Connect with us

Analysis

Trump Signs Executive Order Enabling Secondary Tariffs on Iran’s Trade Partners as Nuclear Talks Resume

Published

on

The framework for sweeping trade penalties arrives amid diplomatic overtures in Oman, raising questions about whether economic coercion can succeed where military pressure has failed

On February 6, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that could fundamentally reshape global trade architecture around Iran, establishing a legal framework to impose additional tariffs on any nation conducting commerce with the Islamic Republic. The order, which took effect February 7, represents the administration’s most ambitious attempt yet to weaponize America’s economic leverage against Tehran—while simultaneously opening a potential Pandora’s box of diplomatic and commercial complications for US allies and adversaries alike.

The timing is striking: Trump announced the measure even as American and Iranian officials engaged in indirect negotiations in Muscat, Oman—the first substantive dialogue since US involvement in coordinated strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Mar-a-Lago, the president characterized the Oman talks as “very good” and indicated further sessions would occur “early next week,” suggesting the tariff framework may serve as both stick and carrot in a renewed campaign of maximum economic pressure.

Yet unlike Trump’s first-term sanctions regime, which primarily targeted Iran directly, this executive order casts a far wider net—one that could ensnare some of America’s most important economic and security partners.

The Mechanics of Secondary Economic Coercion

The executive order does not immediately impose tariffs. Instead, it reaffirms the national emergency declaration concerning Iran and establishes a bureaucratic process through which the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Treasury can identify countries or entities “directly or indirectly” purchasing, importing, or acquiring goods and services from Iran. Once identified, those nations could face additional import duties—with Trump’s mid-January Truth Social post suggesting a 25% rate as the benchmark.

This framework represents secondary sanctions on steroids, extending beyond traditional financial restrictions to encompass broad trade penalties. The mechanism’s flexibility is both its power and its peril: administration officials retain discretionary authority over implementation, creating significant policy uncertainty for global businesses and governments alike.

The legal architecture builds on emergency powers Congress has granted presidents since the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, though legal scholars have increasingly questioned the constitutional boundaries of such delegated authority. Still, the Supreme Court has historically deferred to executive discretion in foreign commerce matters, particularly those framed as national security imperatives.

Who Stands in the Crosshairs?

The list of potential targets reads like a roster of the world’s largest economies and most strategically significant nations. China tops the list as Iran’s primary trading partner, with bilateral commerce reaching approximately $32.5 billion in 2024 according to World Trade Organization data—driven predominantly by Chinese oil imports that have sustained Iran’s economy despite Western sanctions.

Beijing’s response will prove critical. Chinese officials have consistently maintained that their economic relationship with Iran complies with international law, and Foreign Ministry spokesperson statements have repeatedly asserted China’s right to conduct “normal trade and economic cooperation.” A 25% tariff on Chinese goods entering the United States—even if selectively applied—would represent a dramatic escalation beyond the Trump administration’s existing tariff regime, potentially triggering retaliatory measures that could spiral into a broader economic confrontation.

The European Union faces its own dilemma. Germany, despite scaling back relations with Tehran, maintains residual trade ties, while several member states have worked to preserve economic channels even under US sanctions pressure. Brussels has historically resisted American extraterritorial sanctions applications, viewing them as violations of international law and European sovereignty. The Trump administration’s approach threatens to force a choice between transatlantic alliance cohesion and principles of trade autonomy.

Turkey presents perhaps the most acute diplomatic complication. As a NATO ally hosting crucial American military installations, Ankara has nevertheless maintained pragmatic economic relations with Iran, driven by geography, energy needs, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s regional ambitions. Penalizing Turkish trade could undermine alliance cooperation at a moment when NATO faces multiple security challenges from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The United Arab Emirates occupies equally complex terrain. Despite Abraham Accords normalization with Israel and close security cooperation with Washington, Dubai’s business community has long served as a critical commercial hub for Iranian entities seeking to circumvent sanctions. Abu Dhabi has walked a careful line between American security partnership and regional economic pragmatism—a balancing act this executive order could render untenable.

India, the world’s fastest-growing major economy and an increasingly important US strategic partner in Indo-Pacific competition with China, imports significant Iranian oil when sanctions waivers permit. New Delhi has historically resisted choosing between Washington and Tehran, instead pursuing its national interests through strategic autonomy. Secondary tariffs could test that doctrine’s limits.

Even Russia, already heavily sanctioned over Ukraine, conducts substantial commerce with Iran, including reported arms transfers and energy cooperation. While Moscow has limited vulnerability to additional US trade penalties given existing restrictions, the executive order signals Washington’s willingness to treat the Russia-Iran partnership as an integrated strategic threat.

Economic Ripple Effects and Market Uncertainties

The global economic implications extend well beyond bilateral trade balances. Iran remains a significant oil producer despite sanctions, with exports estimated between 1.5 and 2 million barrels daily—much of it flowing to China through opaque channels. Any disruption to these flows, whether through enhanced enforcement or preemptive cutbacks by nervous buyers, could tighten global energy markets already navigating geopolitical volatility from Ukraine to the South China Sea.

Energy analysts at several investment banks have noted that Brent crude futures showed modest upticks following the executive order’s announcement, reflecting trader concerns about supply disruption risks. While global oil markets currently show adequate spare capacity, the psychological impact of threatening major importers like China could introduce new price volatility, particularly if Beijing responds by accelerating strategic petroleum reserve accumulation or seeking alternative suppliers at premium prices.

Supply chain vulnerabilities present another concern. Many products imported to the United States contain components manufactured in countries that trade with Iran, even if final assembly occurs elsewhere. The “directly or indirectly” language in the executive order creates ambiguity: Would a German automotive manufacturer sourcing steel from a company that also sells to Iranian clients face penalties? The lack of clarity generates compliance nightmares for multinational corporations and could trigger preemptive supply chain reorganizations with associated costs and inefficiencies.

For American consumers, secondary tariffs risk compounding inflation pressures. The US imports substantial volumes from China, the EU, Turkey, and other potential targets. Even selectively applied 25% duties would likely translate to higher retail prices for electronics, automobiles, textiles, and other goods—an awkward political reality for an administration that has emphasized economic strength as a signature achievement.

Diplomatic Calculations and the Oman Talks

The executive order’s announcement concurrent with renewed nuclear negotiations raises fundamental questions about the administration’s strategic theory. Is economic coercion meant to pressure Tehran toward concessions at the negotiating table? Or does it reflect skepticism about diplomacy’s prospects, with commercial warfare pursued as a parallel track?

Historical precedent offers mixed lessons. Trump’s first-term “maximum pressure” campaign succeeded in devastating Iran’s economy—GDP contracted roughly 13% between 2017 and 2020—but failed to produce the comprehensive nuclear agreement the administration sought. Instead, Tehran responded by expanding its nuclear program beyond Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) limits, enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels and accumulating substantial stockpiles.

The June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, in which the United States reportedly provided intelligence and logistical support to regional partners, marked a dramatic escalation beyond economic pressure. Yet six months later, with Iran’s program damaged but not eliminated and regional tensions simmering, both sides appear willing to explore diplomatic off-ramps.

The Muscat talks—hosted by Oman, which has long served as a discreet intermediary between Washington and Tehran—represent the most serious engagement since the strike operations. While details remain closely held, informed observers suggest discussions focus on verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and security assurances.

Into this delicate diplomatic dance, the tariff executive order injects significant complexity. Iranian officials have historically viewed economic pressure as evidence of American bad faith, arguing that Washington uses sanctions to pursue regime change rather than genuine policy modification. The timing could reinforce hardline narratives within Tehran’s political establishment, potentially strengthening voices skeptical of negotiation.

Conversely, the administration likely calculates that threatening third-party trade partners demonstrates resolve and raises the costs of Iranian intransigence, potentially accelerating Tehran’s timeline for concessions. The theory holds that fear of economic isolation—not just for Iran but for its vital commercial partners—creates additional pressure channels unavailable through direct bilateral sanctions alone.

Whether this strategy succeeds depends substantially on execution. Measured application targeting specific sectors or entities might preserve diplomatic space while signaling seriousness. Sweeping implementation against major economies would likely trigger defensive responses that harden positions rather than facilitate compromise.

Alliance Strains and the Broader Strategic Context

Beyond immediate Iran policy, the executive order raises fundamental questions about American alliance management and the sustainability of unilateral economic statecraft. European officials have long complained that US extraterritorial sanctions force compliance with American foreign policy preferences or exclusion from dollar-denominated finance and US markets—a choice they view as coercive and corrosive to transatlantic partnership.

The executive order arrives amid broader tensions over trade policy. Trump has threatened or imposed tariffs on numerous partners over issues ranging from steel production to digital services taxes, treating commerce as a primary tool of geopolitical influence. While this approach enjoys domestic political support, it risks accelerating efforts by allies and competitors alike to reduce dependence on US-dominated financial and commercial systems.

China has invested heavily in payment systems alternatives to SWIFT, Yuan-denominated oil contracts, and bilateral trade arrangements that bypass dollar settlement. Russia has pursued similar de-dollarization strategies. The threat of tariffs on Iran trade could provide additional impetus for developing economies to participate in these alternative frameworks, potentially eroding American economic leverage over the long term.

For regional Middle Eastern partners, the executive order creates difficult choices. The UAE and Saudi Arabia have sought to position themselves as indispensable US security partners while maintaining economic flexibility to pursue national interests, including periodic accommodation with Iran. Forcing stark binary choices risks either alienating partners who resist or creating dependencies that reduce their regional influence.

What Happens Next: The Week Ahead and Beyond

President Trump’s indication that further talks would occur “early next week” suggests the diplomatic track remains active despite economic saber-rattling. The proximity of these events—executive order signing and continued negotiations—may be deliberate sequencing: establish the framework for enhanced pressure while leaving actual implementation as a negotiating variable.

Several scenarios merit consideration. First, negotiations could produce preliminary agreements on nuclear monitoring or enrichment caps, with the United States agreeing to delay or limit tariff implementation as a reciprocal confidence-building measure. This would represent classic coercive diplomacy—threatening pain to secure concessions, then withholding implementation as reward for cooperation.

Second, talks could stall over verification mechanisms or sanctions relief sequencing, leading the administration to begin designating countries for tariffs—likely starting with smaller players rather than China or major European economies, testing international reaction before escalating further.

Third, external events could overtake both negotiation and tariff tracks. Iran’s domestic political calendar, potential Israeli actions, or regional proxy conflicts could shift calculations rapidly, either accelerating diplomatic urgency or rendering negotiations moot.

For global markets and policymakers, the executive order injects substantial uncertainty into an already complex geopolitical environment. Businesses engaged in Iran trade face pressure to demonstrate compliance or risk US market access. Governments must calibrate responses that balance sovereignty principles against economic interests. And all parties must navigate an administration that has demonstrated willingness to rapidly shift tactical approaches while pursuing strategic objectives.

The ultimate question remains whether economic coercion of this scale and scope can achieve outcomes that previous approaches—direct sanctions, military pressure, and diplomatic isolation—have not. History suggests that while economic pressure can inflict costs, translating those costs into desired policy changes requires adversaries to perceive acceptable off-ramps and negotiating partners to maintain credibility through consistent implementation.

As talks resume in Oman this week, the world will watch not only what occurs in closed-door negotiating sessions but also how the Trump administration wields—or restrains—the expansive economic weapon it has just forged. The answer will shape not only the Iranian nuclear issue but the broader international order’s trajectory in an age of renewed great power competition and economic nationalism.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Analysis

7 Ways Tech Startups Are Revolutionizing Pakistan’s Financial Ecosystem in 2026

Published

on

Let’s Explore how Pakistan’s fintech startups are transforming financial inclusion, payments, SME lending, and digital banking in 2026—with real data, key players, and policy insights driving the country’s $4B startup ecosystem.

Picture Amna, a small-scale textile vendor in Faisalabad’s crowded bazaar. Three years ago, she kept her earnings in a tin box under the shop counter—unbanked, invisible to the formal economy, and locked out of credit. Today, she processes supplier invoices digitally, accesses working capital within 24 hours, and tracks her cash flow on a smartphone app. Amna didn’t walk into a bank branch. A startup came to her.

This is the quiet revolution reshaping Pakistan’s financial landscape. With VC-backed startups now collectively valued at around $4 billion—up 3.6 times since 2020—Pakistan’s growth rate outpaces larger ecosystems including India, New York, and Dubai, positioning it among emerging “New Frontier” tech markets Profit by Pakistan Today. Yet for all the momentum, no unicorn has emerged yet, the funding gap at growth stages remains acute, and roughly 85% of transactions still move in cash. The gap between potential and reality is precisely where startups are doing their most consequential work.

Here are seven ways Pakistan’s tech startups are rewriting the rules of finance in 2026—and why global investors and policymakers should be paying close attention.

1. Expanding Financial Inclusion Beyond Urban Walls

Pakistan’s financial exclusion problem is, at its core, a distribution problem. Traditional banks have concentrated their branch networks in major cities, leaving vast swathes of rural Punjab, interior Sindh, and Balochistan underserved. Pakistan aims to increase adult financial inclusion to 75% by 2028, up from 64% currently, with 143 million broadband and 193 million cellular subscribers forming the digital infrastructure to get there. Invest2Innovate

Startups are filling this gap with mobile-first models that don’t require a bank branch, a credit history, or even a formal ID in some pilots. Easypaisa—Pakistan’s largest mobile wallet—has evolved from simple bill payments into a comprehensive financial super-app covering government disbursements, QR payments, and international remittances. JazzCash serves tens of millions of users across peri-urban and rural markets. Meanwhile, newer entrants like Paymo are targeting digital-native youth with social banking features designed for Gen Z’s financial behaviours.

The economics here are compelling on a global scale. Bangladesh’s bKash built a $2 billion enterprise on mobile financial services for an underserved population—a playbook Pakistan’s ecosystem is now iterating and improving upon. The difference is that Pakistan’s startups are layering artificial intelligence and embedded finance on top of basic wallet infrastructure, building toward something more sophisticated than simple cash transfers.

2. Reinventing B2B Payments and Supply Chain Finance

If consumer fintech is the visible face of Pakistan’s digital finance revolution, B2B infrastructure is its beating engine. Haball is perhaps the most striking example. The Karachi-based fintech has raised a $52 million Pre-Series A round led by Zayn VC and backed by Meezan Bank, scaled its platform to handle over $3 billion in payments, and disbursed more than $110 million in financing to thousands of SMEs and multinational clients. Daftarkhwan

What Haball is doing—digitizing the order-to-cash cycle across Pakistan’s vast informal supply chains—addresses a structural inefficiency that has cost the economy billions in idle working capital and reconciliation errors. By automating invoicing, digitizing trade flows, and embedding Shariah-compliant financing into the transaction itself, Haball turns every payment into a data point for underwriting the next loan.

The implications extend well beyond individual deals. Pakistan’s informal sector accounts for over 40% of GDP, and much of that informality is driven by opaque supply chains and the friction of cash. When startups digitize these flows, they don’t just solve a payments problem—they bring entire economic layers into visibility, taxation, and formal credit assessment for the first time.

3. Accelerating Digital Remittances and Cross-Border Finance

Remittances are Pakistan’s economic lifeline. At roughly $30 billion annually, they outpace foreign direct investment and are equivalent to nearly 8% of GDP. Yet the infrastructure carrying this money has historically been dominated by expensive incumbents—hawala networks and legacy wire services that extract 5–7% in transfer fees from workers sending money home from the Gulf, UK, and North America.

Startups are beginning to disrupt this. Platforms like SadaPay are digitizing international remittances, reducing friction and cost for Pakistani diaspora communities. Invest2Innovate The company’s trajectory also illustrates the ecosystem’s volatility—SadaPay faced staff reductions following its acquisition by Turkish fintech Papara, underscoring how consolidation is beginning to reshape the competitive landscape even in early-stage markets.

Pakistan’s Raast instant payment system, launched by the State Bank of Pakistan and inspired by India’s Unified Payments Interface, is now the backbone connecting digital remittance platforms to beneficiary accounts in real time. The combination of a robust central rails infrastructure and agile startup players building on top of it creates the conditions for the kind of remittance cost compression India achieved within five years of launching UPI—a development that could redirect hundreds of millions of dollars in annual transfer fees back into Pakistani household budgets.

4. Unlocking Capital for Small and Medium Enterprises

SMEs account for roughly 90% of businesses in Pakistan and contribute around 40% of GDP, yet they receive less than 10% of total bank credit. The reasons are well-documented: lack of collateral, informal accounting, no credit history, and risk-averse bank lending desks that simply aren’t calibrated for small-ticket loans. This is where Pakistan’s credit-tech and embedded finance startups are making their most economically significant interventions.

Startups like CreditBook provide micro-loans to SMEs and individuals excluded from traditional banking, while Abhi innovates payroll financing, NayaPay supports SME financial management, and Mahana Wealth promotes saving among the underserved. Invest2Innovate Abhi, founded in 2021, has now raised $57.8 million for its financial wellness platform—making it one of the best-capitalised fintech startups in the country.

The pivot toward hybrid financing models is itself a structural innovation. Pakistan’s startups raised approximately $74.2 million in reported funding in 2025, almost double the funds mobilised in 2024, with the increase driven by hybrid financing—combinations of equity and debt—replacing the previous equity-only funding approach. Business Recorder This mirrors what development finance institutions have long advocated: blended finance structures that reduce first-loss risk and unlock private capital at scale. When applied at the SME lending level, the same logic holds.

5. Building Regulatory Infrastructure That Enables—Not Just Constrains—Innovation

A startup ecosystem is only as strong as the regulatory framework it operates within. Pakistan has not always been known for nimble financial regulation, but the State Bank of Pakistan has been quietly constructing an architecture that is beginning to attract serious attention.

The SBP’s regulatory sandbox, launched to allow fintechs to test innovations under controlled conditions without full licensing requirements, has been central to this shift. SBP’s frameworks have created a supportive environment, positioning Pakistan as a promising fintech market. Invest2Innovate The central bank’s digital banking licensing framework, which has drawn applications from a growing cohort of neobank candidates, represents a further commitment to structured innovation rather than arbitrary prohibition.

Globally, the contrast with peer markets is instructive. Bangladesh’s fintech growth was turbocharged by its own regulatory openness to mobile financial services—a decade ago, a decision considered brave at the time. Nigeria’s central bank took a more restrictive path and watched significant fintech capital flow to Ghana and Kenya instead. Pakistan’s regulators appear to have absorbed these lessons, even if implementation speed remains a work in progress. One of the most notable structural shifts in 2026 is the rise of hybrid financing models and growing interest from bilateral and multilateral development finance institutions in supporting Pakistan’s startup ecosystem. Startup

6. Driving Islamic Fintech as a Global Differentiator

Pakistan is home to 230+ million Muslims, and its financial system has a constitutional obligation to move toward interest-free models. This is not merely a regulatory constraint—it is a market opportunity of extraordinary scale that global Islamic finance players have barely begun to exploit at the retail level.

Haball’s Shariah-compliant supply chain financing is one marker of this trend. But the opportunity extends much further: Murabaha-structured digital lending, Musharaka-based equity crowdfunding, and Sukuk tokenization on blockchain rails are all adjacent spaces where Pakistani startups have structural advantages that competitors in secular financial systems simply don’t possess.

Islamic fintech, AI-driven credit systems, open banking, and cross-border payments are identified as the four major growth frontiers for Pakistan’s fintech ecosystem. Startup With the global Islamic finance industry valued at over $3 trillion and growing at 10–12% annually, Pakistani startups that develop credible, scalable models in this space are building for an export market as much as a domestic one—positioning Pakistan as a potential hub for Islamic fintech products serving markets from Indonesia to Morocco.

7. Creating Jobs, Skills, and a Self-Sustaining Innovation Flywheel

Economic ecosystems don’t grow linearly—they compound. The most durable contribution Pakistan’s tech startup sector is making to its financial ecosystem isn’t any single product or funding round. It is the accumulation of human capital: engineers, product managers, compliance specialists, data scientists, and founders gaining experience that will seed the next generation of ventures.

There are now 170+ VC-backed startups across Pakistan, with 13 “Colts” generating $25–100 million in annual revenue and 17 breakouts having raised between $15 million and $100 million. Startup Each of these companies is a training ground. When engineers leave Haball or NayaPay to start their own ventures, they carry institutional knowledge—of regulatory navigation, of underwriting logic, of enterprise sales in a cash-heavy economy—that accelerates their next company’s time to product-market fit.

Funding to female-founded or co-founded startups nearly doubled, rising from $5.5 million in 2024 to $10.1 million in 2025 Business Recorder, though the average deal size for women-led ventures remains smaller, signalling that inclusion in the ecosystem is widening even as capital parity remains elusive. This trajectory matters: research from McKinsey and the IFC consistently shows that more diverse founding teams produce more resilient companies and broader economic multipliers.

The Road Ahead: From Momentum to Transformation

Pakistan’s fintech story in 2026 is one of real but fragile progress. The country’s $4 billion ecosystem could scale rapidly over the next five to seven years with deeper growth capital and large exits—but the funding gap at later stages remains the primary bottleneck, with no company yet earning more than $100 million in annual revenue or reaching unicorn status. Profit by Pakistan Today

The comparison with India is both inspiring and sobering. India’s fintech ecosystem generated over $9 billion in venture funding in 2021 alone, supported by a government that treated UPI as strategic infrastructure and built policy frameworks that pulled private capital in behind. Pakistan’s policymakers have the blueprint. What they lack is the same scale of conviction in execution.

For international investors—particularly development finance institutions, Gulf sovereign wealth funds, and impact-oriented funds looking at frontier markets—Pakistan represents a rare combination: a massive underserved population, a young and mobile-connected demographic pyramid, a regulatory environment trending toward openness, and startup teams with demonstrably world-class technical ambition. The risk is real. So is the asymmetry.

A Call to Action

For policymakers: Accelerate the implementation of open banking frameworks and extend the SBP’s digital banking licensing to include regionally focused neobanks targeting rural communities. Treat financial infrastructure—Raast, digital identity, data-sharing rails—as public goods requiring sustained government investment, not one-time pilot programmes.

For investors: The window for early growth-stage capital in Pakistan’s fintech sector is open and underappreciated. The startups that survive the current funding gap will emerge stronger, leaner, and with defensible market positions. Patient capital with local ecosystem partnerships is the model that will generate both returns and development impact.

For entrepreneurs: The infrastructure is improving. The regulatory environment is becoming more navigable. The market is enormous, largely untapped, and increasingly digital. Pakistan’s first fintech unicorn is not a question of whether—it is a question of when, and who.

Amna in Faisalabad is already there. The rest of Pakistan’s financial system is catching up to her.


Sources and data cited from: Pakistan Tech Report, Dealroom.co & inDrive, January 2026; invest2innovate (i2i) 2025 Ecosystem Report; i2i Fintech Landscape Report; Tracxn Pakistan FinTech Data, January 2026; Daftarkhwan: Top Pakistani Startups 2026; Startup.pk VC Ecosystem Report; World Bank Financial Inclusion Data.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

From Personal Crisis to $1.7 Billion: How This CEO Built a Virtual Women’s Health Platform That’s Redefining Maternal Care

Published

on

Former Flatiron Health executive Marta Bralic Kerns turned her own pregnancy complications into a data-driven solution serving 7% of U.S. births—and she’s just getting started.

When Marta Bralic Kerns experienced serious complications during her first pregnancy, she confronted a reality familiar to millions of American women: a fragmented healthcare system ill-equipped to provide consistent, personalized support during one of life’s most vulnerable periods. Rather than accept this as inevitable, the former Flatiron Health executive channeled her frustration into building something transformative.

Five years later, her answer—Pomelo Care—has reached a $1.7 billion valuation following a $92 million Series C funding round in January 2026. The virtual women’s health platform now covers nearly 7% of all U.S. births and is expanding far beyond maternity care to address hormonal health, perimenopause, menopause, and pediatrics. In recognition of her achievement, Kerns was named EY Entrepreneur of the Year 2025, cementing her position as one of healthcare’s most influential innovators.

The Genesis: When Data Meets Motherhood

Kerns’ journey from technology executive to healthcare entrepreneur began with a simple question: Why couldn’t pregnancy care be proactive rather than reactive? Her experience at Flatiron Health—the oncology data company acquired by Roche for $1.9 billion—had taught her the power of using real-time data to improve clinical outcomes. She recognized that the same principles could revolutionize maternal care.

The statistics she uncovered were sobering. One in ten babies in the United States requires NICU admission. Preterm birth rates remain stubbornly high. Yet many complications, including preeclampsia—a leading cause of maternal mortality—can be prevented with simple, evidence-based interventions like low-dose aspirin, which reduces risk by approximately 25%.

“What struck me was the gap between what we knew from research and what actually happened in practice,” Kerns observed in recent interviews. “Women were falling through the cracks not because providers didn’t care, but because the system wasn’t designed to catch them.”

Building the Affordable Maternal Telehealth Model

Launched in 2021, Pomelo Care developed a virtual care platform that provides 24/7 access to multidisciplinary care teams including obstetricians, midwives, nurses, doulas, lactation consultants, and mental health specialists. The platform’s differentiator lies in its sophisticated use of data analytics to identify risk factors early and trigger timely interventions.

The model addresses critical pain points in traditional prenatal care:

Key Features:

  • Continuous monitoring: Algorithm-driven risk assessment flags conditions like gestational diabetes and preeclampsia before they escalate
  • Accessible support: Round-the-clock virtual consultations eliminate barriers related to transportation, work schedules, and geographic isolation
  • Care coordination: Integrated teams ensure seamless transitions between prenatal, postpartum, and pediatric care
  • Evidence-based protocols: Standardized interventions proven to reduce adverse outcomes

This approach has resonated with both insurers and employers seeking to contain costs while improving health outcomes. Pomelo now partners with major insurers including UnitedHealthcare and Elevance, as well as large employers like Koch Industries, serving both Medicaid and commercial populations.

The economic case is compelling. Early detection and prevention of pregnancy complications not only saves lives but also significantly reduces healthcare expenditures associated with NICU stays, emergency interventions, and long-term maternal health issues.

Expanding the Vision: Beyond Pregnancy to Lifelong Women’s Health

The January 2026 funding round signals Pomelo’s ambitious expansion beyond its maternity care roots. Kerns envisions a comprehensive virtual women’s health platform supporting women at every life stage—a strategic pivot that addresses a glaring market inefficiency.

“Maternity care was our entry point because the need was so acute,” Kerns explained to Axios. “But women’s health challenges don’t begin at conception or end at delivery. We’re building infrastructure for lifelong care.”

The expansion encompasses several verticals:

New Service Lines:

  • Hormonal health: Managing conditions like PCOS and endometriosis through specialized virtual consultations
  • Perimenopause and menopause management: Addressing the estimated 1.3 million American women who enter menopause annually, many without adequate medical support
  • Evidence-based pediatric virtual care: Extending support to postpartum care for working moms navigating infant health concerns
  • Preventive care: Leveraging data to identify and mitigate long-term health risks

This broader strategy positions Pomelo to compete in the rapidly growing women’s health technology sector, valued at over $50 billion and projected to expand significantly as venture capital increasingly flows toward femtech solutions.

The Competitive Landscape: Navigating a Crowded Market

Pomelo’s expansion brings it into more direct competition with established players in the virtual women’s health space, each carving out distinct niches:

Maven Clinic, which raised $125 million in 2024, has built a comprehensive family health platform encompassing fertility, pregnancy, parenting, and pediatrics. Its focus on employer-sponsored benefits has made it a favorite among Fortune 500 companies.

Oula differentiates itself through a hybrid maternal care model, partnering with hospitals to blend virtual and in-person services, appealing to women who prefer traditional birth settings with enhanced digital support.

Kindbody has concentrated on fertility services, operating physical clinics alongside virtual consultations—a capital-intensive model targeting affluent urban markets.

Bloomlife and Marani Health represent the wearables and AI monitoring segment, using prenatal wearables and AI prenatal monitoring to track fetal health and maternal vital signs.

Pomelo’s competitive advantage lies in its dual focus: deep data integration across the care continuum and its commitment to serving both Medicaid and commercial populations. While competitors often target higher-income demographics, Pomelo’s model addresses health equity by making high-quality care accessible regardless of socioeconomic status.

Preeclampsia Prevention Tips and the Power of Simple Interventions

One of Pomelo’s most impactful contributions has been systematizing the delivery of simple, evidence-based interventions that dramatically improve outcomes. The platform’s approach to preeclampsia prevention exemplifies this philosophy.

By analyzing patient data—including blood pressure trends, lab results, and risk factors like first pregnancy, advanced maternal age, or pre-existing conditions—Pomelo’s algorithms identify women who would benefit from low-dose aspirin therapy, typically initiated before 12 weeks of pregnancy. This straightforward intervention, costing mere pennies per day, can reduce preeclampsia risk by up to 25%.

Yet studies suggest fewer than 30% of eligible pregnant women receive this recommendation in traditional care settings. The gap represents not a knowledge deficit but a systems failure—precisely the problem Pomelo was designed to solve.

The company’s recent funding will accelerate the deployment of similar data-driven protocols across its expanding service lines, from optimizing hormone therapy dosing to identifying early signs of postpartum depression.

The Economic and Social Imperative

Pomelo’s growth trajectory occurs against the backdrop of America’s maternal health crisis. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, with significant racial disparities. Black women face pregnancy-related death rates nearly three times higher than white women.

These aren’t just health statistics—they represent economic losses from decreased workforce participation, increased disability, and preventable healthcare costs estimated in the billions annually. Virtual care platforms like Pomelo offer a scalable solution, particularly for underserved communities with limited access to obstetric specialists.

The employer value proposition is equally compelling. Companies offering comprehensive women’s health benefits report higher employee retention, reduced absenteeism, and improved productivity. As more employers recognize reproductive and hormonal health as strategic HR priorities, demand for integrated solutions is accelerating.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite its impressive growth, Pomelo faces significant challenges. Regulatory complexity varies by state, particularly around telehealth reimbursement and scope of practice for virtual providers. Scaling personalized care while maintaining quality requires continuous investment in technology and clinical talent. And competition for patients and payer contracts is intensifying as more entrants recognize the market opportunity.

Yet the fundamentals favor Pomelo’s model. The company’s early mover advantage in building data infrastructure, its proven ability to improve outcomes while reducing costs, and Kerns’ credibility as both a healthcare entrepreneur and EY Entrepreneur of the Year position it well for the next phase of growth.

The expansion into lifelong women’s health care represents not just a business strategy but a recognition that women’s healthcare needs have been systematically underserved by a medical system designed primarily around male physiology and episodic care models.

A New Paradigm for Women’s Health

Marta Bralic Kerns’ journey from frustrated new mother to billionaire CEO illustrates how personal experience combined with technological expertise can catalyze systemic change. Pomelo Care’s evolution from maternity-focused startup to comprehensive women’s health platform reflects a maturing market understanding: women need integrated, data-driven care across their entire lifespan, not fragmented solutions for discrete life events.

As the company deploys its $92 million in fresh capital, the healthcare industry will be watching to see whether Pomelo can replicate its maternal care success across hormonal health, menopause management, and preventive care. If it succeeds, the impact will extend far beyond shareholder returns—it will represent a fundamental reimagining of how America delivers women’s healthcare.

For the millions of women who’ve navigated pregnancy complications, hormonal imbalances, or menopausal symptoms with inadequate support, that transformation cannot come soon enough. Kerns’ vision offers a glimpse of what becomes possible when motherhood’s challenges inspire technological solutions—and when those solutions scale to serve women at every stage of life.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

China Tightens Financial Oversight: D-SIB Expansion Signals Intensified Property Crisis Response

Published

on

close up shot of world map with flaglets

As Beijing adds Zheshang Bank to systemically important lenders list, the move underscores mounting pressure on financial regulators to shore up stability amid a deepening real estate downturn

China’s financial regulators have expanded their roster of systemically critical banks, adding a regional powerhouse to a watchlist designed to prevent cascading failures—a decision that reveals as much about the nation’s economic anxieties as it does about its prudential priorities. On February 14, 2026, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) and the National Financial Regulatory Administration (NFRA) designated China Zheshang Bank as the country’s 21st domestic systemically important bank (D-SIB), subjecting the Zhejiang-based lender with ¥3.35 trillion ($485 billion) in assets to heightened capital requirements and intensified scrutiny.

The inclusion marks the first expansion of China’s D-SIB framework since its inception in 2021, when regulators initially identified 19 institutions whose potential collapse could trigger financial contagion. That the list remained static for five years—only to grow now, amid one of China’s most severe property market corrections in decades—is no coincidence. It’s a tacit acknowledgment that the country’s financial system faces strains severe enough to warrant preemptive fortification, particularly as banks grapple with exposure to a property sector that has hemorrhaged value since Evergrande’s spectacular 2021 default.

The Architecture of Systemic Risk: Understanding China’s D-SIB Framework

The D-SIB designation isn’t merely bureaucratic bookkeeping. It’s a macroprudential tool borrowed from global financial stability playbooks, adapted to China’s state-dominated banking landscape. Similar to the Basel Committee’s G-SIB framework that tracks 29 globally systemically important banks, China’s domestic version categorizes lenders based on their potential to destabilize the financial system if they falter. The consequences are tangible: additional capital buffers ranging from 0.25% to 1.5% of core tier-1 capital, depending on the institution’s systemic footprint.

The 2025 assessment, released in early 2026, divides China’s 21 D-SIBs into five groups by ascending order of systemic importance—though notably, no banks qualified for the fifth and most critical tier, suggesting that while China’s banking behemoths cast long shadows, none yet approach the systemic heft of JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America at the global level. The current roster includes all six state-owned commercial banks—Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of China, Bank of Communications, and Postal Savings Bank of China—alongside ten joint-stock commercial banks and five urban lenders.

Zheshang Bank’s addition to Group 1, the lowest tier requiring a 0.25% capital surcharge, positions it alongside China Minsheng Bank, Ping An Bank, and other mid-sized institutions. Yet even this modest buffer carries significance. At a time when profitability across China’s banking sector has cratered—with return on equity falling to 8.9% in 2023, the lowest in over a decade—every basis point of capital requirement translates to constrained lending capacity or diminished shareholder returns.

Property Debt Exposure: The Elephant in China’s Banking Balance Sheet

The timing of Zheshang Bank’s designation cannot be divorced from the specter haunting China’s financial system: property sector debt. While official non-performing loan (NPL) ratios for commercial banks have held steady at 1.5% through 2025 and into early 2026, this aggregate figure masks a more troubling reality. According to data from China’s Big Four state-owned banks, property-related NPL ratios averaged 5.2% as of mid-2024, more than triple the system-wide average and representing only a modest improvement from 5.5% at year-end 2023.

For Agricultural Bank of China, the pain is most acute: its real estate NPL ratio reached 5.42%, reflecting the bank’s extensive lending to rural developers and local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) that fueled infrastructure-dependent growth in smaller cities. These are the battlegrounds where China’s property downturn cuts deepest—not in Shanghai’s gleaming towers, but in the oversupplied tier-three and tier-four cities where ghost developments outnumber residents.

Fitch Ratings estimates that Chinese banks’ exposure to LGFVs alone approaches 15% of their balance sheets, exceeding direct loans to property developers (approximately 4% of total loans). This interconnectedness creates a doom loop: as property values decline, local governments lose land-sale revenue that once funded their quasi-sovereign entities, which in turn struggle to service debt owed to the very banks that financed China’s urbanization miracle. A 5% default rate among LGFVs, the IMF warns, could increase banking system NPLs by 75%.

Capital Injection as Stabilization Theater

Beijing isn’t waiting for the house of cards to collapse. In April 2025, the Chinese government injected RMB 520 billion ($72 billion) into four major state banks—0.4% of GDP—to bolster their capital compliance ahead of Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements modeled after G-SIB standards. This wasn’t charity; it was preemptive crisis management. With ICBC recently upgraded to a higher G-SIB bucket requiring increased capital buffers effective January 2027, China’s largest banks face dual pressures: domestic D-SIB surcharges and international G-SIB obligations.

The capital injection also serves a second purpose: enhancing lending capacity at a moment when credit demand has evaporated. Corporate borrowing growth fell to 9.4% in Q1 2025, down from 12.8% the prior year, as businesses retrench amid property sector uncertainty and elevated real borrowing costs. Household debt-to-disposable income ratios hover at 139%, dampening consumer appetite for mortgages even as banks slash rates.

The Global Context: China’s D-SIB Framework Meets International Standards

China’s regulatory tightening occurs against a backdrop of heightened global scrutiny of systemically important financial institutions. The Financial Stability Board’s November 2025 G-SIB update maintained 29 banks on its watchlist, with five Chinese institutions—ICBC, Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, and Bank of Communications—earning G-SIB status. ICBC’s ascent from bucket 2 to bucket 3 reflects its expanding complexity and cross-border footprint, demanding additional common equity of 1.5% versus the previous 1%.

Yet China’s D-SIB framework diverges from its global counterpart in critical ways. While G-SIBs are assessed on size, cross-jurisdictional activity, complexity, and substitutability, China’s methodology emphasizes domestic systemic importance—a reflection of the country’s capital controls and the limited international exposure of most regional banks. Zheshang Bank, for instance, operates primarily in Zhejiang province, China’s manufacturing heartland and a hotbed of private enterprise. Its ¥3.35 trillion asset base dwarfs many European regional lenders, yet it doesn’t merit G-SIB consideration because its failure wouldn’t ripple beyond China’s borders.

This insularity is both strength and vulnerability. On one hand, China’s banking system remains largely walled off from contagion effects that could amplify through global wholesale funding markets. On the other, the concentration of risk within China’s borders means that a domestic shock—say, a wave of LGFV defaults or a deeper property market collapse—has nowhere to diffuse. It reverberates internally, threatening the 55% of China’s financial assets controlled by these 21 D-SIBs.

Small Banks, Big Headaches: The Fragility Beyond the D-SIB List

While D-SIB oversight focuses on systemically critical institutions, China’s financial vulnerability increasingly concentrates in smaller lenders. Rural commercial banks, which represent 14% of total banking assets, carry NPL ratios of 2.8%—nearly double the system average—and provision coverage ratios that dipped below the 150% supervisory threshold in 2023 before recovering modestly. In response, authorities have accelerated consolidation: approximately 290 small banks were merged in 2024, compared to just 70 between 2019 and 2023.

The collapse of four banks between 2019 and 2020—Baoshang Bank, Bank of Jinzhou, Heng Feng Bank, and Bank of Liaoning—exposed the brittleness of regional lenders with concentrated property sector exposure and weak governance. Regulators learned a painful lesson: prevention beats bailout. By expanding the D-SIB list to include institutions like Zheshang Bank, authorities signal vigilance not just toward the obvious giants but toward the mid-tier players whose failure could trigger depositor panic in a financial system where implicit state guarantees shape behavior.

Forward-Looking Implications: Stability Through Constraint

The D-SIB expansion carries dual implications for China’s economic trajectory. First, it enhances financial stability by compelling systemically important banks to maintain thicker capital cushions, reducing the probability of taxpayer-funded rescues. The PBOC and NFRA’s joint statement accompanying the February 14 announcement emphasized their commitment to “continuously strengthen the supplementary supervision of systemically important banks and promote their safe, sound operation.”

Second, it may constrain credit creation precisely when China’s economy needs stimulus. Additional capital requirements force banks to retain earnings rather than distribute dividends or expand lending. In an economy where credit growth has already decelerated and deflationary pressures persist—consumer price inflation remained tepid through 2025 while producer prices deflated—tighter bank regulation risks compounding the very stagnation it aims to prevent.

Therein lies the paradox of macroprudential policy: the interventions that safeguard long-term stability can throttle short-term growth. China’s policymakers must walk a tightrope, balancing the imperative to ringfence its financial system against property sector fallout with the need to stimulate an economy projected to grow at just 4.1% in 2026—a far cry from the double-digit expansions that defined the previous generation.

The Human Dimension: Who Pays for Financial Resilience?

Beyond the technocratic language of capital buffers and systemic importance scores, real people bear the costs of financial instability. The property downturn has left hundreds of thousands of Chinese homebuyers holding contracts for unfinished apartments, their life savings tied up in stalled projects delivered by bankrupt developers. Banks, reluctant to crystallize losses by foreclosing on developer loans, engage in “extend and pretend” strategies that keep zombie borrowers on life support while starving healthier firms of credit.

For Zhejiang’s private manufacturers—the backbone of China’s export engine—Zheshang Bank’s D-SIB designation may mean tighter lending standards and higher borrowing costs as the bank shores up capital to meet regulatory requirements. Small and medium enterprises, already squeezed by weakening global demand and U.S. tariffs, may find credit even harder to access, exacerbating unemployment in a province where factory jobs support millions.

The trade-off is stark but necessary. Without stronger banks, a deeper crisis looms—one that could wipe out not just corporate balance sheets but household savings in a system where deposit insurance remains limited and faith in state support, while strong, is not infinite.

Conclusion: A Regulatory Reckoning Amid Unresolved Risks

China’s expansion of its D-SIB list to 21 institutions represents more than bureaucratic prudence; it’s a window into the anxieties of the world’s second-largest economy as it navigates a property crisis that refuses to resolve. The regulatory tightening may succeed in preventing bank failures, but it cannot alone revive confidence in a real estate sector that has lost its luster or convince households to spend rather than save.

What remains to be seen is whether China’s state-directed financial system can absorb the losses from its property market reckoning without sacrificing the credit creation needed to sustain growth. The D-SIB framework offers a buffer, not a cure. As long as property prices drift lower, local governments struggle to repay debt, and banks hold vast portfolios of questionable loans, the specter of systemic instability will persist—designation or not.

For international investors watching China’s trajectory, the message is clear: Beijing is shoring up its defenses, not declaring victory. And in financial regulation as in war, preparation for the worst is the wisest strategy when the storm clouds refuse to dissipate.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 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