Connect with us

Banks

The World’s Top 10 Banks in 2025: Power, Risk, and the New Financial Order

Published

on

China’s trillion-dollar banking giants dominate global finance—but their real estate exposure could reshape the entire system

The global banking landscape has reached an inflection point. As we close 2025, the world’s 100 largest banks control $95.5 trillion in assets—a figure that eclipses the GDP of most nations combined. Yet beneath this staggering concentration of financial power lies a paradox that should concern policymakers and investors alike: the banks with the biggest balance sheets may not be the most resilient.

Four Chinese state-owned institutions—Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, and Bank of China—occupy the top spots in the global rankings by total assets. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank and fifth globally, commands the highest market capitalization at nearly $788 billion, signaling that investors value American banking efficiency over sheer size.

This divergence tells us something critical: in 2025’s banking world, scale and strength are no longer synonymous.

The Rankings: Size Doesn’t Equal Safety

Based on the latest data from S&P Global Market Intelligence and financial reports through Q4 2024, here are the world’s ten largest banks by total assets:

1. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) – $6.6 trillion in assets. The world’s largest bank by assets continues to benefit from Beijing’s infrastructure spending and state support, operating over 16,000 branches globally. Yet non-performing loan ratios are forecast to rise to 5.4-5.8% in 2025-2027, up from 5.1% in 2024, driven primarily by real estate exposure.

2. Agricultural Bank of China – Approximately $5.8 trillion. Deeply embedded in rural China’s financial system, ABC faces similar real estate headwinds while supporting Beijing’s rural development priorities.

3. China Construction Bank – Around $5.6 trillion. As its name suggests, CCB’s fortunes are intimately tied to China’s construction sector, making it particularly vulnerable to the ongoing property crisis.

4. Bank of China – Approximately $4.8 trillion. The most internationally oriented of China’s “Big Four,” with significant foreign operations, yet still carrying substantial domestic real estate exposure.

5. JPMorgan Chase – $4.0 trillion in assets. The most profitable large bank globally, JPMorgan’s return on equity reached 18% in 2024, demonstrating that American banks achieve more with less. With 5,021 domestic branches and sophisticated digital platforms, JPMorgan exemplifies the “smaller but mightier” model.

6. Bank of America – $2.65 trillion. The second-largest U.S. bank maintains 3,624 domestic branches and has aggressively invested in digital banking, serving millions through its AI-powered virtual assistant Erica.

7. HSBC Holdings – $3.0 trillion. Europe’s largest bank by assets, HSBC is navigating a strategic pivot toward Asia while managing legacy exposures across its global footprint.

8. BNP Paribas – Approximately $2.9 trillion. France’s largest bank and a European leader in investment banking and corporate finance.

9. Crédit Agricole – Around $2.6 trillion. Another French banking giant with significant retail and corporate banking operations across Europe.

10. Citigroup – $1.84 trillion. Once the world’s largest bank, Citi has streamlined operations but maintains an unparalleled global presence with operations in 109 foreign branches.

The Elephant in the Boardroom: China’s Real Estate Time Bomb

Here’s what the asset rankings don’t show: Chinese banks’ exposure to real estate loans has created systemic vulnerabilities, with non-performing asset ratios for property development loans potentially reaching 7% by 2027 if markets stabilize—and much worse if they don’t.

Walk through any major Chinese city today and you’ll see the problem in concrete and steel: unfinished apartment towers, silent construction sites, and the ghostly remains of a $52 trillion property bubble that’s now deflating. Chinese policymakers removed price caps on housing in 2024, allowing eligible families to buy unlimited homes in suburban areas, a desperate attempt to revive demand that has largely failed.

The human cost is staggering. Mid-2025 data shows mortgage non-performing loan rates at listed banks rising overall, with some banks up more than 20 basis points. Millions of Chinese homeowners now hold “underwater” mortgages—properties worth less than their outstanding loans. Some have lost both their homes and down payments yet still owe banks hundreds of thousands of yuan.

For the Big Four Chinese banks, this isn’t just a loan quality issue—it’s an existential question. Banks’ exposure to housing and local government debt declined to 20.7% in Q4 2024 from 22.2% a year earlier, but that still represents trillions in potentially troubled assets. Beijing’s response? Issuing 500 billion yuan in special treasury bonds in 2025 to support bank recapitalization.

Think about that for a moment. The government that owns these banks is now having to inject capital into them to cover losses from lending that the government itself encouraged. It’s a circular firing squad of state capitalism.

American Excellence: Smaller, Smarter, More Profitable

Cross the Pacific and the banking model looks radically different. JPMorgan Chase’s annualized return on equity for Q2 2025 was 16.93%, a performance Chinese banks can only dream of. With roughly $4 trillion in assets—a third of ICBC’s size—JPMorgan generated comparable or superior profits through better risk management, superior technology, and diversified revenue streams.

American banks aren’t perfect. They face their own challenges: rising commercial real estate defaults, regulatory uncertainty around the Basel III endgame rules, and fierce competition from fintech disruptors. Yet their fundamental business model—strict capital requirements, transparent accounting, and market discipline—creates resilience.

The regulatory framework matters enormously. Basel III requires banks to maintain a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 ratio at all times, plus a mandatory capital conservation buffer equivalent to at least 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. U.S. implementation has been stricter than in many jurisdictions, forcing American banks to hold more capital but also making them genuinely safer.

Compare this to China, where banks have remained cautious about new property exposure, transferring housing risks to non-bank financial institutions. That’s not risk management—that’s risk concealment. The leverage doesn’t disappear; it just moves to less regulated corners of the financial system.

The Digital Divide: Innovation as the New Moat

Size and capital strength matter, but in 2025, technological sophistication increasingly separates winners from also-rans. DBS Bank’s AI investments are projected to reach 750 million Singapore dollars (about $577 million) in 2024 and surpass SG$1 billion in 2025. The Singapore-based bank has deployed over 1,500 AI and machine learning models across 370 use cases, from corporate risk assessment to customer service.

JPMorgan and Bank of America aren’t far behind. BofA’s Erica virtual assistant has handled billions of customer interactions, while JPMorgan uses AI for everything from fraud detection to trading strategies. Only 8% of banks were developing generative AI systematically in 2024, with 78% taking a tactical approach, but that’s changing rapidly.

The Chinese banks? They’re investing heavily in digital infrastructure, to be sure. Yet their technology serves a fundamentally different purpose: facilitating state-directed lending, monitoring transactions for political purposes, and supporting Beijing’s social credit systems. Innovation, yes—but innovation in service of control rather than customer value.

European banks occupy an uncomfortable middle ground. BBVA’s expansion of its OpenAI collaboration will see ChatGPT Enterprise rolled out to all 120,000 global employees, signaling serious AI ambitions. Yet European banks collectively lag their American and Asian peers in both investment and implementation.

Basel III Endgame: The Regulatory Reckoning

Speaking of uncomfortable positions, let’s address the regulatory elephant: the Basel III endgame. Under the original proposal, large banks would begin transitioning to the new framework on July 1, 2025, with full compliance starting July 1, 2028. The proposal would have resulted in an aggregate 16% increase in common equity tier 1 capital requirements for affected bank holding companies.

But here’s the twist: US regulators recently proposed to reduce capital requirements on the largest banks, bowing to intense industry lobbying and political pressure. The revised proposal now calls for only a 9% increase for global systemically important banks—still significant, but less onerous than originally planned.

This compromise may prove disastrous. The average leverage ratio of US global systemically important banks declined from a 2016 peak of 9% to about 7% in 2023 and has remained there. Banks have been gaming the system, increasing risk exposure while maintaining superficially healthy risk-weighted capital ratios.

Meanwhile, the European Central Bank and Bank of England have delayed their Basel III implementation, citing US inaction. We’re witnessing a potential regulatory race to the bottom—exactly what the Basel framework was designed to prevent.

The Geopolitical Wildcard: Trade, Tariffs, and Banking Stress

Banking doesn’t happen in a vacuum. International trade disputes and changes in tariffs are expected to influence the performance of banks, impacting asset quality and growth potential. If U.S.-China trade tensions escalate further—a real possibility given recent political developments—Chinese banks will feel the pain first and hardest.

Reciprocal tariffs between the US and China are exerting pressure on Chinese banks, particularly due to declining demand from export-oriented manufacturers. When factories close or cut production, loan defaults follow. It’s Economics 101, but at a scale that could destabilize the entire Chinese banking system.

American banks have their own trade exposure, of course, but it’s more diversified and often hedged. JPMorgan operates in over 100 countries. Citi, despite its shrinking footprint, remains the most truly global bank. They have options. Chinese banks, despite their size, remain heavily dependent on the domestic economy.

What This Means for 2026 and Beyond

So where does this leave us? Here’s my take, informed by twenty years covering this beat:

First, asset size is an increasingly misleading metric. ICBC’s $6.6 trillion balance sheet looks impressive until you examine what’s actually on it. Quality trumps quantity, and American banks demonstrate this daily through superior profitability and resilience.

Second, the Chinese banking system faces a reckoning. It’s not a matter of if, but when and how severe. Chinese banks were sitting on 3.2 trillion yuan ($440 billion) worth of bad loans by the end of September—a 33% increase from pre-Covid times. These numbers, from the banks themselves, are almost certainly understated.

Third, technology is creating a two-tier banking world. Banks that aggressively adopt AI, blockchain, and advanced analytics will dominate. Those that don’t will become utilities—low-margin, heavily regulated, and perpetually vulnerable to disruption.

Fourth, regulatory arbitrage is back with a vengeance. The Basel III endgame was supposed to eliminate it. Instead, we’re seeing regulators water down requirements in response to bank lobbying. This should terrify anyone who remembers 2008.

Finally, geopolitics increasingly dictates banking success. In an era of great power competition, owning a bank in Shanghai or New York means different things. Chinese banks serve the state; American banks serve shareholders (at least theoretically). European banks are caught in between, trying to navigate relationships with both powers while maintaining independence.

The Billion-Dollar Question

Here’s what keeps me up at night: We’ve seen this movie before. Massive banks, seemingly too big to fail, carrying hidden risks that regulators either can’t see or choose to ignore. Policymakers convinced that “this time is different” because of better capital rules, smarter supervision, or more sophisticated risk management.

It never is.

The difference in 2025 is that the risks are concentrated in banks that operate under fundamentally different rules. When—not if—the Chinese property crisis forces Beijing to choose between bank bailouts and economic growth, the ripples will reach far beyond Asia.

The world’s largest 100 banks account for $95.5 trillion in assets, up 3% year over year. That’s growth, yes, but it’s also concentration. Too much power, in too few hands, making too many bets on too few assumptions.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, likes to say his bank could survive another 2008-style crisis. He’s probably right—JPMorgan is genuinely well-capitalized and well-managed. But could the global financial system survive a crisis originating in China’s $6 trillion banking sector?

That’s the question that should haunt every central banker and finance minister. Because in 2025, we’re not just worried about banks that are too big to fail. We’re worried about banks that are too big, too opaque, and too politically connected for anyone to fully understand the risks they carry.

The world’s top ten banks in 2025 aren’t just financial institutions. They’re nodes in a global system where everyone’s connected to everyone else through invisible chains of credit, derivatives, and counterparty risk. Pull one thread, and you might unravel the whole sweater.

Sleep tight.


The author is a Senior Opinion Columnist specializing in global finance and policy. Views expressed are personal.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Banks

Pakistan’s Most Reliable Export Is Its People: Remittances Hit $41.6 Billion, Overtaking Total Exports

Published

on

Introduction

For the first time in the country’s history, money sent home by Pakistan’s overseas workers has exceeded the value of everything Pakistan actually sells abroad. Remittances hit a record $41.6 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, according to State Bank of Pakistan data — surpassing total merchandise exports for the same period and cementing a structural shift that economists are increasingly uneasy about (VOI World/State Bank of Pakistan).

The Numbers Behind the Milestone

Remittance inflows rose 8.6% year-on-year in FY26, up from $38.3 billion in FY25 (VOI World). Some reporting puts the full 11-month figure even higher at $38 billion before the final month was tallied, with May 2026 alone contributing $4.25 billion — an amount roughly equal to what the entire country spends on imports in a single month (Express Tribune). A separate Express Tribune report puts the full FY26 total even higher, at $41.58 billion, an increase of nearly $3.29 billion over the prior year, delivered “without structured educational, training or welfare support” for the overseas workforce generating it (Express Tribune — Remittances Without Structured Support).

Saudi Arabia remained the single largest source of remittances in June 2026 at $829.6 million, followed by the UAE ($792.3 million), the United Kingdom ($514.9 million) and the United States ($296.8 million), with Italy and Oman each contributing more than $100 million (VOI World). That geographic concentration matters: a substantial share of Pakistan’s remittance base originates from the Gulf, leaving the country’s external account exposed to labor market reforms, economic cycles and geopolitical developments concentrated in a single, currently volatile region (Business Recorder Editorial).

Exports Have Been Stuck for Years

The remittance surge stands in sharp contrast to Pakistan’s export performance, which has shown little sustained dynamism despite years of concessional financing, preferential tariff regimes and subsidized energy for exporters (Business Recorder Editorial). The textile sector — long considered the backbone of Pakistan’s export economy — has been stuck in a $15–18 billion annual range for years, even as a handful of forward-thinking textile groups have managed to grow exports and diversify product lines under the exact same operating conditions others cite as prohibitive (Express Tribune). Separately reported nine-month data for the fiscal year showed exports contracting 5.8% to $23.3 billion even as imports rose nearly 8% to $46.8 billion, widening the trade gap further (Minute Mirror).

Over the three fiscal years from 2023 to 2025, Pakistan received $95.8 billion in remittances compared with $91 billion in merchandise exports — a gap that reflects, according to Business Recorder analysis, a deliberate policy orientation that has effectively institutionalized remittances as the default tool for stabilizing the current account rather than addressing the underlying export weakness (Business Recorder Opinion).

The Dutch Disease Warning

Independent economists have begun explicitly framing this pattern as a precursor to Dutch disease — the phenomenon where a large, easy source of foreign currency inflow reduces the pressure and incentive to build a competitive tradeable export sector (Business Recorder Opinion). The policy dimension is not incidental: under IMF program conditions, a long-standing subsidy that had encouraged banks to actively mobilize remittance transfers was withdrawn in the 2026 Budget, contributing to a temporary slowdown in inflows during the early months of the fiscal year before the government released Rs30 billion from its contingency fund to help revive momentum (Business Recorder Opinion).

A Business Recorder editorial published in July 2026 was blunt about the implication: Pakistan’s overseas workers have effectively become the country’s “most reliable export,” with its own people functioning as its largest export commodity — a framing the editorial explicitly calls an unsustainable foundation for long-term development strategy (Business Recorder Editorial).

The Silver Linings

The remittance boom has provided genuine macroeconomic stabilization. Total liquid foreign reserves crossed $23.98 billion as of early July 2026, including $18.47 billion held by the State Bank of Pakistan itself, with the rupee holding relatively steady around Rs278 per dollar in the interbank market (Express Tribune — Remittances Without Structured Support). Inflation has also been easing, and large-scale manufacturing showed signs of recovery with 5.9% growth in earlier-reported data, while agricultural lending rose 14.4% during July–February, extending credit access to farmers (Minute Mirror). Separately, Pakistan has reportedly repaid roughly Rs4,722 billion in debt ahead of schedule and posted a historic milestone in IT sector exports, suggesting pockets of genuine structural improvement exist alongside the broader export stagnation (Radio Pakistan).

Why This Matters Beyond Pakistan

Pakistan’s experience is a useful case study for other remittance-dependent emerging economies navigating IMF program conditions. The core tension — using a reliable, low-effort capital inflow to paper over a harder structural problem in the tradeable goods sector — is not unique to Pakistan, but few economies illustrate the scale of the imbalance as starkly as a country where remittances now formally exceed total exports.

Key Takeaways

  1. Pakistan’s FY26 remittances hit a record $41.6 billion, surpassing total merchandise exports for the first time in the country’s history.
  2. Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain the largest single sources, concentrating external account risk in the Gulf region.
  3. Textile exports have been stuck between $15–18 billion annually for years despite sustained government support.
  4. Economists are increasingly framing the remittance-export imbalance as a Dutch disease risk rather than a stabilization success story.
  5. Reserves have strengthened to nearly $24 billion and the rupee has stabilized, but the underlying export competitiveness problem remains unresolved.

Sources: VOI World, Express Tribune — Remittances Dwarf Exports, Express Tribune — Remittances Without Structured Support, Business Recorder Opinion, Business Recorder Editorial, Minute Mirror, Radio Pakistan


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Southeast Asia’s Two-Speed Economy: AI Chips Boom While a Quieter Halal Corridor Expands

Published

on

Singapore’s non-oil domestic exports rose 20.7% year-on-year in June 2026, driven by a 115.4% surge in integrated circuit shipments tied to AI demand, even as a separate and less-covered trade story unfolds next door: Malaysia-Indonesia bilateral trade is projected to grow 10% to US$29.3 billion in 2026, powered by expanding halal-sector cooperation.

The story most coverage is missing

Regional business press has extensively covered Singapore’s semiconductor export boom. What’s had far less coverage is the parallel, non-tech growth engine developing in the halal trade corridor between Malaysia and Indonesia — a structural, policy-driven trade relationship that is scaling steadily even as the AI trade headlines dominate attention.

Singapore: the AI supply chain’s export barometer

Singapore’s June non-oil domestic exports climbed 20.7% year-on-year, with integrated circuit exports jumping 115.4% and disk media products and personal computers rising 170.9% and 95.8% respectively — a direct read on how deeply the AI infrastructure buildout is flowing through the city-state’s electronics trade (VietnamPlus/VNA). Non-electronic exports told a different story, falling 2.9% in June after a 17.7% rise in May, mainly on weaker shipments of non-monetary gold, petrochemicals and food preparations — evidence the export strength is narrowly concentrated in the AI-linked segment rather than broad-based.

Singapore’s economic gravitational pull on its neighbours is intensifying too: a joint study by the Singapore Business Federation, Restaurant Association of Singapore and Singapore Retailers Association found Singaporean consumers are projected to spend an additional S$1.05 billion (roughly US$810 million) annually in Johor Bahru, just across the Malaysian border — a cross-border consumption pattern that is becoming a meaningful line item in regional retail planning (VietnamPlus/VNA).

The halal corridor: a steadier, policy-built growth story

While AI exports grab headlines, Malaysia’s bilateral trade with Indonesia is forecast to grow 10% to US$29.3 billion in 2026, according to Malaysia’s Chargé d’Affaires in Jakarta, Farzamie Sarkawi — up from US$26.61 billion in 2025, itself a 5.3% increase on the year before (BusinessToday Malaysia).

The driver is structural rather than cyclical: a halal Memorandum of Cooperation signed by the two countries in 2023 established mutual recognition of halal certification, easing product movement and market access across sectors. Sarkawi described the arrangement as delivering “positive progress” through knowledge exchange, training and improved market access for businesses in both countries (BusinessToday Malaysia). The ambition extends beyond the bilateral relationship: intra-D-8 trade — spanning the eight-nation Developing 8 bloc of Muslim-majority economies — currently runs between US$150 billion and US$160 billion annually, with a stated target of US$500 billion by 2030.

The macro backdrop: a region growing, unevenly

The Asian Development Bank’s July 2026 outlook shows Indonesia’s growth forecast holding steady at 5.2% for both 2026 and 2027, while Malaysia’s outlook is unchanged at 4.6% for 2026 and 4.5% for 2027 (ADB). Regional growth leadership, per McKinsey’s Q1 2026 review, sits with Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam, while the Philippines lagged as domestic challenges weighed on activity (McKinsey).

Indonesia’s investment story has particular momentum: foreign direct investment grew for a second consecutive quarter, rising 8.1% to 249.9 trillion rupiah (roughly US$14.5 billion) in the first quarter of 2026, with Singapore remaining Indonesia’s largest single foreign investor at US$4.6 billion, ahead of China, Japan, Hong Kong and the United States (McKinsey). Realised investment for full-year 2025 reached a record Rp1,931.2 trillion (about US$120.7 billion), exceeding the government’s own target, driven by downstream industrial projects outside Java (BERNAMA).

Indonesia’s central bank has flagged currency management as an active watch item, signalling readiness to step up both onshore and offshore FX intervention to curb rupiah weakness and keep inflation within its 2026-2027 target band (McKinsey). Foreign investment in Indonesian government bonds has nonetheless rebounded, with net inflows of 17.7 trillion rupiah following outflows in the first quarter, alongside cumulative foreign holdings of 174 trillion rupiah in Bank Indonesia Rupiah Securities (BERNAMA).

Institutional context: Singapore’s coming ASEAN chairmanship

Adding a governance dimension to the economic picture, Singapore is set to take over the ASEAN chairmanship from the Philippines in 2027, with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong pledging a smooth transition — a leadership handover that will shape how the bloc coordinates trade and investment policy, including the halal-corridor and semiconductor-trade dynamics described above, through the second half of the decade (BERNAMA).

The bottom line

Southeast Asia’s 2026 growth story is not a single narrative but two distinct, converging tracks: a high-velocity, AI-linked export boom concentrated in Singapore’s electronics trade, and a steadier, policy-engineered halal-sector trade corridor between Malaysia and Indonesia that is quietly scaling toward a $500 billion bloc-wide target by 2030. Investors and policymakers tracking only the semiconductor headlines risk missing the second, structurally more durable growth engine sitting right alongside it.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Why Fed Independence Is Hanging by a Thread

Published

on

The Federal Reserve’s independence faces its most serious test in decades: a Justice Department investigation into Chair Jerome Powell over building-renovation costs, a Supreme Court case over Trump’s attempt to fire Governor Lisa Cook, and an incoming chair nomination openly tied to Trump’s demand for rates cut “by a lot” — all unfolding as the Fed tries to keep monetary policy decisions separate from the White House.

An institutional crisis hiding inside a rate-cut story

Most financial coverage this year has framed the Federal Reserve story as a simple tug-of-war over interest rates. That framing understates what is actually happening: a structural challenge to the 111-year-old convention that US monetary policy sits outside presidential control — a convention every advanced economy has treated as a prerequisite for market credibility.

The three fronts of the fight

1. The Powell investigation. In January, federal prosecutors served grand jury subpoenas tied to Powell’s congressional testimony about roughly $2.5 billion in cost overruns on the Fed’s headquarters renovation. Powell called the inquiry a “pretext” for punishing the central bank for not cutting rates as quickly as the administration wants, and warned it should be viewed “in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure” on the institution (CNBC). Every living former Fed chair signed a joint statement calling the probe an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial pressure to undermine central bank independence (NBC News).

2. The Lisa Cook case. The Supreme Court has separately taken up whether Trump can remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage-fraud allegations she denies — a case with direct bearing on whether a president can reshape the Fed’s voting board outside the normal confirmation process (Euronews).

3. The succession fight. Trump has said publicly that Powell’s replacement — due when his term as chair ends in 2026 — should be someone who “believes in lower interest rates, by a lot” (Bloomberg). Analysts note this is a break from decades of precedent in which presidents, whatever their private preferences, avoided direct pressure on the Fed’s leadership pipeline.

Why markets are watching the mechanics, not just the rhetoric

It’s worth noting a structural check that has received less attention than it deserves: the Fed chair casts only one of twelve votes on the Federal Open Market Committee. Appointing a more compliant chair does not, by itself, guarantee the rate cuts Trump wants — any change still requires majority support across the full committee (CBS/AOL).

That has not stopped the market repricing. Following Powell’s Jackson Hole remarks suggesting the Fed could act if the labour market kept weakening, traders moved to price an 85% probability of a September rate cut, sending the S&P 500, Nasdaq and Dow higher while the dollar index and Treasury yields fell — a reaction some economists read as evidence that political pressure is already bleeding into policy expectations, independent of the FOMC’s actual vote (Barchart).

At the same time, inflation data complicates the picture for anyone expecting an easy capitulation. The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the PCE price index, sat at 2.8% year-over-year as of November — still above the Fed’s 2% target — while the FOMC’s December dot plot showed a more cautious rate path than markets had previously expected, with the median policymaker view placing the federal funds rate in the low-to-mid 3% range by the end of 2026 (CNBC).

Why it matters beyond the US

Central bank independence is not a purely domestic US concern. The dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency, and Treasury yields’ function as the global risk-free benchmark, mean that any erosion in perceived Fed independence has second-order effects on borrowing costs from London to Karachi. Emerging-market central banks — including the State Bank of Pakistan and Bank Indonesia — routinely calibrate their own policy against expected Fed moves; a Fed seen as politically compromised makes that calibration harder and potentially more volatile for every economy that prices debt off US Treasuries.

RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas has predicted Powell will use his public platform to mount “an erudite but accessible defense of central bank independence” at upcoming FOMC press conferences — a sign that Fed leadership itself views the institutional question, not just the rate decision, as the story that matters (AOL/CBS).

What to watch next

  • Whether the DOJ investigation into Powell produces formal charges or fizzles amid criticism of its timing
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Cook removal case, which could set precedent for presidential authority over independent agency officials generally
  • Trump’s formal nomination for the next Fed chair, and how openly that nominee campaigns on a specific rate target
  • Whether the FOMC’s committee-based voting structure continues to act as a moderating check regardless of who chairs the meetings

The rate-cut headlines will keep coming. The more consequential story is whether the institutional guardrails around the Fed — designed explicitly to keep monetary policy insulated from electoral cycles — hold through 2026.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Analysis13 minutes ago

Pakistan’s 2026 Monsoon Floods Threaten Fragile Economic Recovery as Inflation Nears 9%

Analysis24 hours ago

Pakistan Gulf Investment Outflows 2026: Peace Deal Stakes Explained

Analysis1 day ago

Canada Trade Diversification 2026: China, Indonesia, UAE Deals Explained

Labour1 day ago

US Forced-Labour Tariffs on 60 Countries: The Hidden Trade Shock of 2026

Analysis2 days ago

Global Central Banks 2026: Fed, BoE and BoJ Decisions Could Reshape Markets

Analysis1 week ago

Gulf Capital Retreat From Pakistan 2026: UAE Loan Freeze & What It Means

Banks1 week ago

Pakistan’s Most Reliable Export Is Its People: Remittances Hit $41.6 Billion, Overtaking Total Exports

Markets & Finance1 week ago

Indonesia’s Confidence Problem: Record Investment, a Sinking Rupiah, and a Widening Credibility Gap

Asia1 week ago

Down But Not Out: Inside the Slow Sinking of Russia’s War Economy

China Economy1 week ago

China’s Growth Slips to a Four-Year Low: Why Beijing Still Won’t Pull the Stimulus Trigger

Economic Corridors1 week ago

The Johor-Singapore Corridor: How Malaysia Became Southeast Asia’s AI Infrastructure Powerhouse

International Trade1 week ago

Canada’s Economy ‘On Pause’: Inside the CUSMA Deadline That Passed Without a Deal

Analysis1 week ago

Dubai’s Millionaire Magnet: How the UAE Turned Middle East Turmoil Into a Capital Safe-Haven Boom

Analysis1 week ago

Britain’s Sixth Prime Minister in a Decade: What Starmer’s Exit Means for Gilts, Sterling and Your Portfolio

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