk call it the barbell world 2026: a structure in which the middle hollows out, and the extremes become the only places worth standing.

What Is the ‘Barbell World’? Taleb, Haldane, and the Death of the Middle

The barbell is Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s gift to investors: weight on both ends, nothing in the centre. In portfolio terms, it means pairing ultra-safe assets with highly speculative ones, abandoning the comfortable mediocrity of the middle. As contributing Financial Times editor and former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane has articulated in early 2026, this metaphor now describes the global economy itself — a barbell economy in which extreme geopolitical fragility at one end coexists with an extreme technological super-cycle at the other, with the “moderate, stable middle” of globalised, rules-based integration hollowing out at accelerating speed.

The barbell strategy geopolitics framework recognises something counterintuitive: the threats and the opportunities are not opposites. They are, in many ways, the same force refracted through different lenses. Semiconductor export controls drive AI chip nationalism — and chip nationalism turbocharges domestic AI investment. Iranian nuclear confrontation spikes oil prices — and oil-price spikes fund the sovereign wealth funds now pouring capital into data centres in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh. The barbell does not resolve the tension. It profits from it.

The IMF’s January 2026 World Economic Outlook captured the paradox in a single sentence: global growth remains “steady amid divergent forces,” with “headwinds from shifting trade policies offset by tailwinds from surging investment related to technology.” The headline number — 3.3% global growth for 2026 — masks a structural bifurcation that is, by now, impossible to ignore.

Wave 1: The Geopolitical Rupture

Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Return of Great-Power Brinksmanship

As these words are written, the most consequential geopolitical confrontation since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has just entered a new, dangerous phase. The 2026 Iran-United States crisis, years in gestation, reached its inflection point on February 28, when American and Israeli forces conducted strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure — the culmination of months of naval build-up, a domestic uprising that killed thousands of Iranian citizens, and a diplomatic dance in Geneva that ultimately could not bridge the gulf between Washington’s demand for full enrichment dismantlement and Tehran’s red lines.

The strategic and financial consequences are cascading in real time. ING Bank strategists had already warned that “the market will continue to price in a large risk premium” as long as military outcomes remained uncertain, with oil volatility serving as the transmission mechanism from the Strait of Hormuz to every fuel-dependent supply chain on earth. With the Strait handling roughly 20% of global oil flows, any sustained disruption is not an oil-market story — it is an inflation story, a shipping story, a sovereign-debt story for import-dependent emerging markets.

What makes 2026 different from previous Middle Eastern crises is the capital-flight dynamic. Iran’s deep economic fragility — compounded by a 20-day internet blackout, hyperinflationary collapse, and international isolation — has accelerated the flight of Iranian private capital toward Dubai, Istanbul, and Toronto. This is one tributary feeding into a broader pattern of geopolitical risks 2026 reshaping global capital flows. The Geopolitical Risk (GPR) Index, compiled by economists at the Federal Reserve, has registered multi-decade spikes in early 2026 not seen since the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

US-China Decoupling and the Silicon Curtain

The Iran shock does not exist in isolation. It is the loudest instrument in an orchestra of ruptures. The United States, under executive orders signed in January 2026, imposed a 25% tariff on Nvidia’s H200 and AMD’s MI325X AI processors under Section 232 national security authority — a seismic escalation of what researchers at the Semiconductor Industry Association have called the “Silicon Curtain.” Washington’s stated rationale is acute: the US currently manufactures only approximately 10% of the chips it requires domestically, making it, in the administration’s own words, “heavily reliant on foreign supply chains” in a way that “poses a significant economic and national security risk.”

The EU, meanwhile, designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation on January 29, 2026 — a step Brussels had resisted for years — tightening a transatlantic security alignment that is simultaneously fracturing over trade, defence spending, and the terms of any post-Ukraine settlement. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2026 Risk Outlook flags EU-China “de-risking” as a slow-motion financial and geopolitical collision of its own: European manufacturers pulling semiconductor and rare-earth supply chains away from Chinese suppliers at significant near-term cost, hoping to avoid the kind of dependency that left Germany exposed when Russian gas was weaponised in 2022.

Add space militarisation — China’s deployment of inspector satellites capable of disabling orbital assets, the US Space Force’s accelerating budget — and the picture emerges of a world in which the infrastructure underpinning the global economy (shipping lanes, satellite communications, semiconductor supply chains, energy corridors) is being securitised faster than markets can reprice the risk.

Wave 2: The Technological Super-Cycle

AI Capex and the $650 Billion Signal

Against this darkness, a second signal pulses with near-blinding intensity. The four dominant hyperscalers — Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft — have collectively committed to capital expenditures exceeding $650 billion in 2026 alone, according to Bloomberg data. Amazon’s guidance alone — $200 billion — exceeds the annual capital investment of the entire US energy sector. Goldman Sachs Research estimates total hyperscaler capex from 2025 through 2027 will reach $1.15 trillion — more than double what was spent in the three years prior.

This is not a bubble signal, or not straightforwardly one. TSMC, the foundational manufacturer of advanced semiconductors, raised its 2026 capital expenditure guidance to an unprecedented $52–56 billion, with 70–80% directed at 2-nanometer node ramp-up — the technological frontier. ASML, sole producer of the High-NA EUV lithography machines that make those nodes possible, issued 2026 revenue guidance of €34–39 billion and watched its shares surge 7% on the news. These are not speculative bets. They are supply chains being built, atom by atom, to sustain an AI geopolitical volatility 2026 environment in which compute supremacy has become a national security asset.

The Intelligence Layer

What is being built with this capital matters as much as the scale. The transition underway is from AI as productivity tool to AI as autonomous economic agent — what industry insiders are calling “Agentic AI.” Legal discovery, financial auditing, intelligent logistics routing, molecular drug design: these are no longer experimental use cases. They are live deployments. The IMF’s January 2026 update explicitly cited “technology investment” as one of the primary forces offsetting trade policy headwinds — a remarkable acknowledgement, from an institution not known for technological optimism, that technological opportunity geopolitical threat dynamics are now macro-relevant at a sovereign level.

In shipping and logistics, the convergence is particularly striking. Intelligent vessel routing systems, now standard aboard the largest container fleets, are incorporating real-time geopolitical risk feeds — rerouting automatically around contested waters, repricing insurance dynamically as carrier deployments shift. The Red Sea disruption, which cost global supply chains an estimated $10 billion per month in additional routing costs during its 2023–24 peak, has become the template stress-test for every logistics algorithm now being trained on conflict-probability data.

The Collision Zone: Markets, Capital Flight, and Volatility

Gold, Oil, and the Barbell Portfolio

As someone who has advised central banks and institutional investors on crisis-era portfolio construction, I find the current market configuration both fascinating and vertiginous. The financial geopolitical collision is leaving fingerprints across every asset class. Gold has surged beyond $3,100 per troy ounce — a level that structural gold bulls have long predicted but that has arrived compressed in time by simultaneous central bank buying from emerging market sovereigns, Iranian capital flight, and a resurgence of the geopolitical risk premium that dominated the Cold War era. Morningstar’s portfolio managers describe this as “structural distrust in monetary policy pushing gold to new record highs” — a framing that gestures at something deeper than a crisis hedge.

Oil, meanwhile, is exhibiting the bifurcated volatility pattern characteristic of barbell world 2026 conditions: the spot price is elevated on supply-risk premiums while the forward curve reflects base-case demand moderation from Chinese economic slowdown and an OPEC+ consensus favouring gradual supply restoration. ING’s commodities strategy desk, quoted by CNBC, notes that “targeted and brief” military action may produce a short-lived spike, while a sustained conflict with active Strait of Hormuz disruption would keep prices elevated on supply risks indefinitely. Markets are pricing both scenarios simultaneously — hence the unusually wide options skew.

The 10-year US Treasury yield has climbed to 4.29%, partly on the “Warsh Shock” of the White House’s nomination of the hawkish Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve Chair successor to Jerome Powell. At the same time, Nasdaq has retreated into negative territory for the year as investors rotate from capital-intensive AI infrastructure plays into industrials, financials, and energy — the “HALO trade” (Heavy Assets, Low Obsolescence) that is, in microcosm, a barbell in practice.

Winners and Losers: The Barbell Investment Playbook

Nations

Winners in the barbell economy are those positioned at the productive extremes: the United States (AI infrastructure, defence contracting, LNG exports as Middle East supply is disrupted), India (fastest-growing major economy at 6.3% per the IMF, semiconductor assembly buildout, demographic dividend), and the Gulf Arab states (petrodollar recycling into sovereign AI investment, geopolitical insulation from Iran-US conflict). Saudi Aramco’s $110 billion investment in AI and data-centre infrastructure — announced in partnership with NVIDIA in late 2025 — is the clearest illustration of how hydrocarbon windfalls from geopolitical risk are being reinvested in the technological opportunity that same geopolitical risk is helping to accelerate.

Losers are the trapped middles: European manufacturers caught between US tariff pressure and Chinese competition, unable to move decisively toward either extreme; emerging-market commodity importers who face the double blow of higher oil prices and tighter dollar financing conditions; and the “SaaS middle layer” of software companies that neither own the AI infrastructure nor the consumer applications that monetise it — a cohort that suffered an estimated $1.2 trillion in market value erosion in February 2026 alone as “seat compression” fears took hold.

The Critical Minerals Angle

The barbell strategy geopolitics of 2026 runs through the earth itself. Lithium, cobalt, gallium, germanium — the critical minerals that underpin both AI hardware and clean-energy infrastructure — are overwhelmingly concentrated in China, the DRC, and a handful of other states that have learned to treat resource access as a geopolitical instrument. China’s export controls on gallium and germanium, progressively tightened since 2023, are the resource-dimension equivalent of the semiconductor trade war: a slow chokepoint on Western technological ambition. Nations that control these supply chains — Australia, Canada, Chile, Morocco — are experiencing a quiet investment renaissance.

Travel, Mobility, and the Global Supply Chain Under Stress

For business travellers, cross-border investors, and the logistics professionals who keep the global supply chain in motion, the barbell world has become viscerally immediate. Air cargo routes have been repriced as overflights of Iranian airspace are suspended — adding 45–90 minutes to key Europe-Asia freight lanes and triggering the first meaningful spike in business-travel insurance premiums since the COVID-19 lockdowns. Business-travel management companies report a 34% increase in “geopolitical disruption” policy claims in Q1 2026, while luxury travel demand — concentrated in the Gulf, Singapore, and Switzerland — remains stubbornly resilient, a pattern consistent with the barbell: the premium end holds, the volume middle is squeezed.

Supply-chain rerouting is the structural story beneath the headline drama. The World Bank’s January 2026 Global Economic Prospects notes that “the 2020s are on track to be the weakest decade for global growth since the 1960s,” yet trade finance for alternative routing — through the Suez Cape route, through Central Asian rail corridors, through emerging East African port infrastructure — is growing at double-digit rates. Investors in port infrastructure, air cargo logistics, and specialised freight insurance are positioned at the productive extreme of the barbell, benefiting from the very disruptions that are costing importers.

Cross-border investment flows are similarly bifurcating: away from politically exposed middle-income economies toward either the safe haven (Singapore, Switzerland, UAE) or the frontier opportunity (India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia). The comfortable middle ground of “globalised, stable, rules-based” investment — the default of the post-1990 era — is becoming increasingly difficult to find.

Policy Prescriptions for the Barbell Era

What Governments Must Do

The barbell economy is not, in itself, a policy choice — but the policy response to it is. Governments that navigate it well will do three things simultaneously.

First, they will invest at the technological extreme with the urgency the moment demands. The European Union’s delayed response to AI infrastructure investment — constrained by fiscal rules, regulatory caution, and a structural preference for horizontal competition policy over vertical industrial strategy — is already manifesting in a widening competitiveness gap. The IMF’s January 2026 World Economic Outlook is explicit: “technology investment, fiscal and monetary support, accommodative financial conditions, and private sector adaptability offset trade policy shifts.” The operative word is “and” — no single lever is sufficient. Europe has the fiscal space and the monetary conditions but has yet to mobilise the industrial strategy.

Second, they will build genuine supply chain diversification — not the reshoring rhetoric that substitutes political sloganeering for the hard, slow work of building alternative supplier relationships, securing critical mineral agreements, and investing in port and logistics infrastructure that makes alternative routes commercially viable. The nations that started this work in 2022, following Russia’s invasion, are three years ahead of those starting now.

Third, and most counterintuitively, they will invest in diplomatic infrastructure — the unglamorous apparatus of back-channel communication, multilateral institution maintenance, and conflict de-escalation that looks expensive in peacetime and priceless in crisis. The Geneva talks between the US and Iran — however they ultimately resolve — were enabled by Omani mediation capacity built over decades. That capacity is a form of geopolitical infrastructure as real as a data centre and harder to rebuild once lost.

The Economist’s Verdict

As someone who has spent two decades watching financial and geopolitical cycles intersect, the 2026 configuration is genuinely novel in one key respect: the speed of the collision. Previous instances of great-power competition, technological disruption, and financial volatility interacted over years or decades. The current cycle is operating on a quarterly cadence — a direct consequence of AI’s ability to compress decision timescales in both markets and military planning.

The World Bank Global Economic Prospects January 2026 offers a sober diagnostic: “global growth is facing another substantial headwind, emanating largely from an increase in trade tensions and heightened global policy uncertainty,” while simultaneously documenting the “surge in AI-related investment, particularly in the US” that kept 2025 growth 0.4 percentage points above forecast. The same report warns that “one in four developing economies had lower per capita incomes” than before the pandemic — a reminder that the barbell’s productive extremes are not universally accessible.

The AI geopolitical volatility 2026 dynamic poses a specific challenge to central bank credibility. The Federal Reserve’s mandate — stable prices, maximum employment — was calibrated for a world in which supply shocks were temporary and productivity growth was predictable. Neither condition holds. Oil supply shocks from Middle Eastern conflict are persistent in their uncertainty, not temporary. AI-driven productivity acceleration is real but uneven, concentrated in the capital-rich firms and nations that can afford the barbell’s technological extreme. The risk of monetary policy error — tightening into a geopolitical supply shock, or easing into an inflationary AI-investment boom — has rarely been higher.

The Middle Is Dead. The Extremes Are Alive.

There is something both clarifying and terrifying about living in a barbell world. The familiar topography of the post-Cold War international order — moderate integration, predictable multilateralism, gradual technological change — is gone. In its place: extreme geopolitical rupture coexisting with extreme technological transformation, and a middle ground that offers neither the safety of the barbell’s defensive end nor the returns of its offensive one.

The international threat meets technological opportunity paradox of 2026 is, ultimately, a resource allocation problem at civilisational scale. Every dollar that flows into a data centre instead of a weapons system is a bet that the technological wave will crest before the geopolitical one breaks. Every dollar flowing into gold instead of AI equity is the opposite bet. The tragedy — and the opportunity — is that both bets are simultaneously rational.

For investors, the playbook is uncomfortable but clear: build the barbell. Own the defensive extreme (gold, energy infrastructure, defence logistics, critical mineral producers, sovereign AI plays in the Gulf) and own the offensive extreme (AI infrastructure beneficiaries, semiconductor capital equipment, biotechnology powered by AI drug discovery). Exit the middle: undifferentiated SaaS, geopolitically exposed consumer brands in contested markets, anything whose value depends on the restoration of a stable, rules-based international order that is not coming back in this decade.

For policymakers, the imperative is starkly different: work to compress the barbell. Invest in the institutions, agreements, and infrastructure that rebuild some version of the productive middle — not as nostalgia for a world that no longer exists, but as the architecture of one that might. The waves have collided. The question is whether we build something new in the wreckage, or simply ride the extremes until one of them overwhelms us.

The middle is dead. The extremes are alive. Choose yours carefully.

---

Citations & Sources

1. World Bank Global Economic Prospects, January 2026 — https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2026/01/13/global-economic-prospects-january-2026-press-release
2. IMF World Economic Outlook Update, January 2026 — https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2026/01/19/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2026
3. Bloomberg: Big Tech $650B AI capex 2026 — https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-06/how-much-is-big-tech-spending-on-ai-computing-a-staggering-650-billion-in-2026
4. Goldman Sachs: AI Companies May Invest More Than $500B in 2026 — https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/why-ai-companies-may-invest-more-than-500-billion-in-2026
5. CNBC: US-Iran Nuclear Talks, Trump Deadline, Oil Prices — https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/25/us-iran-talks-nuclear-trump-oil-prices-war-conflict.html
6. CNBC: US-Iran Talks Conclude, Oil Risk — https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/27/us-iran-nuclear-talks-oil-middle-east.html
7. Al Jazeera: Iran says US must drop excessive demands — https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/27/iran-says-us-must-drop-excessive-demands-in-nuclear-negotiations
8. Bloomberg: US-Iran Nuclear Talks, Trump Deadline — https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-26/us-iran-to-hold-nuclear-talks-as-trump-s-deal-deadline-looms
9. Wikipedia: 2026 Iran–United States Crisis — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran%E2%80%93United_States_crisis
10. PBS NewsHour: Iran Nuclear Timeline — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-timeline-of-tensions-over-irans-nuclear-program-as-talks-with-u-s-approach
11. World Bank Global Economic Prospects Full Report — https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects
12. IMF WEO Update Full PDF, January 2026 — https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/weo/2026/january/english/text.pdf
13. TradingEconomics: World Bank 2026 GDP Forecast + AI Chip Tariffs — https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/news/news/516773
14. Morningstar: AI Arms Race Investment Landscape 2026 — https://global.morningstar.com/en-ca/markets/ai-arms-race-how-techs-capital-surge-will-reshape-investment-landscape-2026
15. Yahoo Finance/CNBC: Big Tech $650B in 2026 — https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tech-set-to-spend-650-billion-in-2026-as-ai-investments-soar-163907630.html

How Asian investors can navigate the geopolitical impact on Asian markets without falling into the twin traps of complacency and panic — and why pricing geopolitical risk in 2026 demands a fundamentally different toolkit

The Fire Horse Meets the Year of Geopolitics

In the Chinese zodiac, 2026 belongs to the Fire Horse — a symbol of restless, combustible energy. Driven, brilliant, and unpredictably volatile, the Fire Horse is considered one of the most dramatic animals in the Chinese astrological cycle. In certain East Asian traditions, years bearing its mark are ones in which conventional wisdom gets upended and fortune favors those who move decisively rather than hesitantly.

For investors operating across Asian markets this year, that ancient metaphor has collided head-on with a grimmer, more modern label: the Year of Geopolitics.

It is a label earned in full. Consider the dizzying catalogue of risk events that greeted markets before the calendar had even turned to February. On January 3rd, US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — barely three days into the new year — in an intervention that Lombard Odier’s strategists immediately flagged as a return of sphere of influence logic to geopolitics, with the operation mirroring the US intervention in Panama in 1989 and the arrest of Manuel Noriega. MarketPulse Within weeks, President Trump announced 10% tariffs on eight NATO allies, ostensibly tied to US demands over Greenland — a move that, according to Lombard Odier’s analysis, drove geopolitical risk premia higher, led by gold, though broader impacts were expected to stay contained unless tensions intensified. J.P. Morgan

Meanwhile, US military assets have been repositioned in the Gulf, pressuring Iran toward nuclear negotiations, with Lombard Odier warning that oil markets are a key transmission channel for geopolitical risks, and any Iranian action in the Strait of Hormuz would be a high-risk, high-cost option — but one that cannot be ruled out. Allianz Global Investors And as if a crowded geopolitical stage needed more actors, the independence of the US Federal Reserve has come into question, with Jerome Powell’s term ending in May and President Trump’s preference for a loyalist replacement threatening what markets once considered an institutional certainty.

Layering all of this is the ongoing shadow of Trump’s trade tariffs — tools whose legal foundations remain contested in the Supreme Court — and a tech decoupling between Washington and Beijing that has moved from rhetorical sparring to operational architecture.

The central question for Asian investors is not whether these risks are real. They are, spectacularly so. The question is: how should you price geopolitical risk in a world where economic growth remains remarkably resilient? Do you sell? Discount? Simply watch the headlines and hold firm? As we will argue, the answer is none of the above in isolation. What this moment demands — particularly for investors with Asian portfolio exposure — is analytical nuance, not instinct.

Loud Headlines, Quiet Markets — and Why That Pattern Can Deceive

There is a seductive and well-documented pattern in modern financial history: geopolitical events tend to produce sharp, short-lived volatility spikes, followed by recoveries that leave investors wondering what all the fuss was about. Geopolitical events tend to have only a temporary impact on markets as long as they have no lasting effect on oil prices or permanently disrupt global supply chains. BlackRock

This has been the dominant experience of the past several years. From Middle Eastern flare-ups to the initial phases of the Russia-Ukraine war, from North Korean missile tests to US-China semiconductor skirmishes, markets have repeatedly absorbed the shock, processed the information, and moved on — often within days. The global economy has shown surprising resilience. Despite the tax burdens and protectionist policies of the Trump administration, markets have grown accustomed to the rhythm of confrontation and compromise — particularly in the ongoing dynamic between President Trump and his global counterparts. Asia House

The clearest stress-test of this pattern came in April 2025 with “Liberation Day” — the Trump administration’s sweeping tariff announcement. Volatility spiked violently, and supply-chain-exposed stocks across Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Malaysia sold off hard. After Liberation Day, markets panicked. The dollar fell as volatility spiked — the opposite of its usual safe-haven behavior. Reserve managers sharply shifted allocations away from dollars; the greenback’s share of global reserves hit its lowest in two decades. Pundits rushed to declare American exceptionalism dead. Lombard Odier And yet, by the year’s end, a partial trade détente had been negotiated, and foreign investors had bought more US assets than in the prior year.

Despite fading market shocks, ongoing geopolitical tensions and elevated gold volatility signal that concerns about global risks may linger in 2026, as State Street’s Head of Macro Policy Research Elliot Hentov noted. Trade continues to grow despite trade wars — but deals are being closed only gradually, and uncertainty has not fully dissipated. BlackRock

The danger for investors lies in a subtle but crucial category error: confusing market recovery with market immunity. Geopolitical risks are often priced heuristically. Their uncertain duration, scope, and low frequency make them difficult to quantify in advance. In the meantime, their tail-risk nature — as relatively rare but potentially extreme occurrences — means they are underpriced until they materialise. J.P. Morgan Private Bank Put differently: the fact that a crisis passed without lasting damage does not mean the next one will. And for Asian investors, the structural transmission channels are uniquely numerous and direct.

BlackRock’s Geopolitical Risk Dashboard tracks a “market movement score” for each risk — measuring the degree to which asset prices have moved similarly to risk scenarios. The current environment reflects the US resetting of trade deals and alliances, intensifying US-China competition with AI at its core, and continued volatility from conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Caribbean. Allianz Global Investors The dashboard makes plain that market attention and market movement are two different things — and that the gap between them is where complacency breeds.

Asia’s Unique Position — Why Nuance Is Not Optional

Asia is not a spectator in the Year of Geopolitics. It is one of its primary stages. The region encompasses the world’s most consequential bilateral rivalry (US-China), the most contested maritime geography (the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea), the most trade-exposed economies in the developed world, and the most energy-import-dependent major markets on the planet. For Asian investors, the transmission channels for geopolitical shocks are not theoretical — they flow directly into earnings, currencies, bond yields, and capital flows.

The bilateral relationship between Washington and Beijing remains the most important indicator of geopolitical tensions to gauge in 2026 and for years to come. Long-term strategic decoupling is highly likely to continue amid growing great-power competition, especially in emerging technologies and defense. While there may be increased stability prior to an anticipated summit between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, the underlying dynamic of technology and supply-chain competition is structural rather than episodic. SpecialEurasia

Several specific vulnerability channels demand attention:

Export dependency. South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam are among the world’s most trade-reliant economies. Any durable deterioration in global trade flows hits their corporate earnings faster and harder than in more domestically insulated markets. China’s export machine continues to defy geopolitical headwinds, showing robust growth even as protectionist policies proliferate globally — yet the structural supply-demand imbalance will require years to resolve, and more time is needed for recent anti-involution policy measures to have a meaningful impact on the real economy. Pinebridge

Energy import vulnerability. Around one-third of the world’s seaborne crude oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which is also key for transporting liquefied natural gas, fertilisers, copper, and aluminium. Allianz Global Investors Japan and South Korea, as near-total energy importers, face the most direct exposure to any supply disruption emanating from Middle Eastern conflict.

Technology decoupling. Despite a trade detente with China, the military posture in Asia hasn’t softened. Washington sent Taipei its largest-ever arms sale package, and Beijing continues to assert its Taiwan position. Lombard Odier Meanwhile, China’s ambition to triple domestic semiconductor production by 2026 is reshaping investment flows across the electronics supply chain from Penang to Shenzhen.

Currency fragility. The Chinese yuan’s relative stability — maintained deliberately to preserve export competitiveness — acts as an anchor that constrains appreciation across the broader Asian currency complex. Dollar-yen is expected to breach 160 in 2026, with yen risks remaining key to the downside. Hartford Funds

Water and resource security. An often-overlooked vector of geopolitical risk in Asia is resource competition. The Indus Waters Treaty has been suspended. South Asian nuclear-armed rivals are turning rivers into leverage. The governance vacuum around shared water resources is deepening — and when the next shock comes, water will make it worse. Lombard Odier

Given these interlocking vulnerabilities, it should be clear why the standard market wisdom — “geopolitics rarely moves markets” — is an incomplete guide for Asian portfolios. Despite optimism about Asian equities in 2026, some challenges cannot be overlooked, including uncertain global demand, trade dynamics, and a volatile macro environment, all creating headwinds to medium-term potential growth. J.P. Morgan

The correct response, however, is not to flee risk entirely. Asia enters 2026 with genuine resilience and structural opportunity, driven by AI infrastructure investment, advanced manufacturing, and the green energy transition. The message for investors is clear: stay nimble, diversify beyond technology, and hedge strategically. Eurasia Group

The Lombard Odier Framework: How the Intelligent Allocator Approaches Geopolitical Risk

In managing clients’ money through successive geopolitical shocks over more than two centuries, Lombard Odier has developed what it calls the “Intelligent Allocator” framework — a discipline for separating analytical signal from emotional noise in volatile environments. Its core insight is worth absorbing in full.

The investor’s edge does not come from predicting events, but from understanding which outcomes are unaffordable. Rather than trying to anticipate geopolitical shocks, the goal is to build portfolios that can endure them through a robust strategic asset allocation. The idea is to understand the objectives of major economic actors, and more importantly the material constraints that limit those objectives — the hard physical, economic, and resource limits that bind policymakers regardless of ideology. J.P. Morgan Private Bank

This “material constraints” framework, developed by geopolitical strategist Marko Papic, is particularly illuminating in the context of US-China relations. At the February 2026 Lombard Odier “Rethink Perspectives” event in Paris, the firm’s chief strategists laid out the logic explicitly. The Americans possess what China needs — computing power — but China equally holds what the Americans require — rare earths. This symmetry is central to risk management. It sustains geopolitical tension, yet also reduces the probability of full decoupling, as the economic cost of a “pure” separation would be prohibitive. For markets, this translates into recurring cycles of political announcements, targeted restrictions, and industrial adaptation — in other words, volatility that is structural rather than episodic. Pinebridge

This insight directly challenges two equally mistaken responses: the first is to dismiss US-China tech tensions as noise that markets will look through; the second is to treat them as an existential rupture requiring wholesale portfolio defensiveness. The correct position is somewhere harder to hold: acknowledging the structural nature of the competition while maintaining exposure to the growth it generates.

On portfolio construction in this environment, Lombard Odier has been consistently clear since the start of the year. The key lesson from 2025 is to remain invested through the noise. Economies are still expanding, corporate growth is solid, policy offsets are in place, and the private sector is strong. While growth should slow through the year, stronger end-2025 momentum provides a higher buffer. Diversification is essential, with a preference for emerging markets, which offer higher earnings growth at a more reasonable price. Hartford Funds

On the Venezuela intervention specifically, Lombard Odier’s January analysis provided a useful template for how the framework operates in real time. The firm expected further spread compression in emerging bonds, precious metals outperforming due to a rise in the geopolitical risk premium, and a neutral view on the global energy sector — given both upside and downside risks to oil prices in the short term. MarketPulse This is the Intelligent Allocator in action: calibrated rather than reactive, nuanced rather than binary.

Real-Time Geopolitical Fault Lines: What Is Priced In and What Isn’t

Against this analytical backdrop, several specific 2026 geopolitical fault lines warrant close attention from Asian investors — both for the risks they present and, often, the opportunities embedded within them.

The US Political Revolution. According to the Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2026 report, the United States is attempting to dismantle checks on presidential power and capture the machinery of government — making it the principal source of global risk in 2026. Lombard Odier As Eurasia Group founder Ian Bremmer put it: “The United States is itself unwinding its own global order. The world’s most powerful country is in the throes of a political revolution.” Lombard Odier For Asian markets, the implications ripple through trade policy, Federal Reserve independence, and the durability of US security commitments in the Indo-Pacific.

The Federal Reserve question is especially consequential. With Jerome Powell’s term ending in May 2026, the nomination process will be a market-moving spectacle. If a presidential loyalist is nominated, markets could price in a politicized, dovish Fed — producing a sharp equity rally and a sell-off in the dollar, with Senate confirmation hearings becoming the key volatility event of the spring. Societegenerale

The Electrons vs. Molecules Competition. China is betting on electrons — AI, advanced manufacturing, drones, batteries, and solar — while the United States is betting on molecules: energy, fossil fuels, critical minerals. 2026 will begin to reveal which bet is paying off. Lombard Odier The answer has significant implications for Asian supply chains. China tightens its grip on drones, battery storage, robots, and manufacturing, even as deflation clouds its domestic outlook with a quarter of all listed Chinese firms now unprofitable — the highest level in 25 years. Lombard Odier

The Supreme Court Tariff Ruling. Legal challenges to the administration’s reciprocal tariff executive orders are heading to the Supreme Court, with a ruling expected by June. If the Court strikes down the president’s authority to unilaterally set broad tariffs, the result could be a massive deflationary unwind and a rally in global trade proxies — shipping, emerging markets, and Asian export-oriented economies. Societegenerale The reverse scenario — Court upholding the tariffs — would entrench the current landscape of elevated trade friction.

Iran and Energy Risk. Lombard Odier’s February assessment concluded that the base case remains a negotiated outcome on US-Iran tensions, consistent with financial markets’ relative calmness. The VIX remained just below its long-term average, with no sign that risk premia were adjusting in anticipation of escalation. Allianz Global Investors But the tail risk remains real: a Strait of Hormuz disruption would function as a direct economic shock to virtually every energy-importing Asian economy.

Gray Zone Warfare Around Taiwan. Intelligence suggests China may be moving its timeline for “reunification readiness” forward. 2026 could see an increase in gray zone warfare — cyberattacks, blockades, and airspace incursions — that could trigger major repricing in risk assets and the US dollar. Any kinetic escalation around Taiwan would make 2025’s volatility look like a warm-up. Societegenerale Wellington Management’s geopolitical framework places this among the highest-consequence monitoring priorities for Asia-tilted portfolios.

China’s Deflation Trap. China enters 2026 with ten consecutive quarters of worsening deflation, personal consumption at just 39% of GDP — half the US share — and disposable income stalled at US$5,800 per person. Lombard Odier China’s export machine continues to defy geopolitical headwinds, showing robust growth. However, resolving the structural supply-demand imbalance will be a multi-year process. Pinebridge The irony is that Beijing’s response — accelerating exports — compounds competitive pressure on Asian neighbors even as it stabilizes Chinese growth.

Structural Beneficiaries: Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia. Not all of Asia’s geopolitical geography is risk. Vietnam has increasingly functioned as a “connector economy,” facilitating trade flows between the US and China. As corporates diversify production away from China, Vietnam has absorbed manufacturing activity tied to US end-demand while continuing to source intermediate inputs from China. Pinebridge Indonesia’s critical minerals position — particularly nickel for batteries and semiconductors — aligns directly with the AI-driven digital economy. These are genuine structural opportunities embedded within the geopolitical disruption.

Investment Strategies: Pricing Risk Without Being Paralyzed by It

What does a genuinely nuanced approach look like in practice? The following principles synthesize insights from across the major institutional frameworks operating in this environment.

Stay invested — but with eyes open. Despite its stellar performance in 2025, gold remains the most attractive portfolio hedge against market and geopolitical risks, with momentum from private inflows and central bank diversification expected to remain strong. As for the US dollar, renewed Fed easing and US policy uncertainty argue for sustained weakness and lower exposures. Hartford Funds The base case across major institutional investors entering 2026 is moderately pro-risk — not risk-off.

Use gold as a systematic hedge, not an emotional response. Adding gold in a sell-off makes sense given the multiple roles it can play as a hedge against geopolitical risk, stagflation, and US-dollar concerns. Stimson Center Lombard Odier advocates a gold allocation “of the order of 3–5%” as a line of portfolio defence when faced with extreme shocks — a structural position rather than a tactical reaction. Wellington Management The critical distinction is between owning gold before a crisis, when it is cheapest, versus scrambling to buy it after a spike.

Distinguish geopolitical categories. Geopolitical cycles are long — historically, they last between 80 and 100 years. Structural changes like those we’re witnessing now only come around once per century and tend to be disruptive. While market risk is structurally higher in this new regime, 2026 will afford ongoing and novel opportunities to seek portfolio winners and losers across defense technology, energy transition, and advanced manufacturing themes. SpecialEurasia

Diversify within Asia, not just out of it. Lombard Odier expects Swiss, Japanese, and emerging market equities to outperform. Within EM equities, more domestic-led markets such as China and India are expected to outperform more US-exposed markets such as Taiwan and Korea, which are more vulnerable to profit-taking when tariff tensions flare. J.P. Morgan

Watch sovereign bond dynamics for structural signals. Geopolitical shifts are reshaping global demand for government debt. As central banks diversify into gold, sovereign bonds may see higher domestic ownership and depend more on domestic demand — a structural shift that changes the diversification calculus for Asian fixed-income investors. State Street

Position for AI as a geopolitical theme, not merely a technology theme. A genuine transformation is underway, with the logic of efficiency and interdependence giving way to the logic of security. Security is replacing efficiency as the guiding principle of economic policy, prompting massive investment in energy, infrastructure, and industrial capacity — a shift that creates both risks and long-term opportunities for investors. Pinebridge In Asia, this means AI hardware infrastructure, semiconductor equipment makers, and advanced manufacturing platforms are not simply growth stocks — they are geopolitical position plays.

The comparison below illustrates how geopolitical risk transmission differs across key Asian markets:

Market	Primary Risk Channel	Key Vulnerability	Structural Opportunity
Taiwan	Tech decoupling, Taiwan Strait	Semiconductor export controls	TSMC global supply chain dominance
South Korea	Trade tariffs, China slowdown	US-Korea trade tension	Defense tech, battery manufacturing
Japan	Yen weakness, energy costs	BoJ normalization pace	Governance reforms, fiscal stimulus
India	Tariff exposure (36% effective rate)	Energy import costs	Domestic demand, rate cutting cycle
Vietnam	China +1 beneficiary dynamics	US scrutiny of trade flows	Manufacturing connector economy
Indonesia	Critical minerals demand	Commodity price volatility	Nickel, AI infrastructure materials
China	Deflation trap, tech restrictions	Export overcapacity, property sector	Semiconductor self-sufficiency drive
Singapore	Financial hub volatility	Capital flow sensitivity	Digital economy, wealth management

The Case for Active Management Over Passive Conviction

One underappreciated implication of the geopolitical environment is its structural favorability for active over passive investment management. This environment is naturally conducive to active management, which can seek to avoid increased market risks and capitalize on differentiation more nimbly than a passive approach. There may be alpha opportunities for long/short and other alternatives strategies that simply do not exist in a regime of smooth, globally coordinated growth. SpecialEurasia

Passive indices — particularly those heavily weighted toward Chinese or tech-dominant Asian benchmarks — embed specific geopolitical assumptions that may not reflect the rapidly evolving risk landscape. A passive Asia ex-Japan ETF, for example, carries significant Taiwan semiconductor and South Korean battery exposure, and limited hedging against the tail scenarios that both Wellington and Lombard Odier have flagged. Active management allows for the kind of within-region, within-sector rotation that a nuanced geopolitical view demands.

Geopolitical fragmentation does not lead to a generalised market retreat, but instead imposes a more detailed and refined hierarchy of risks, broken down by region and sector. It demands particular attention to sovereign balance sheets and microeconomic fundamentals. Wellington Management This is a world that rewards research depth and penalizes index-hugging.

The Intelligent Allocator’s Conclusion: Nuance Is the Strategy

The Fire Horse year demands that investors move: those who stand still, paralyzed by the sheer volume of geopolitical noise, risk being trampled by the opportunities passing them. Those who panic-sell risk exiting at precisely the moments when fundamentals argue for holding course. And those who are complacent — who assume that because markets have recovered from previous shocks, they will always recover quickly from the next — are building portfolios on a foundation that the Year of Geopolitics may not spare.

The geopolitical environment remains fraught with uncertainty. But markets have grown accustomed to the rhythm of confrontation and compromise. The balance of power, especially in trade and strategic resources like rare earths, has shifted. And yet, despite the tax burdens and protectionist policies of the Trump administration, the global economy has shown surprising resilience. Asia House

A moderate pace of economic growth, more accommodative monetary conditions, and a weaker dollar create fertile ground for risk assets, even as the fixed income outlook remains constrained. By seeking value opportunities, embracing emerging markets, and diversifying further through real assets, investors can position portfolios for resilience amid inevitable risks and potential shocks. Societegenerale

The analytical discipline that this moment demands is not exotic. It is, at its core, a commitment to asking a more precise question than either “should I be scared?” or “should I be calm?” The better question is: which specific outcomes are unaffordable for my portfolio, which geopolitical risks have economic transmission channels that could materialize those outcomes, and am I appropriately positioned to endure them while remaining exposed to the genuine growth that Asia’s structural story continues to offer?

That question, asked with rigor and answered with evidence rather than instinct, is the whole of the nuanced response. In the Year of Geopolitics, it may also be the difference between a good year and a great one.