Nifty 50 20261004

India Insider: From Farms to Factories An Unfinished Productivity Transition

by with No Comment Ben EzraBusinessCorporateEconomyExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIndiaInvestingRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

Striving to Make India the Best Version of Itself

Many East Asian economies in the last three decades have prospered because of large allocations using massive State subsidies to chosen sectors and respective industries via affordable credit while keeping interest rates at bare minimums. Wages were and remain suppressed to make industrialization possible through a transfer of savings from households to businesses – to help manufacturing thrive.

This has helped China and other East Asian Tiger nations to compete head to head with Western economies with fortified industries. Globalization also extended this phenomenon. Western economies offshored a lot manufacturing to countries that produced competitive goods to keep their corporate costs low – including wages, this while the majority of Western nations also shifted towards service sectors and consumption to generate solid performing GDPs.

Nifty 50 20261004

Nifty 50 One Year Chart as of 4th October 2026

This system ran extraordinarily well the last two decades, until trade deficits in the Western economies ignited agitation amongst citizens and inside the government offices of policymakers from Brussels to Washington. In order to create jobs for their own people and protect their legacy industries from losses, countries are increasingly discussing protectionism, illegal immigration, and restricting access on critical technologies.

Irrespective of the tranquility and results in the past, this after the Latin American and Asian financial crises caused by the abrupt policy shifts. Changes to the free flow of capital and trade have shown they can disrupt exporting based economies faster than many governments could handle the challenging circumstances appropriately.

India is one of the nations’ standing at this new crossroad. It has favorable trade relations with many partners. Though India runs a trade surplus of good with the United States and Europe, its trade with China and Russia is clearly unilateral – Beijing and Moscow holds advantages.

To compete with external trade partners like Vietnam, China and Korea, India wants to allocate expertise into high tech manufacturing like semi-conductors, electronics, and other preferred sectors. Problematically, because every State in India follows a different industrial policy according to their own political aspirations and needs, it’s difficult for New Delhi to dictate policies that align with central government objectives cohesively.

Changing the Playing Field to Accommodate Growth

The experience of industrial bases like Germany, Japan and the East Asian economies show that manufacturing growth requires coordinated policy. Ironically in India, after the 1991 economic reforms, no structured national manufacturing gameplan existed until 2011.

Industrial strategy should provide better support for land acquisition by the government with generous terms to landowners for agricultural lands, rather than merely leaving it to private corporate interests. Less bureaucratic labor law reforms would help too.

The 1991 industrial policy statement reduced the barriers to entry for private industry, deregulating, abolishing the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act of 1969, and significantly reduced import duties. This remained a focused policy pillar over two decades. However, there remained a number of gaps that still need to be improved.

The “new economy narrative” discussed by the Indian government needs a realistic perspective. For example, policy makers in the government argue that PLI (Performance Linked Incentive) which started in 2021 is an answer for reviving sector specific manufacturing. But not everyone is convinced. PLI is based on subsidies that provide incentives to generate output in fourteen highly import dependent sectors (especially for imports to China) that are extremely capital intensive in character. This has happened at a time when India needs to create more quality jobs in manufacturing, but faces hurdles.

The PLI has issues because the system requires many firms apply for the incentive subsidy to increase production in their chosen sectors, and the government will be in charge of picking winning firms (rather than sectors). This is the opposite of the practiced industrial policy of the East Asian Tiger miracle economies and what underlaid their success in export oriented manufacturing growth. The East Asian nations only selected industries to support, they did not ‘pre-pick’ winning firms.

The Soviet Example: Agriculture as a Competitive Lever?

During the Brezhnev era in the Soviet Union, most everyone in the top government positions of the now disbanded nation knew something was wrong economically. The Soviet Union was a giant bureaucracy that wanted to manage all production according to misguided yearly targets – the failure was only a matter of time as the utopian economic system imploded upon itself with malfeasance.

In the 1970s within the Soviet Union the immense influx of hard currency achieved from energy exports masked severe domestic failures, particularly in agriculture. Instead of investing the trade surplus into modernizing domestic infrastructure, the Kremlin was forced to use its Petrodollars to import vast quantities of Eastern grain and agricultural products to compensate for chronic harvest failures and feed its population.

By the early 1980s, the Soviet Union’s trade profile resembled that of a developing nation: exporting raw unrefined materials to purchase food and finished goods. When global oil prices crashed in the mid-1980s, the Soviet Union trade balance plunged into severe deficit and never recovered. Stripping the state of the hard currency it needed to survive.

Likewise, despite being an agriculturally important nation, India is forced to import massive quantities of specific agricultural goods due to low domestic yields. For instance, researchers had long predicted a rise in prices of Tamil Nadu State agricultural commodities due to a shortage of agrarian areas and stagnant growth in irrigation. Farmers are turning away from paddy cultivation because the returns fail to cover costs. Increased farm wages, machinery rentals, irrigation costs, fertilizer and pesticide prices have steeply driven up the costs of crops in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, paddy farmers are trapped in a cycle of debt and economic distress.

Although agriculture employs nearly half of India’s workforce, it contributes only about 15-18% of GDP. Outputs per workers are low. Tiny landholdings, low yields, dependence on the monsoon, and depleted groundwater limit productivity, this while subsidies and procurement favor rice and wheat over diversification. Poor storage, weak credit access for small scale farming, low investment opportunities add to problems and limited non-farm jobs keep surplus labor stuck on farms. India remains a net agricultural exporter achieving about $51.9 billion USD in 2024-25, but despite this higher valued Agri-export composition is not sufficient.

Policy Decisions and Competitive Companies

India’s services exports and remittances have created a persistent source of Forex earnings. The resulting accumulation of foreign exchange reserves provides an external capacity to import vital capital goods, technology and other productive tools to create benefits. The challenge is to convert this external surplus into better domestic productive capacity. This can be done by investing in infrastructure including logistics, energy, worker skillsets, technology development, improved ports and warehousing – and other foundations required for manufacturing and developing superior values in agriculture.

Improving the infrastructure for success is crucial, but importantly the Indian government should not attempt to pre-ordain winners through the PLI. Choosing winners can become a doomed strategy when the State tries to determine in advance which firms, technologies or industries will ultimately become globally competitive as capitalism plays out and companies ascend or fail sometimes.

The East Asian experience suggests that industrial policy can support selected sectors, but competitiveness ultimately has to be tested through productivity and export markets. The role of the State should therefore create conditions in which winners can emerge through competition within the marketplace, as they manage finance, technology and their workforces – which will help the companies strive to become the best versions of themselves.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Share:
Power of Intelligence 20260906

The Great Compression Part 4: Sovereignty Franchise

by with No Comment Artificial IntelligenceAssetsBehavioral SentimentBusinessCorporateEconomyEquitiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsInvestingMajor Global Equity IndicesRisk ManagementTechnology & ScienceUncategorizedWorldYulia Viaman

The Power of Intelligence

The most valuable piece of real estate in the world is a fab complex on the western edge of the Pacific, a short flight from the coast of a huge country that claims the ground it sits on. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, aka TSMC, prints the chips that every frontier AI model on earth depends on – and nearly all of them are currently made on that shore in Taiwan. This is simply a given; geography, unlike software, doesn’t scale, doesn’t copy, and doesn’t move.

For a decade the industry treated intelligence as something borderless, a global utility that would flow to wherever demand called for it. That framing is way past obsolete in a world that is split, lost along with the old dream of an uncensored Internet and free information exchange. Now, the crack is widening along a new axis. Forty years ago, the division ran through Berlin, and it was drawn by ideology. Today it runs through a supply chain, and it is drawn by who can make, buy, and run the machines that think. The AI chips are only the part of the split you can see and touch.

Power of Intelligence 20260906

The Great Compression Part 4: Sovereignty Franchise

The Independence Chokepoint

Compute has already left the free market and entered the permitted layer of the economy. Advanced NVIDIA processors are no longer something a buyer simply purchases; they are something a government allows a buyer to receive. Export licenses now stand between the most capable silicon and any customer headquartered on the wrong side of the line. Washington has spent three years building this wall chip by chip – and the reshoring push, the fabs rising in Arizona, the equipment and materials supply chains being pulled back onto home turf, is the same impulse cast in concrete: move the chokepoint onto ground you control.

The scale of the gap explains the urgency. The U.S. holds a lead in AI compute capacity measured not in percentages but in multiples. China’s domestic production of the highest-end accelerators runs at a small fraction of American-equivalent scale. Its most advanced labs still lean on Western silicon to train their best models, whether the chips arrive through smuggling networks or through the gray route of renting restricted hardware inside third-country data centers.

Even when it’s leaking, the chokehold does its work. The controls slow every Chinese frontier effort, force it onto inferior domestic silicon, and keep it a step behind the labs it is chasing. But compute is only the first roadblock to independence: the next ones – on the intelligence itself – are only going up now.

The Gate to Intelligence

A wall around compute would be contained if compute were the end of the story, but it isn’t. The same logic that gates the chip is now reaching for what runs on it.

In June 2026, the U.S. Commerce Department required an export license for any foreign national to access a frontier AI model made by Anthropic – including the developer’s own non-citizen staff. Unable to verify the nationality of its users, the company withdrew the model entirely, and for the first time in this cycle a publicly available AI capability moved backward by government order. The controls were contested, the legal basis was unsettled, and access was restored within weeks. But the precedent was set: the authority to license the export of chips had been stretched to license access to an intelligence provider, and the mechanism worked before anyone had settled whether it lawfully could.

Beijing read the same lesson and moved to mirror it, drafting a regime to fence its own leading model weights behind national-security law rather than let them diffuse into the world. Two capitals, the same month, reaching the same conclusion from opposite sides: an AI model is not a product to be sold freely but a strategic asset released on terms. Intelligence has crossed into the permitted layer, and it crossed at both ends of the divide at once.

The Chained Brains

All of that is behind us; the interesting part is ahead.

Every ally now starting up its own sovereign AI is building it on a stack it doesn’t own – because the models, the chips, and the cloud beneath them are all American. What the ally holds is the building, the flag over the door, and the electricity bill. But the intelligence itself answers to another country’s export regime. This is sovereignty in name and franchise in fact.

The precedent for this arrangement already flies. Allied air forces buy the F-35 – the most expensive piece of weaponry in history – but they don’t thereby own it. The U.S. controls the source code and the mission-data files, and the aircraft’s full capability remains under American authority no matter how large the check. The buyer flies a plane whose brain is licensed, not sold, because withholding the core is the entire instrument of leverage. You can’t buy your way to control over a capability whose value to the seller depends on never fully handing it over.

While the F-35’s licensed brain governs a single platform, a national AI stack governs the layer through which a modern state thinks: its analysis, its logistics, its intelligence fusion, its administration. The fighter is a product on a leash, while the intelligence layer is the nervous system on a leash.

The Thinking Franchise

And the company installing that nervous system is already doing it. Palantir’s value was never the model but the trust above it and the data structure beneath it – the ontology layer that ingests a government’s data and turns it into decisions. In mid-2026 it began offering sovereign customers what they most wanted to have: full ownership of their model weights, retrainable, air-gapped, sealed behind their own walls. Still, the weights are the airframe that a buyer can own – but they will still have to run on NVIDIA silicon, inside an operating layer a U.S. company builds and controls, under the same export regime that pulled a frontier model offline in June.

Canada shows how thin the sovereignty can wear. Ottawa named itself the anchor customer of its own national AI strategy in mid-2026 while already running tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed Palantir contracts inside its defense and policing systems. The strategy announced sovereignty, but the procurement had already outsourced it. And by late summer, the two were trading tariffs and hard words, the closest alliance on the continent gone frosty, with the most sensitive systems of one side still running on the other’s stack. Nobody had to threaten anything. The dependency simply sat there, the way it was always going to.

Right in front of our eyes, the forward base of the last century gives way to the forward stack of this one. Instead of a U.S. army base near a European capital, a data-orchestration system running on NVIDIA chips, wired into the host government’s own operations, doing quietly what the garrison once did loudly. Land, power, and data can belong to Berlin or Paris, on paper – but the intelligence stack that holds the dependency will be American. It’s a cheaper umbrella, a deeper one, and a far harder one to ask to leave.

The End of Sovereignty

The immovable object was supposed to be the safe end of this story. Land, power, fabs, the heavy and hard-to-replicate assets that no software cycle can compress, the bedrock beneath the cloud. All of that still holds. But immovable is not the same as owned – and anyway, even the owner isn’t sovereign, because sovereignty itself is what’s being compressed at the top of the stack.

Every chokepoint described above rests on a fact that holds only for now: advanced compute is scarce, and what it produces can be walled. Practical quantum advantage dissolves both, and it is a contest between the same two powers that have run through every layer of this story. Perhaps one arrives first. Perhaps, if less likely, two arrive together. It changes little for everyone else. The machine owner reads what others hide and shields what it keeps. The only defense is a new cryptography built to withstand it, and it takes the same frontier compute and talent that only those two powers command. Even the lock is provisioned by the vendor.

It doesn’t matter who owns the oil or holds the warheads if the secrets around them can be opened at will and the means to reseal them belongs to someone else. The world is already two powers and their satellites, although most of them still speak as though sovereignty were something they possessed. The quantum edge is the point where the pretense ends.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

30Y Treausry Yields 20260826

How Warsh Can Solve the US Debt Crisis With Just a Few Words at Jackson Hole!

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentCentral BanksCharles NajjarCorporateEconomyEquitiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsForexInvestingRisk ManagementUncategorized

A Roadmap for Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh to Rescue U.S Debt

Many think the market decides interest rates.

Wrong!

The Fed – and only the Fed – has full control over interest rates, all over the curve!

We just need to have the right person on board.

During the European crisis in 2011, speculators all around the world were betting that the Eurozone would explode and that the EUR would collapse under the weight of government debt that had started with Greece and spread to other countries that were shamelessly labelled “PIGS,” adding insult to the speculative attack.

Trichet, at that time chair of the ECB, seemed totally clueless, afraid to take any “unconventional” step, even at the risk of seeing the entire European financial system go bust.

The crisis seemed unstoppable… until Mario Draghi stepped in, replacing Trichet.

With just one magical statement (“the ECB will do whatever it takes to save the Euro. And believe me, it will be enough”) Draghi implied that he was ready to buy government bonds from European countries, even though such action was considered at the time to be “against the ECB’s statutes” and outside its mandate.

By going against the prevailing market narrative, and knowing very well the economic strength of the Eurozone, Draghi forced the market to follow him.

The speculation against the Eurozone stopped almost instantly, and European government bond prices recovered without the ECB even being forced to intervene!

30Y Treausry Yields 20260826

U.S 30-Year Treasury Yields Chart From 1988 until 26 August 2026

Today, the U.S is in exactly the same position!

A massive speculative attack is being waged against U.S debt (probably led in part by the crypto industry in an attempt to justify the “value” of its virtual tokens), with “inflation” suddenly becoming the ultimate beast.

Like Trichet at the time, the weak Powell got driven into the trap of raising rates abruptly on his own government, forcing it to pay more than $1 trillion in yearly interest, a massive and unnecessary injection of liquidity that is itself… inflationary!

In today’s world, driven by massive debt, raising interest rates on governments is INFLATIONARY!

Now that Powell is almost gone, all hopes lie on Warsh’s shoulders.

He can save the U.S from the current debt crisis with just a few words, exactly as Draghi did for Europe.

Warsh completely missed his first intervention a month ago. Instead of showing the market who’s boss, he showed total febrility.

Fearing being labelled a “Trump puppet,” he insisted on the 2% inflation target – an absurd threshold that nobody really knows where it came from – and claimed that “the economy is robust”… while we all know it is not!

Then he totally capitulated to the market by saying that he would “listen to the market” to determine where rates should go. The worst thing any Governor could ever say!

That’s how long-term yields exploded to levels not seen since 2007, and forcing Bessent to intervene to limit the damage.

We are now just one day away from the Jackson Hole Symposium.

Warsh can now either save the U.S or send it into Armageddon!

Every word he says could change the entire picture.

He simply has to focus on the right narrative:

  • Current inflation is geopolitical and driven by supply shocks. Raising interest rates has zero impact on such inflation.
  • The 2% inflation target is NOT an absolute figure. A 3% inflation rate should be acceptable when the economy is at risk.
  • Signs of recession are looming, with the labor market under pressure, rising bankruptcies, and record rates of defaults on credit cards and car loans.
  • Forcing the government to inject more than $1 trillion through interest payments is itself inflationary. Raising interest rates to fight inflation is counterproductive at such a high level of government debt.

If Warsh is capable of highlighting these arguments, yields will drop instantly without any intervention from Bessent.

Then the Fed can start decreasing interest rates gradually, with the market accepting whatever rate it sets.

What if Warsh deliberately gave a disastrous speech a month ago, taking a tough position against what Trump appointed him to do and allowing the market to drive rates to extreme levels… only to radically change his position following the recommendations of the task force he appointed?

This way, he would have absolved himself from being labelled Trump’s puppet while executing exactly the plan of reducing interest rates.

We can therefore suspect that he will take the opportunity at Jackson Hole to present the first findings of this task force, which could include, among other things:

  • A questioning of the 2% inflation threshold, especially when the economy is at risk of entering a deep recession.
  • Stressing that inflation comes mainly from geopolitical issues and supply shock. Fighting such inflation with high interest rates is totally inefficient.
  • A highlight of the absurdity of raising interest rates on the U.S government and forcing it to inject $1 trillion in interest payments – an unnecessary injection of liquidity that is itself inflationary.
  • The necessity of coordinating with the Treasury Department to fight inflation where it hurts the most, through subsidies, tax relief, and other targeted measures, while primarily fighting “greedflation” through higher profit taxes on specific industries.
  • A warning about the increasing risk of recession, with record numbers of corporate bankruptcies, credit-card defaults, and a deteriorating job market.

Warsh has a unique chance to prove that he is the right person for the job by rescuing the U.S from the massive speculation against its debt, exactly like “Super Mario” did when he saved Europe from collapse in 2012.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Share:
Troll

India Insider: A Giant Bureaucracy Needs an Urgent Reset

by with No Comment AssetsBen EzraCentral BanksCorporateEquitiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIndiaInvestingUncategorizedWorld

Paperwork Cyclones and Slow Pace Confront Indian Citizens and Corporate Investment

Almost every single day Indians are confronted by massive bureaucratic problems when they have to approach the government for basic services. When this will change?

For example if you apply for an Aadhaar card (which is used for proof of identity and address in India), birth certificate or ration card (used primarily for getting subsidized groceries in government run stores), or want an electricity connection or passport, you have to move through a myriad of unnecessary bureaucracy in many government offices.

Recently, I went to renew my passport which was authorized and overseen in a regional passport office in Tiruchirappalli of the Tamil Nadu State. To my astonishment, there were no single chairs or any other type of sitting amenities for visitors carrying their applications. Visitors had to sit down on the floor outside the passport office.

Troll

India Insider: A Giant Bureaucracy Needs an Urgent Reset

Also applicants inside the premises had no access to office drinking water or restroom facilities. And the waiting hours were too long. The authorities there treat people like teachers treating students, making normal people wonder why they have to apply for their  passports by undergoing this giant bureaucracy as if it were a psychology test of some sort. Many people pour their anger and frustrations onto online forums complaining about the mistreatment.

Some of these people likely wondered how India despite showcasing it can send satellites to space and the Chandrayaan to the moon, doesn’t seem to have a stable, nor easier services for the day to day needs of the people regarding government affairs.

The government may argue that due to large numbers of people constantly applying for various forms and certificates, and a lack of adequate staff, things are more than a little complex in many overburdened government departments. But the fact the government seems to miss and a critical point people are driven to anger about, is that the nation collect taxes from its citizens to insure adequate services which are not fulfilled comfortably in most cases.

Indian citizens are not applying empty handed for a passport and expecting charity or miracles from the government, rather they pay an accepted fee to the passport office. Thus, it’s the duty of the government bureaucracies to be held accountable.

In government run local panchayats (rural government assemblies), there is always rampant corruption. An example can be given regarding the simple renewing of a business license. Corruption is a common thing. Vishalini (name changed) told me that she had to pay a 5000 Rupees fee ($51 USD) in 2019 in order to bribe a local panchayat to get her father’s death certificate

Imagine what would happen if some officers from the government or its employees, went to a restaurant and they were treated badly and charged $20 instead of $2 for a Dosa or Vada Pav. Would they silently pay the bill with cash not resisting, or would they fight back and ask questions?

As a former Forex broker working in the Indian financial markets and servicing retail clients, I have witnessed how this bureaucracy has worked. In April 2024, the authorities simply banned the exchange traded currency derivatives market that allowed retail speculators, small scale exporters and importers to hedge their exposure, wagering on the direction of the Rupee against 4 currencies – the EUR, GBP, Yen and USD. Many clients lost money, because they couldn’t sell at the available market price and some of the trades were liquidated by brokers’ risk management systems when the directive was put into force. The authorities neither compensated, nor took responsibility for these actions. The government action was decisive and swift.

Almost everyone in India knows that we have ‘missed the boat’ by making small manufacturing detrimentally hard due to red tape, poor infrastructure and giant bureaucracy. Free enterprise and entrepreneurship create innovation, less government intervention and greater economic freedom could allow small scale manufacturing to flourish.

Not Only Indian Citizens Suffer, So Do Investors

India has huge gaps to fill, but even if someone injects capital for an infrastructure project, makes money, and is creating jobs, there are still many things to be done about the burden of bureaucracy. The results of government inefficiency and corruption also creates hurdles and disadvantages for investors who would like to participate in India’s growth story with much needed foreign money.

India’s enormous bureaucracy needs urgent improvement and progress in order to facilitate and revitalize its approval system to receive Aadhaar cards, marriage certificates and even death certificate in a more timely manner. Everything can and should be digitized, so people don’t have to wait in long cues to verify or get new documents.  

A lack of effective and transparent services in government offices have to be dealt with effectively. Standards need to be created, upheld and checked on regularly, a host of problems need to be eradicated. Indian citizens would benefit.

India is a current account deficit country and it needs foreign direct capital to help finance its deficit. Investment opportunities need to be made easier for financial institutions abroad to facilitate capital inflows into India so it is less reliant on its own domestic borrowing and savings. Weak frameworks and institutional voids create problems. For India to reverse the weakened foreign direct investment being demonstrated and attract meaningful capital, fundamental changes need to take place, we cannot rely on mere hope for more favorable diversification cycles from abroad. With better policies implemented by the government, India can attract global investment funds easier and help foster improvements for all.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

SP500 20260713

S&P 500: Short-Term Caution and Long-Term Ambitions

by with No Comment AMT MarketsAssetsBehavioral SentimentCorporateEquitiesFeatured HighlightsFederal Reserve, Interest RatesFinancial InstitutionsInvestingMajor Global Equity IndicesRisk ManagementSpeculatorsUncategorized

Speculative Opportunities Do Not Promise Immediate Profits as Cautious Outlooks Stir

The S&P went into this past weekend with slight gains made on Friday, but essentially finished where last week began. In early morning trading via the futures market the index has seen a slight decline. Retail short-term traders may decide that offers the potential to sit on the sidelines and watch what may be rather choppy conditions, this if they decide not to pursue.

Global markets including stock indices like the Nikkei and broad Forex have shown more discomfort early today. Short-term concerns and mid-term viewpoints are colliding and making momentum hard to sustain. The S&P 500 remains within its elevated realm, but there is a rather unpleasant taste many speculators have had to endure since the end of May, particularly if trading ambitions have been limited to near-term pursuits.

SP500 20260713

S&P 500 Futures Six Month Chart as of 13th July 2026

There will be a crowd of people at summer parties (or winter outings depending on which side of the equator you are on) discussing the gains made in the S&P 500 (and Nasdaq  100) since the end of March who will be quite keen to brag about their insights. However these same people have likely made their money via pension funds, mutual funds and other long-term endeavors guided by institutions managing their money. Because most short and near-term retail traders have likely been savaged by the results in the marketplace the past handful of months. 

Trading within the current markets conditions for those who have smaller accounts and are relying on leverage to create profits have likely been bled dry of their funds if they have not used proper risk management. It is one thing to want to make a thousand dollars a week in the markets as a retail trader and quite another to actually accomplish the task. 

Indices the past handful of months have been a churning machine in which volumes stir and create attractive chatter, but also deceive folks into believing they can win easily. The only folks winning consistently right now are brokers handling their clients’ retail accounts.

This doesn’t mean you have to stop and give up as a retail trader, but it should serve as a warning that not being overly ambitious and remaining patient are keys when trying to beat the markets. And again, let’s remember the average retail trader has about a 90% chance of failing when trying to speculate.

The S&P 500 did hit a record height in early June around the 7,620.00 vicinity. Its current values are well within sight of those highs too. Yet, headwinds continue to be seen via trading results intraday as financial institutions deal with wavering behavioral sentiment complicated by a myriad of concerns.

Yes, there will always be concerns in the marketplace, risk and reward are often compared to the potential of loss. If you are placing a bet in the markets that you believe can garner a thousand-fold profit, it is likely you are also risking a thousand-fold loss. And unfortunately the marketplace, nor your broker is going to lose sleep over your inability to understand what risks you are undertaking. You will hear that you have learned a tough lesson and the experience will help you become a better trader next time around by your broker, this as they offer you another opportunity to enter the markets on their platforms, but it still doesn’t guarantee you anything. 

The rumblings from the Middle East continues to mitigate sentiment in the global markets. As of this writing WTI Crude Oil is around $73.70. If military conflict between the U.S and Iran continues to incrementally escalate, perhaps experienced players will be able to handle the noise and worries regarding higher energy costs and threats of inflation. 

Equity indices are also running into problems caused by a realization that the costs of investing into companies working in the AI realm are now having to deal with rising costs, this as revenues do not meet expectations, and a lack of adequate physical resources to fuel growth in the sector are raised as concerns. And it is not a stretch to say the AI sector has helped drive more than a handful of equity indices higher. A legitimate fear regarding a downturn in AI related stocks and a possible knock-on effect is a sobering reminder that bullish trends do not last forever. 

And then there is the shadow that is overhangs the Federal Reserve and interest rate calisthenics being worked out by analysts who are trying to convince others (and themselves) that their outlooks are correct.

Yet, we return thankfully to a simple notion and question, one that has very little to do with economics that are taught in university classrooms – are there enough buyers in the marketplace to sustain the upwards trend in the S&P 500? The answer doesn’t have much to do with fundamentals, and often is driven by pure sentiment. Pushing aside day to day travails, wagering on long-term upside remains almost the only wager that can be made. Sure, you can bet on downside; you can short stocks, buy put options that look for lower markets. However, matching negative outlooks with the correct timeframe is just as hard as it is to bet on positive momentum. For the time being it is easy to say the near-term remains murky for day traders. It is harder to predict actual direction

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Gemini3 20270711

The Great Compression Part 3: The Immovable Object

by with No Comment AMT MarketsArtificial IntelligenceBusinessCommoditiesCorporateEconomyEquitiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsInvestingRisk ManagementTechnologyYulia Viaman

The Landlord Beneath the Cloud

There is an old paradox: what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? The AI buildout is the unstoppable force – the largest concentrated wave of capital spending in history. The immovable object is the physical world it is colliding with. Land, power, and water are the tangible bedrock that no balance sheet can conjure into existence. The paradox has a resolution the classical philosophers never thought of: the immovable object collects the rent.

Consider the scale of the force first. The four hyperscalers – Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft – plan to spend roughly $725 billion on capital expenditures in 2026, up nearly 80% from the year before. Add Oracle, the neoclouds, sovereign funds, and the rest of the AI heavy spenders – and total compute capex crosses $1 trillion in a single year, the first trillion-dollar year of its kind. Much of that money flows to the visible beneficiaries the market already knows by heart: NVIDIA for the GPUs, Micron for the memory, Dell for the servers, Cisco for the networking. Silicon, racks, interconnects.

Gemini3 20270711

The Great Compression Part 3: The Immovable Object 

But every one of those chips has to be housed somewhere. It has to be powered. It has to be cooled. And this is where the unstoppable force runs into something it cannot simply outspend.

The constraint is no longer capital, and it is increasingly no longer silicon. It is the physical world. The bottleneck has shifted to power generation and grid interconnection, which take years to permit and build, and to the land and water that data centers consume at industrial scale. The richest corporations that have ever existed are discovering that a signed check does not produce a megawatt or a water right. The immovable object has begun to set the terms.

Nowhere is this clearer than in a deal signed on June 23rd. Texas Pacific Land Corporation, aka TPL, agreed to provide the surface acreage and brackish water for Project Kilby, a large-scale power generation facility Chevron is building to supply a Microsoft data center cluster in Reeves County, Texas. When the announcement crossed the wires, Chevron’s name led every headline – and TPL was a footnote.

Meanwhile, the framing should be exactly backwards. Chevron, for all its scale, is the replaceable party in that transaction. Exxon, Occidental, or any of a dozen major energy companies could have built that power plant. What none of them could have supplied is the specific land and the specific water rights in that specific corner of the Permian Basin – because those belong to TPL, and there is no substitute for them at any price. The company that got the headlines is interchangeable. The company that got the footnote is the immovable object.

TPL is the purest expression of the scarcity trade beneath the AI buildout. It owns roughly a million acres of West Texas and produces almost nothing itself. It does not drill. It does not manufacture. It collects royalties, easements, and water fees from everyone who needs to operate on its ground. It is a toll booth on the physical world, and the AI buildout has just become one of its largest new customers. For years the market valued it as an oil-and-gas royalty play. It is quietly becoming an infrastructure landlord for compute – and almost nobody has ever heard of it.

The same logic radiates outward through the entire physical layer. Power is the genuine bottleneck, and the companies that generate it are being repriced accordingly. Constellation Energy, the largest operator of nuclear plants in the U.S., has become an unlikely AI stock as hyperscalers sign long-term deals for the one thing they cannot build fast enough: reliable, always-on baseload power. The grid that carries it has its own set of indispensable names – Quanta, which builds and maintains transmission infrastructure; GE Vernova, which supplies the turbines and grid equipment; Eaton, whose electrical systems distribute power inside the data center itself. And as chip density rises, the heat has to go somewhere, which has turned Vertiv, a maker of cooling and thermal management systems, into a core holding of the buildout.

What is striking is that this category does not merely sit still and collect. Some of its members are actively repositioning to attack. Ford, unable to win the electric-vehicle war against Tesla and nursing a $19.5 billion writedown on its EV investments, has taken the same physical assets – its plants, its battery capacity, a century of manufacturing expertise – and redirected them. In May it launched Ford Energy, a subsidiary building grid-scale battery storage systems, with data centers named explicitly as the demand driver. The immovable object, it turns out, can also choose its targets.

This is the HALO trade: Heavy Assets, Low Obsolescence. Companies whose value rests on tangible, physical assets and established operations that are expensive, time-consuming, or regulated – and therefore very hard to replicate. Land. Power. Grid. Water. Steel and concrete and copper. The unglamorous inputs that no model can commoditize because they cannot be reduced to software, and no amount of capital can summon into existence overnight.

None of this is permanently fixed, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. Innovation erodes scarcity: small modular reactors, advanced geothermal, and better transmission technology will, in time, loosen some of the constraints that look absolute today. But two things blunt that threat. The first is Jevons paradox – when a resource becomes cheaper to use, consumption rises to swallow the savings, which means more efficient power generation is likely to expand the buildout, not shrink the edge of the providers. The second is that not all heavy assets are equal. The manufacturers and equipment makers face real competitive pressure over time. The owners of irreplaceable location – the specific acre, the specific water right – do not. You can build a better reactor, but you cannot build another Permian Basin.

The value that fled the human middlemen, that commoditized in the model layer, that migrated up the stack toward proprietary data and orchestration – also flows downward, and at the bottom it stops. It settles into the ground, into the wires, into the water table. But the ground is not neutral territory: land is permitted, power is regulated, water is allocated, and the fabs that print the silicon sit inside country borders. The unstoppable force keeps accelerating; the immovable object keeps collecting. And the moment we ask who owns the immovable object, the scarcity trade stops being a matter of markets and becomes a matter of sovereignty.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Nifty 50 20260626

India Insider: Systematic Investment Plan Boom

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentBen EzraCorporateEconomyExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIndiaInvestingUncategorizedWorld

Liquidity, Valuations and the Limits of Domestic Capital

India’s equity market has surprised many investors over the past two years. Despite persistent foreign institutional investor selling, weak net foreign direct investment (FDI), subdued private capital expenditures and a depreciating Rupee, the broader markets have not fallen and proven remarkably resilient. But risks abound.

Many observers point to the rapid growth of Systematic Investment Plans (SIPs), which millions of retail investors invest regularly via mutual funds in India. Monthly SIP inflows into the Indian equity market has reached record highs at the tune of 32,087 Crore Rupees ($3.38 billion USD) in March, 2026 per AMFI (Association of Mutual Funds India) data. 

Nifty 50 20260626

Nifty 50 Five Year Chart as of 26th June 2026

Before COVID-19, the stock market industry in India was a boring business. Accounts were opened via paperwork, and demat (the account in which the digital shares were held) in a bureaucratic manner with multiple paperwork requirements. Clients who liked to participate in the Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) had to go to their broker or issue a cheque to participate in the bidding process. As of 2019, the total demat accounts in India stood at 40 million. Sophisticated retail investors would go to their local branches of associated brokers and trade stocks, derivatives or commodities. They sometimes would use telephone or online orders.

All this changed during the Covid-19 pandemic, when equity market valuations became depressed and people were forced to stay at home. This ushered a wave of new retail traders who had time to master the game and wanted to capitalize on the falling valuations of many companies and take advantage of opportunities they believed in. Astonishingly, demat accounts opened between 2020-2026 totaled around 180 million, almost quadrupling pre-Covid levels. Due to digital penetration and the rise of discount brokers, young retail traders were able to quickly allocate substantial portions of their monthly income into SIPs.

SIPS have strengthened the financial market resilience of India, compared to the previous decade when it was the domestic institutional investors who helped market stability. Yet concerns are now arising whether domestic household savings are supporting fundamentally stronger companies, or are creating systematic inflows which help tenuous companies to have higher valuations?

For instance, a famous financial markets journalist recently argued that India’s SIP boom has fueled expensive stocks. Thus, enabling insiders and institutions to exit at favorable prices, reduced future return potential, has weakened the Rupee, and exposed the limitations of crowd-driven investing.

As the AMT India Insider columnist, I decided to investigate these considerations and talked with some people in the financial markets who offered different perspectives regarding the issue.

Mr. Mahalingam, an IIM alumnus noted, “it is difficult to generalize like that. Total SIP inflows should be viewed relative to the total market capitalization of listed companies, not in absolute terms. If the Nifty delivers around 12% returns, it roughly doubles every six years. SIP inflows must also increase over time, simply to purchase the same proportion of shares.”

Arguably, the SIP flows into the Nifty Index some 15 years back are not comparable to today. Considering the higher capitalization of Nifty listed companies (which means greater share values), and given the Nifty index has delivered 12% returns in the last few years, and that it took 6 years for it to double at this rate, it’s important that investors look at higher share prices values arising out of company earnings while considering their investment decisions.

Mr. Prasath, who taught economics and finance to students during his tenure at a private educational institution, argues, “I think there are many dimensions. In stock markets, everything comes down to valuations, the continuous SIP flows may diminish future returns if the earnings don’t grow. But comparing SIP flow with 2005 numbers exaggerates the issue. The Indian economy has grown bigger since 2005 and naturally inflows will also grow accordingly. India has one of the lowest public participation in the capital markets, even with current SIP numbers.”

Mr. Prasath continued, “currently the world is going through turbulent times with the Russia-Ukraine war, the Trump Presidency including tariff actions, the Iran situation and energy crisis, and supply chain disruptions, etc., which are effecting economic growth. The Indian government is also not taking some required steps. Indian companies also have low R&D and failed to participate in emerging themes like AI and semiconductor development. These turbulent times will continue for awhile and Indian markets will underperform its peers. So we have to wait for better times or for world leaders to come to their senses. I think we have to remain both optimistic/realistic and plan our investments accordingly”

If India grows at 7.7% during the 2025-2026 annual year, and foreign capital (especially foreign portfolio investment) is leaving, while private capital expenditures are weak and government capital expenditures are increasing, then what’s the point of higher stock prices for many of these companies? Is it due to steady retail SIP inflows? Does it really help institutions and insiders to cash out, and make retail investors vulnerable?  Foreign investors have sold $29 billion USD worth of equities so far this year, and the Rupee has taken a hit, yet we have not see drastic changes in companies’ share or indices values.

In 2022, when the U.S Federal Reserve was raising interest rates, the Nifty 50 Index lost around 3000 points, but this did not happen in 2026. The SIP retail crowd and domestic institutional investors have absorbed the foreign investors’ outflows and provided a cushion for share prices.

Even if some people in the financial markets argue that the foreign investors’ selloff off did not result in poor corporate performance or themes becoming weak, given that the growing market capitalization and the past earnings has justified the higher share prices, it’s significant to note that the Net FDI remains weak. Indian and foreign corporations are repatriating cash at a faster pace, and capital is flowing out of India. That’s ironically what hit the Rupee this year, along with higher oil prices due to the Iran war. In my opinion, private capital expenditures of listed corporations has to grow to justify higher earnings multiples.

Kotak Mahindra Bank director Paritosh Kashyap, while talking to Business Line said that private capital expenditures in India has been subdued for the last 10 years. Higher interest rates, expensive oil and lower equity valuations has dampened sentiment. India’s government Capex (capital expenditure strategy) remains the primary driver.

To summarize and conclude, weak foreign direct investment, subdued private investment, and inflated valuations of Indian assets along with a lack of AI related development is a large underlying issue and concern. For foreign investors to return with greater force again into Indian equities, either the Rupee has to depreciate or equity prices have to decline to generate investor confidence and create an appealing landscape. Retail investors may soon have to face drawdowns in their portfolios as returns dwindle and headwinds move against them.0

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

post277

India Insider: Growth without Prosperity, Thoughts and Comparisons

by with No Comment Ben EzraBusinessCentral BanksCommoditiesCorporateDataExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIndiaInvestingUncategorizedWorld

Growth and Prosperity Data Meet India and China's Realities

Economic growth is important for generating prosperity. India as well as China has helped millions be lifted out of poverty using separate development trajectories. Still, questions about income distribution remain a difficult topic that policy makers in both nations often are unwilling to look at with deeper persistence because plenty of inequalities still exists and the subject remains potentially divisive.

China’s low income population is extremely large. Professor Li Shi’s research argues that nearly 300 million people in China are earning less than 1000 Yuan ($149 USD) per month in 2021, while nearly 98 million had monthly incomes below 500 Yuan ($75 USD).

The same is true for the majority in India. As per the Pahle Foundation research shows nearly 91% of India’s workforce remains in the informal sector where their annual per capita incomes are below ₹2.5 lakh Rupees or ₹20,800 Rupees per month ($217 USD per month).

post277

Although industrial and wage models are different comparatively, for instance in China the industrial sector includes 32% of the total working age population and produces an estimate of 36 to 37% of the GDP. And 22% of China’s workforce are employed in agriculture and produce close to 7% of GDP. In India a higher share of the people are in agriculture – close to 45%, and generate roughly 15-18% of the nation’s GDP.

However, there are still problems in both countries regarding inequality via wage disparities of citizens. When income growth is stagnated or not growing, fixed assets capital formation is difficult. People save less and invest less, which in turn makes the economic consumption story difficult. This is happening in China and in India.

Regarding growth, Professor Li listed a series of mounting pressures: China’s growth rate has fallen from its high-speed era of 8 to 10% to around 5%. Household income growth has slowed sharply and the weakest gains are among the poorest groups. Urban wage growth has also softened. Consumption remains structurally weak. Fixed-asset investment, especially private investment has lost momentum. Unemployment, particularly among young people remains elevated. These are not separate problems. Taken together they raise a harder question, whether China can still generate the level of growth needed to meet its 2035 and 2050 prosperity targets?

India between 2015–2016 experienced significant growth driven by consumption, investment and services expansion. After Covid-19 its growth has stabilized around 6 to 7%, yet higher levels of prosperity are not clearly visible for many and inequality has widened.

The unemployment rate among those aged 16 to 24 in China has remained around 16% for an extended period, fluctuating during seasonal reasons. Unemployment among other age groups have also risen gradually, indicating clear pressure in the labor markets.

In India the unemployment for youth aged between 16 to 25 of age is 42%, per a Azim Premji University Surveys and State of Working India report in 2023. This unemployment rate is double the ratio of what we are witnessing in China.

While in China the education departments have shifted towards STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine). India still focuses on Social Science curriculums and students who study within these fields often cannot find job opportunities in the labor market.

India for many years hasn’t invested a substantial amount of energy and commitment to build a vibrant manufacturing sector. Yet, studies have shown that every job created by manufacturing exports creates two additional jobs in related sectors like transportation and logistics. 

China’s wealth inequality via income has risen sharply, Professor Li Shi estimates the wealth Gini coefficient above 0.7 in 2023. India’s wealth inequality may be even more concentrated. Various estimates place India’s wealth inequality/income distribution per the Gini coefficient above 0.80, indicating an extremely unequal distribution of assets and accumulated capital. 

However, the structures of inequality differ between the two economies. In China inequality emerged alongside rapid industrialization, urbanization and export, and led to manufacturing growth. A large industrial economy generated substantial wealth – but distributed it unevenly between labor and capital. 

In India inequality is shaped not only by a wealth concentration at the top, but also by the persistence of low productivity via employment, informal labor markets, weak wage growth, and limited human capital investment across large sections of the population. Thus, while China faces the challenge of emphasizing prosperity within a middle income industrial economy, India continues to struggle with the deeper structural problem of trying to create broad based household income growth in the first place. The differential also sheds light on industrial sector based employment and those in agricultural jobs comparatively between the two nations regarding wage context.

Hard questions that China should ask include if their employment force – who are without many social protections and suffer a lack of higher wages, will allow China to attain competitive advantage over the rest of the world? While its manufacturing products are in demand, it doesn’t help the average Chinese person see realized wages go up and nor creates a dignified life. And China’s trading partners do not benefit, because a lack of competitive advantage destroys industries and makes unemployment problems even worse in other nations. It’s not a question about advantage only, it’s also about why this surplus and deficit competitive problem is growing rapidly and makes stable prosperity unachievable over the long term.

In India despite being proclaimed as the fastest growing global economy, if the young population don’t get jobs and cannot create income for their families, then what’s the purpose of this high GDP growth? Yes, the nation gets to show good growth numbers while hoping to achieve additional investment, but problematic results still occur.

Economic growth without wage growth leads to widening inequality, social unrest and sometimes political backlash. For growth to be inclusive, wages need to rise along with GDP. This requires not just distribution, but a transformation like raising the average productivity of every worker and ensuring they receive their fair share of the economic pie.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Gordons Bay Sunset 20260514

The Great Compression Part 1: The End of the Middlemen

by with No Comment AssetsBusinessCorporateEquitiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsInvestingMajor Global Equity IndicesRisk ManagementTechnologyUncategorizedYulia Viaman

Elevator Boys of GenAI

In the 1920s, every office building had an elevator boy. Although automated elevators already existed, people found the idea of riding in a driverless box dangling by steel cables terrifying, and delegated the role to a uniformed human they trusted, accepting the necessity to pay for the privilege. Over the years, people got used to elevator buttons, but the force of habit and the preference for human touch kept the profession flourishing for years.

The operators were so confident in their indispensability that they went one step too far: in 1945, a New York strike brought the city to a grinding halt, costing it hundreds of millions of dollars. That was the final straw, leading to a massive push to upgrade to automated systems. Within a short while, the job ceased to exist, entering the history books as the only major job category to be completely wiped out from the U.S. Census purely due to automation. The only one so far, that is.

Gordons Bay Sunset 20260514

Elevator boys were the cleanest definition of a middleman: someone who exists not because they create value, but because of information asymmetry or transaction friction. The history of modern commerce is largely a history of those “toll booth” trades, and of the technologies that remove them one by one.

Newspapers were once the only viable printed information channel, using their middleman position to bundle content with ads and classifieds, fattening their revenues. People accepted it because nothing else existed – but then the Internet broke their business model. Craigslist alone did more damage to newspaper economics than any editorial failure ever could; Twitter and Facebook finished the job. Today the newspaper is a diminished thing, sustained largely by institutional inertia and nostalgia.

Real estate agents had an informational moat – access to listings, knowledge of comparable sales, relationships with buyers – which was valuable in a world without Zillow. Once that information became freely available, their commission became very hard to justify. The agent survived by clinging to the execution layer, but that too is shrinking.

Here is where the story gets interesting. The companies that dismantled the old middlemen wasted no time building new ones. Uber eliminated the taxi dispatcher and the phone-in booking system, then inserted itself between driver and passenger for a fat slice of every fare. DoorDash did the same between restaurant and customer. Expedia aggregated what travel agents used to know and charged airlines and hotels for access to their own customers. These were genuine technological improvements, but the business model was identical to what they replaced: find a friction point, own it, and extract rent from both sides. The market rewarded them handsomely for this, for a while. Then the next wave arrived.

Generative AI is driving a change of extraordinary scale and speed. We cannot assess the impact of the tsunami from inside it, but we can see the fish floating belly-up, and extrapolate. The agentic economy is eliminating many roles that just a couple of years ago seemed staple of our service-based economy. AI agents will (if they haven’t yet) replace secretaries, clerks of all kinds, brokers, advisors, recruiters, customer service representatives, paralegals – and the buck won’t stop there.

What is happening now to companies like Capgemini, Accenture, and McKinsey is structurally identical to what happened to newspaper classified departments and taxi dispatchers. AI agents do not merely reduce friction – they eliminate the information asymmetry that made the intermediary necessary in the first place. A system embedded inside an enterprise does not need a consultant to explain what it is doing. It does it, iterates, and reports back.

OpenAI and Anthropic understood this early, which is why both recently announced joint ventures – in a parade lockstep – to deploy engineers directly inside corporate clients. OpenAI has built an elite, highly technical consulting wing – a multi-billion dollar venture backed by TPG, Brookfield, Bain Capital and others. Anthropic teamed up with alternative asset titans like Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, and Goldman Sachs to form a dedicated AI services company. AI labs are moving fast into services and deployment because model commoditization is a risk, and because adoption bottlenecks hurt revenue growth.

The Big Four are seemingly fine for now, touting alliances with the AI leaders, helping them scale AI implementation across their enterprise clients. However, professional consultants are clearly the next elevator boys, hanging by the thread of the “human in the loop” habit. The only chunk of the consulting business that is accelerating involves embedding the AI revolution into enterprises – and very soon, Anthropic and OpenAI will not require the help of PwC or Deloitte for that. They are the owners of the technology: why would they pay a toll for a booth on their own road?

The irony is pointed: the companies building the technology that makes middlemen obsolete are inserting themselves as the new middlemen between the AI model and the enterprise. But even this layer is temporary. Once AI agents can deploy themselves, even that layer compresses. The OpenAI and Anthropic JV story is the last gasp of the middleman era.

The real and durable beneficiaries of the AI economy are not the model builders. Raw intelligence, reasoning, and pattern-matching are no longer rare, expensive breakthroughs – they are becoming cheap, standardized, and universally accessible. Core AI technology is turning into a commodity, just like electricity once did – and the value moves both up and down the stack.

“Up the stack” is a constantly moving target. Right now, it sits in hyper-specific vertical applications – defense, aerospace, finance, and medicine – where proprietary data, regulatory compliance, and domain expertise create durable moats. It also lives in the integration layer: the software plumbing that turns raw AI reasoning into auditable, legally compliant enterprise actions.

In the near term, value will shift further to agentic orchestration – the “Agent Overlords” that coordinate swarms of specialized AI agents, manage workflows, handle exceptions, and maintain oversight across complex business processes. These control planes will become the new scarce and valuable layer, much as operating systems and databases once did. What comes after that is harder to predict, but the pattern is clear: as each layer commoditizes, the economic prize moves to the next bottleneck.

“Down the stack” is the physical layer underpinning everything, and that’s where the true moat is. Every agentic transaction, every automated workflow, every AI-mediated business relationship runs on cloud compute, which runs on power, which runs on tangible assets unlikely to be replaceable for at least the next decade. After a century of disruption, humanity has come full circle: the “boring” material world – acres, bricks, pipes, wires, water, and power – has once again become the real source of scarcity and enduring value.

OpenAI and Anthropic are the last of the middlemen: brilliant, richly capitalized, yet ultimately dependent on infrastructure they do not own. What sits beneath them is not a new intermediary – it is bedrock.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Gordons Bay Sunset 20260514

Investing and Sunshine: Positive Momentum While Guarding Against Worst Scenarios

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentBusinessCommoditiesCorporateExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsForexInvestingMajor Global Equity IndicesRobert Petrucci

The Reliability of Optimism in the Marketplace

Once again the world has not ended. The sun continues to rise and set on a daily basis and the world’s investment outlook remains towards an optimistic approach. Day traders should take this notion to heart and actually repeat it as a mantra when they consider pursuing the marketplace based on notions of fear.

Solid risk management equally needs solid risk taking tactics. And speculators need to always remember long-term investors are not basing their decisions on what will happen near-term, they are looking towards the future. While this may seem like a reminder a father would say to his children as a life lesson, day traders should not be offended, but use this as a keepsake and understand the world of investing is made up of elements that have proven durable.

Gordons Bay Sunset 20260514

Sunset over Gordon’s Bay, South Africa

While the price of energy, namely WTI Crude Oil, remains in elevated realms, corporations are still producing, and financial institutions have not shuttered their offices. There are some nervous types that speak about $200.00 a barrel Crude Oil, yet the higher price of the commodity remains perched near $100.00. This value is high compared to where the price of oil has traded the past few years, but the reality is that the current values of Crude Oil have been within these realms before and the economic world has survived. The price of Crude Oil is not going to hit $200.00 anytime soon.

Inflation is certainly an unwelcome specter, but there is the added fact that part of the long-term outlook is – if and when the Iran saga ends the price of WTI Crude Oil is likely to drop significantly. Yes, that is not going to happen near-term, but it is part of an optimistic view looking forward. In the meantime, commodity pricing has become a focus for large players who are taking advantage of fears and an ever flowing river of optimism which creates dynamic prices in agricultural resources. Logistics via fuel costs are certainly effected as is manufacturing and farming, but again let’s soothe ourselves with the knowledge most of those involved in these industries have dealt with high costs before and will constructively deal with the vagaries of mid-term uncertainty.

Almost needless to say, the U.S stock markets are doing extremely well per the results of the big indices. The S&P and Nasdaq have all gained in exquisite fashion since the end of March. Who had that on their bingo card? While financial institutions pouring money into equities likely didn’t count on double digits gains in one month’s time, that is what has happened and they will not complain. Perceptions about the sun continuing to show up even in the midst of rainstorms gets investors through whirlwinds. The U.S and China summit taking place now will also add a dose of optimism for equity investors who gear their visions towards results over a three to five years span.

Nasdaq 100 20260513

Nasdaq 100 One Year Chart as of 13th May 2026

Different Show and Outcomes for Day Traders

Day traders who are pursuing intraday results are not participating in the same environment as long-term investors. A casino like experience is the best comparison for many retail traders, but the option of trying to catch momentum and using techniques that can accomplish better results are available for those who try to ride the waves caused by big players. 

Some may view money as a game, but it is actually more aligned with the concept of a tool. If a retail trader – or institutional investor – participates in a particular asset, they must have an understanding of how it works. 

Trying to gauge behavioral sentiment is a key ingredient for speculators when trying to deduce what will happen in the marketplace. Predicting what will happen within an intraday framework is difficult at best. However, there is something to be said for understanding how the emotions of investors and large players work while they make their decisions – particularly when day traders are using these notions as a barometer. The trading in the USD/JPY is a prime example of how trading/investing and outlooks work:

Our Friend the Japanese Yen and Forex Opportunities

 

It is recommended that day traders do not try to tackle too many speculative sectors at the same time. It is urged that they get familiar with one part of the financial market and make it a specialty. 

No one can know everything. Experts in one area – like an academic field – often believe this entitles them to speak on a variety of subjects they have no expertise within and this often leads to catastrophe. Day traders need to make sure they are getting information from sources that are reliable. Because sure as heck the sun will rise and set, no matter what dire predictions are made by those who prefer to focus on the worst.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

India Insider GDP Savings and Investment 20260408

India Insider: Education, GDP and Personalized Growth a Difficult Balancing Act

by with No Comment AssetsBen EzraCorporateExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIndiaWorld

Is India Still 'The Country of the Future'?

In 1991, when India’s foreign exchange reserves had dwindled to barely three weeks of import cover, the government pledged its gold to the Bank of England. It was a moment of humiliation and, paradoxically, of liberation as the crisis forced an opening that three decades of socialist planning had resisted. Fast forward into 2025: India is a $4.1 trillion USD economy, the world’s most populous nation, with a moon rover, a thriving startup ecosystem, and a digital payments infrastructure the developed world now studies with envy.

This article asks if India is still ‘the country of the future’ using the same growth determinants framework applied by Professor Manoel Bittencourt to Brazil, and argues that the answer lies not primarily in corruption (though it matters), not in policy failure (though that matters too), but in two structural features that resist easy reform: the vast informality of the Indian economy, and the depth of its inequality.

Does Growth Matter? The 70/g Rule Applied to India

Before diagnosing India’s problems, we must appreciate what it has already achieved. Using the 70/g rule which tells us how many years it takes for income per capita to double at a given growth rate – India’s average GDP growth of roughly 6.5% since 1991 implies a doubling of income every 11 years. That is extraordinary by historical standards.

But averages mask distributions. If growth accrues predominantly to the formal sector – the top 10% of earners who hold formal employment, own financial assets, and participate in the organized economy, then the 70/g rule tells a story of elite enrichment, not a broad based development. This is India’s core dilemma.

The Eight Growth Determinants: India in the Data

Bittencourt’s framework identifies eight standard growth determinants: savings, fertility, rule of law, government consumption, trade openness, education and health investment, inflation, and finance. Let us examine some of each through Indian data, with Brazil as our comparator.

Savings & Investment

India’s gross savings rate has historically been a strength hovering around 30–32% of GDP through the 2000s and 2010s. But the investment picture is more troubled. Fixed capital formation has declined since its peak around 2011–12, driven by a stressed banking sector, weak private investment appetite, and an infrastructure gap. Brazil shows a similar pattern of savings-investment divergence  but India’s gap has widened more sharply in recent years.

India Insider GDP Savings and Investment 20260408

Gross Domestic Savings and Fixed Capital Formation. India vs Brazil. 2000-2023

Education & Health Spending

Perhaps nowhere is India’s “policy-delivery gap” more apparent than in social spending. India spends approximately 4.5% of GDP on education and just over 3% on health, and both figures are well below what comparable middle income countries invest. Brazil, despite its own fiscal struggles, consistently outspends India on health as a share of GDP. The consequences are visible in learning outcomes: the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) consistently finds that a significant share of Indian schoolchildren cannot read a simple paragraph or perform basic arithmetic.

This matters enormously for growth. An economy hoping to absorb millions of workers into formal, productive employment each year needs those workers to arrive with usable skills. When they do not, informal low productivity employment becomes the default  and cycles of informality perpetuate.

India Insider Public Education 20260408

Government Spending on Human Capital. India vs Brazil. 2000-2023

The Thesis: Informality as Structural Trap

Bittencourt identified corruption as the growth killer in Brazil. For India, the more precise diagnosis is informality and the inequality it both reflects and reinforces.

Consider the arithmetic: approximately 80% of India’s workforce is informally employed who are working without contracts, without social protection, without access to formal credit, and largely invisible to the tax system. This informal mass produces perhaps 50% of GDP. The productivity gap between the formal and informal sectors is staggering, and it does not shrink naturally with overall growth.

India Insider Formal Education 20260408

Share of Workforce in Formal Employment. India vs Brazil. 2000-2023

Brazil is itself a country with significant informality, but its formal sector share has grown meaningfully since the early 2000s, driven by the expansion of the Bolsa Família program, minimum wage policies, and labor formalization drives. India, by contrast, saw its already small formal sector shrink as a share of total employment after demonetization in 2016 and the disruptions of COVID-19. The gap between the two countries on this metric is instructive.

Inequality: When Growth Passes People By

India’s Gini coefficient – a standard measure of income inequality – has risen over the reform era even as aggregate poverty has fallen.  It shows the signature of unequal growth. The bottom quartile has seen real income gains, but the top decile has captured a disproportionate share of the growth dividend. Recent estimates suggest that India’s top 1% now hold a larger share of national income than at any point since Independence.

India Insider Income Distribution 20260408

Income Distribution India vs. Brazil.

Compare this to Brazil, which, despite its own severe inequality, pursued deliberate redistributive policies through the 2000s with Bolsa Família reaching 14 million families at its peak and a concerted minimum wage policy. India’s equivalents – the MNREGA rural employment guarantee, PM-Kisan farm payments are larger in coverage but smaller in benefit size at this stage, and reach informal workers imperfectly.

The Structural Complications

A purely data driven analysis, as Bittencourt himself acknowledged for Brazil, understates the depth of the challenge. India’s informality is not simply a policy failure, it is rooted in structures that predate modern economics.

The caste system, legally prohibited but still socially persistent, has historically sorted populations into occupational roles and those at the bottom of the hierarchy were systematically excluded from property ownership, formal education, and credit. Colonial de-industrialization destroyed the artisan economy that might otherwise have been a pathway to formal employment. The fragmentation of the federal system with 28 states running effectively different labor markets, land acquisition regimes, and social programs means that a policy that works in Tamil Nadu may fail in Uttar Pradesh.

These are not excuses. They are explanatory variables that any honest growth analysis must include.

What Does Growth Theory Tell Us to Do?

The prescription is not mysterious. If informality is the barrier, then the priority is to make formal employment more accessible through labor law simplification, portable social insurance that follows the worker rather than the employer, and a genuine skill based learning infrastructure that reaches the rural poor.

If inequality is the barrier, then the priority is redistribution that enhances human capital at the bottom – not cash transfers alone, but the quality of the school your child attends and the clinic your mother can access. India has the architecture of such systems; it does not yet have substantive results.

The demonstrators on India’s streets – whether farmers in 2020-21, or youth protesting paper leaks, or contract workers demanding permanence – know this intuitively. They are not asking for charity. They are asking to be absorbed into the formal economy that has prospered around them.

Conclusion: Is India Still the ‘Country of the Future’?

The answer to the question is Yes, and it is both an achievement and an indictment. India has built a moon program and yet cannot reliably staff a primary school. It has produced the world’s most used digital payments system and left 200 million people without bank accounts until recently. It exports software engineers to Silicon Valley, while its domestic labor market cannot absorb graduates at scale.

Brazil, our comparison, has struggled with its own version of this duality longer. But Brazil’s welfare state, however fiscally stressed has created a floor. India’s floor is thinner, and the drop beneath it steeper.

Informality is not the destiny for any developing economy. South Korea was deeply informal in the 1960s, China was an overwhelmingly rural agrarian nation in 1980. Both made transitions through deliberate, state led investment in human capital and formal employment creation. The path is known. The question for India in 2026 is whether the political will exists to progress via focused programs, or whether fifty years from now someone else will write another article illuminating the same structural problems.

Article Notes:

Data sources include the World Bank World Development Indicators, ILO Labour Statistics, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, ASER Centre (India), UNESCO Institute for Statistics, and IMF World Economic Outlook. Growth determinant categories follow Barro (2008) as synthesized by Bittencourt.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

post309

India Insider: Nifty Defense Index Surges in 2025 Rearmament

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentCorporateFeatured Highlights

India Insider: Nifty Defense Index Surges in 2025 Rearmament

2025 has marked a defining moment for defense equities, both globally and in India. The Nifty India Defence (Defense) Index, which tracks the country’s leading defense manufacturers, has surged sharply on the back of robust order flows, a structural policy shift, and increasingly volatile geopolitical conditions. This rise is not an isolated event but part of a broader global rearmament cycle that is reshaping the defense industrial landscape.

post309
Nifty India Defence (Defense) Index One Year Chart as of 20th November 2025

India’s defense sector has been one of the standout performers in the domestic equity market. By mid-2025, the Nifty Defense Index had risen more than 25% year to date, outperforming most sectoral indices. This rally is primarily anchored in strong capital expenditure by the Government of India, which continues to accelerate indigenous military modernization. The Defense Ministry’s approvals which is running into tens of thousands of crores have expanded visibility for companies such as HAL, Bharat Electronics, Bharat Dynamics, and shipbuilding PSUs (Public Sector Undertakings). For investors, the nature of long durations within defense order books has provided earnings stability at a time when other manufacturing sectors have been grappling with cyclical softness.

The second driver has been a multi-year strategic shift toward import substitution. India’s reliance on foreign weapons systems has long strained its current accounts and created operational vulnerabilities. However, the ongoing indigenization push, reinforced by Production Linked Incentive schemes, procurement embargoes on foreign systems, and export incentives, has fundamentally realigned the sector. Defense exports have crossed record levels, and Indian firms are increasingly integrated into global supply chains for electronics, avionics, and ammunition.

Global Industrial Defense Rebirth

But the domestic story is tightly interconnected with developments abroad. The global defense market is undergoing its most significant expansion since the post 9/11 decade. Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Red Sea shipping crisis, conflict in the Middle East, and a renewed great power rivalry in the Indo-Pacific have pushed countries to reassess defense readiness. NATO’s decision in 2025 to raise defense spending targets from 2% of GDP to 5% by 2035 has far reaching implications. This commitment translates into trillions of dollars in additional defense outlays over the coming decade, making Europe one of the fastest-growing defense markets.

Companies such as Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are already reporting record order inflows. Rheinmetall, Germany’s largest defense company, expects its revenues to quintuple by 2030, reflecting unprecedented demand for advanced artillery, ammunition, and combat vehicles. The United States, meanwhile, continues to channel significant funding into hypersonic, missile defense, and drone systems as competition with China intensifies.

India’s Edge in Rearmaments and Technology

This global rearmament wave has a direct spillover effect on India. International supply chain shortages particularly for semiconductors, propulsion systems, and munitions have created opportunities for Indian firms to plug capability gaps. With a cheaper cost base and growing technological sophistication, Indian defense manufacturers are emerging as viable exporters in segments such as UAVs, naval platforms, and electronic warfare systems.

In this environment, the rally in the Nifty Defense Index is not merely speculative exuberance, but a significant reflection of structural and synchronized global demand. As defense has evolved from a low beta sector to a strategic growth industry, India’s integration into the global defense economy positions its companies for sustained earnings expansion over the next decade.