Weekend reading links

1. US equity markets fact of the week.

In the year to March 2026, the US received well over $600bn in net equity inflows. Not only was this a record sum, it was also double the flow into government and agency bonds. Net equity flows exceeded debt flows by the largest margin in history.

2. US utilities are shifting from net metering to net billing on rooftop and home solar installations.

Many utilities pay homeowners the same rate they charge for electricity, meaning the energy sent to the grid when the sun is out offsets the cost of the energy pulled from the grid at night. That’s called net metering, a system where the energy you send is worth typical U.S. prices of 10 to 30-plus cents per kilowatt-hour. Under newer policies, often called net billing, utilities buy the extra energy back at a lower rate, often 2 to 10 cents.

3. In a country ravaged by deflation (pork prices have hit a 16-year low), egg prices are rising in China.

Egg prices are up by more than 40 percent from a year ago, according to an index that tracks the top producing provinces. They recently hit a 10-year high by another benchmark that tracks prices at a wholesale market in Guantao, in northern China... Two years ago, farmers started expanding after several bumper years, adding more egg-laying hens from 2024 to 2025 than ever before, according to Aspen Li, an analyst who studies the egg market. Suddenly, there were too many eggs and the price plunged. Farmers then found themselves short of money to feed all their chickens. So they culled them, at a rate that experts considered excessive. Eventually, there were not enough egg-laying hens to meet demand, sending prices to levels that Mr. Li said were “even higher than my expectations.”

4. Japan's return to normalcy.

5. President Xi's flagship Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects hit a record $20.1 bn in green energy financing in the first half of 2026, topping its total value for the whole of 2025, 

Total BRI deals rose to a record high of $126.3bn in the first half of 2026, up from $123.3bn in the same period in 2025. The 2026 figure was composed of $49.8bn in investment and $76.5bn in construction projects.

A distinguishing feature of BRI projects is the increased share of the private sector.

The latest data highlighted how the BRI had become primarily driven by private companies rather than China’s state-owned enterprises. According to the University of Queensland data, the share of engagement from the private sector, as opposed to SOEs, reached 48 per cent in the first half, compared with 13 per cent in 2022.

6. The Great Divergence between labour productivity and wages. 

Labour's share of income has fallen sharply.

7. Tata Zudio is following in the footsteps of Zara.

Despite its bargain offerings, Tata said gross margins at Trent, which includes the more upmarket Westside clothing stores, stood at 44 to 45 per cent. “The playbook is you go end-to-end — you go from the source of the product to the customer and you do everything yourself in between,” he said. “That’s why we do our own transporting. We do our own warehousing. We have our own shops. The manufacturing units we use are more or less dedicated to us.”... Zudio eschews online retailing, believing that high return rates clog up the operation and generate too much extra cost.Rapid turnover is key to Zudio’s appeal. New lines are launched every Thursday and a team of social media watchers monitors fashion trends and feeds them to a design team.

8. The IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic could generate a massive flush of philanthropic capital.

Nan Ransohoff, the head of public goods at the payment processor Stripe, estimated in a Substack post, between $37 billion and $100 billion could become available to charities annually... And that doesn’t even include OpenAI’s employees. Or the newly rich created by SpaceX, whose I.P.O. spawned an estimated 4,400 millionaires (and some 400 employees now worth more than $100 million). Or the many other IP.O.s on the docket... Giving money away is a common maneuver to avoid taxes: Up to 74 cents of every dollar donated to charity would have been paid as taxes, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. It reported that charitable giving in 2022 alone had resulted in $73 billion in lost tax revenue.

9.  Debt service and defence make up two-thirds of Pakistan's budget expenditure.

10. On Europe's pensions problem.

Across the EU, 47 per cent of the bloc’s social protection expenditure is spent on old age and survivors’ benefits, ahead of 36.7 per cent spent on sickness and disability and 8.7 per cent on families and children. Even in the UK, where private provision plays a greater role, the country’s fiscal watchdog has forecast that spending on the state pension — the second-largest item in the government budget after health — will rise from almost 5 per cent of GDP to 7.7 per cent by the early 2070s. Italy has the EU’s highest pension costs at just over 15 per cent of GDP, according to statistics from the European Commission. France and Greece each spend over 14 per cent. In Germany, a third of all federal tax revenue will be spent plugging holes in the state pension system this year, according to an estimate by Munich economic think-tank Ifo... 

In France, the audit office estimated last year that the country’s pension deficit, currently around €1.7bn, could grow to €15bn by 2035 and balloon out to €30bn by 2045 if further reforms are not made. European countries have tried to tackle their surging pension costs since the 1990s, and have had some successes, with many lifting the state pension age from 65 to 67 or more. Italy has tied its pension age to life expectancy, while France has pegged annual pension increases to consumer price inflation rather than earnings. In some countries, spending on pensions as a percentage of GDP is set to fall in the long term as a result of such moves...

In most big European countries including Germany, France, Italy and Spain, the state provides the main earnings-related pension, paid for by contributions from current workers, which aims to replace a proportion of pre-retirement income. Such systems were modelled after the one created by Otto von Bismarck, who introduced national state pensions in 1889 to ward off surging socialism and strengthen loyalty to the authoritarian German monarchy... It paid up to 20 per cent of average salary to industrial workers when it became payable. It was designed to prevent destitution rather than facilitate a comfortable retirement. Other countries soon followed. In the UK, Prime Minister David Lloyd George ushered in old age pensions in 1909... A full UK state pension is currently close to a third of median earnings; private provision, usually through workplace schemes, is meant to provide additional security in retirement... Italy has one of Europe’s highest replacement rates, with pensions paying out close to 80 per cent of average earnings... Contribution rates, from workers and their employers, are correspondingly high at 33 per cent of earnings in Italy, 28 per cent in France and 19 per cent in Germany... That compares with an average of over 20 per cent in the UK — paid via national insurance — and just 11 per cent in the US.

11. Ramesh Chand argues for rationalising the PDS and moving to a nutrition security programme.

Between 2013-14 and 2025-26, India’s real per capita income (net national income at 2011-12 prices) increased by 78 per cent, from ₹68,572 to about ₹1.22 lakh... At the time of the NFSA’s enactment, around 22 per cent of the population lived below the poverty line. Both official estimates and independent studies now suggest that poverty had declined to around 5 per cent by 2022-23... In the early years of the NFSA, roughly one-third of the beneficiaries were poor and two-thirds were above the poverty line. By 2025-26, only about 10 per cent of those receiving free food grains were estimated to be below the poverty line while the remaining 90 per cent were non-poor... The latest UN report... estimates that the proportion of Indians unable to afford a healthy diet declined sharply from 59.8 per cent in 2017 to 35.5 per cent in 2025. In absolute terms, the number of such people fell from 759 million to 589 million. This indicates that about 170 million people crossed the affordability threshold for a healthy diet during this period as their purchasing power improved... The prevalence of undernourishment in India declined from 13 per cent in 2013-14 to 9.8 per cent during 2023-25, indicating progress but at a relatively slow pace.

12. The Fed under Kevin Warsh appears to be facing a credibility crisis as it grapples with rising inflation.

As Mr. Warsh spoke, longer dated Treasury yields rose sharply, with the 30-year bond closing in on its May peak of 5.2 percent. That was the highest level since 2007. The rise in the 30-year Treasury yield suggests some worry about Mr. Warsh’s ability to tackle inflation in the long run.

And this.

Long-term government borrowing costs shot higher as Mr. Warsh spoke, with the 30-year bond notching its largest one-day increase in more than a year. Trading around 5.22 percent, it is at the highest level since 2007. The 10-year Treasury yield, which serves as the benchmark for borrowing costs around the world, also rose alongside expectations about inflation over a longer time horizon.

13. FT has a long read describing the story of Situational Awareness, the $20 bn hedge fund of 24-year-old Leopold Aschenbrenner, which had racked up gains over 400 per cent on the back of massive leverage, and has now run into the wrong side of the AI sell-off. The fund sold its portfolio to Ken Griffin's Citadel in an almost distressed sale. Apart from being an alumnus of OpenAI, Aschenbrenner is also the husband of Avital Balwit, who now works as chief of staff to the CEO of Anthropic. 

What stands out in the entire article is the reluctance to call out the obvious contributor to Aschenbrenner's success: the strong likelihood of insider trading at a massive scale. It is hard to believe that the smart investors who were betting on Situational Awareness were betting on the expertise or competence of Leopold Aschenbrenner, and not on the insider information he possessed.  

14. Fascinating snippet on wealth creation in the equity markets.

Economic analyst Hendrik Bessembinder has shown that half of the net wealth creation in US stock markets over the last century flowed from just 46 public companies, out of a total of almost 30,000. Looking at his list of the greatest wealth creators, the knowledge companies dominate the top spots, and all the winners have high walls around them.

Weekend reading links

1. SpaceX IPO is ample proof that the Chinese wall between equity research and investment banking in IB firms is a myth.

You might expect wildly divergent views on a company as speculative as SpaceX. Here the underwriters disagreed only over the scale of the upside. Sceptical voices came from outside the syndicate. Morningstar, for example, valued the shares at $63.

This is now dead

When the dotcom bubble burst, regulators uncovered emails showing that Wall Street analysts were privately disparaging stocks they were publicly touting. A 2003 global settlement between banks and regulators on analyst research imposed sweeping restrictions. It barred investment bankers from influencing analyst compensation, tightly controlled communications between research and banking, and banned analysts from IPO pitches and roadshows. New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer’s premise was that shielding analysts from bankers would deliver truly independent — and better — research. On one level, the reforms succeeded. Banks have constructed a robust compliance apparatus to wall off research from investment banking. “Chaperones” now police interactions between analysts and corporate finance to prevent even the appearance of pressure. The Spitzer global settlement formally ended last December in favour of more flexible rules overseen by an industry association.

It is hard to see how SpaceX shares can avoid a cratering.

About 30 per cent of the roughly 640mn SpaceX shares available to trade have been borrowed to sell short, up 10 percentage points over the past 10 days, highlighting how traders are becoming increasingly sceptical of the company’s market prospects... About 900mn further SpaceX shares could become available to trade as soon as next month when certain lock-up provisions for pre-IPO investors expire. Traders who doubt there is sufficient demand for the deluge of extra equity are cashing out now as a result, market participants say.

2. After reducing their hiring last year, firms with jobs exposed to AI are planning to increase their entry-level hiring this year, but they come with a "seniorisation". 

Candidates for starter roles in the most AI-exposed industries are now expected to show a mastery of the skills traditionally demanded of more seasoned staff, such as data-driven decision-making and people management... Eleanor Lightbody, CEO of Luminance, which develops AI for the legal profession, says these middle layers could be squeezed out altogether, “because we are going to hire more juniors, who are really going to understand how AI works, and more seniors [are] staying in the business because [by using AI], they can be more productive and have more capacity”. The challenge for job seekers is that it is hard to find entry-level jobs that allow them to develop the higher proficiency that seniorised roles now require... Reliance on AI is increasing the demand for distinctively human “soft skills” — or “power skills”, as some are now calling them — such as creativity, empathy, judgment and networking ability. PwC’s jobs report found that new tasks added to job adverts for AI-exposed roles were two and a half times as likely to call for such capabilities.

3. Very good description of how China became so dominant.

It enticed unsuspecting giants such as Apple, Tesla, Motorola, and Lucent with low-cost logic. When sufficient local manpower was trained, subcontractors developed, and stakes became important, China applied the squeeze. China would break contracts, cancel licences, coerce the transfer of technology, control pricing, withdraw incentives, force equity participation, conscript technology and evict them. Huawei, BYD, CATL, and SAIC are some examples of the resulting indigenous giants that emerged. In an act of silent invasion, conscripted technologies have been converted into military capability. It is dominant as a supplier of several raw materials, such as rare earth minerals, gallium, graphite, and lithium; a dominant buyer of soya from Brazil and iron ore and wines from Australia; a financier of BRI projects; and a provider of processing technologies for Chilean copper and lithium in select South American countries. With this web of dependencies, it can choke several factories.

4. Janan Ganesh feels that for Britain to start making real reforms, the incoming PM Andy Burnham must do more welfare and subsidies and discredit the whole .ideology.

What is the precedent for a rich democracy doing pre-emptive economic reform? Which nation ever made controversial structural changes — involving winners and losers — to prevent a crisis, rather than in response to one? Southern Europe needed the Eurozone panic of 2009 onwards to make spending cuts. Hawke, Keating, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were reacting to 1970s stagflation. François Mitterrand in 1983 was reacting to a market shock that to some extent he’d created. Reform only happens when it absolutely has to happen. So try again, prime minister. Fail again. Fail worse.

5. Japan embraces a more proactive government-driven economic growth policy.

Sanae Takaichi's cabinet approved a policy blueprint that targets a combined $2.3tn of public and private sector investment between now and 2040 in 17 chosen sectors. Ministries will be able to make budget requests without upper limits; budget construction, according to the document, will be “fundamentally” changed. Much of the blueprint is about economic security, but a refreshingly large amount is about growth... possibly the most meaningful lines in the new strategy place Japan’s future efforts in the global context. “Among advanced countries, there is a big trend of the government and private sectors working together on large-scale, long-term industrial spending,” it read... The government would strive, the document further promised, to meet the challenges of “the era of great global competition between industrial policies”... 

On the same day that the blueprint was agreed, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry produced separate guidance for growth investment — an effort to encourage Japan’s 4,000-odd listed companies to shift more of their endeavours towards growth and a witheringly blunt critique of how matters are at the moment. Within Japan’s 350 largest companies (by sales), 65 per cent of invested capital remains locked in what it calls value-destructive segments, according to METI’s research. In the US, the equivalent ratio is 39 per cent. Both Takaichi’s blueprint and the new METI guidelines are attempting a new version of industrial policy that not only seeks to spur growth, but places a huge bet on the government’s ability to encourage companies in a way that market forces have not.

6. Kevin Warsh is trying to scale down forward guidance

“Financial market prices are probably the most important source of information to guide central bankers,” he said at his inaugural press conference last month. “But when all the financial markets are doing is reflecting back what we’ve said, then we’re taking the most important source of information and we’re being blind to it.” Many agree with the Fed chair’s view that central banks’ focus on predictability has led to a world in which markets obsess more over what officials say than what is actually happening in the economy. “Forward guidance has turned markets into a mirror,” says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, global chair of research at Barclays. “The Fed watches markets; markets watch the Fed. And no one’s actually watching the economy.”...

Recent research by the US central bank suggests its decisions also have an outsized impact on equity markets, leading to big changes in how investors price stocks. Advocates of forward guidance say it helps avoid the sort of surprises for the markets that feed overall volatility and eventually raise borrowing costs as investors demand greater compensation to stomach market swings. Warsh and his allies counter that the attempt to pacify markets simply encourages greater risk-taking, damping short-term volatility but storing up bigger shocks for later. The debate is all the more important because of the backdrop: the surge in borrowing over almost two decades. Government debt around the world has risen sharply following the global financial crisis, the Eurozone crisis, the pandemic and the wars of the 2020s...

Some analysts highlight the so-called taper tantrum of 2013 — when markets were unnerved by Fed statements about its plans to shrink its balance sheet as a result of officials’ false sense of certainty. Others link the 2023 collapse of the US’s Silicon Valley Bank to central bankers’ previous pledge to keep interest rates low.

This is a very important factoid about Fed communications.

Between 1990 and 2022, an era in which the status and prominence of central banks steadily grew, US 10-year government bond yields fell by more than 7 percentage points. All of the downward moves throughout that period took place during the three days around Fed meetings, rather than in response to political events or economic data. But the relationship broke down after the Fed appeared flat-footed on inflation in 2022. The Riksbank data shows that the central bank’s meetings had little to do with the subsequent rise in yields.

An important concern for the bond markets is the sharply increased volume of Treasuries held by hedge funds that use leverage to bet on tiny differences in interest rates. 

The Fed estimates that large hedge funds’ holdings of US Treasuries doubled between 2023 and 2025, faster than the growth of the market as a whole. Such funds now own more than $2.5tn in Treasuries, according to the US central bank and US Treasury data. Such sums dwarf China’s official holdings — not an exhaustive account of the country’s exposure — which have fallen from $1tn in December 2021 to $659bn in May 2026, according to US Treasury statistics. Moreover, the Bank for International Settlements, the central bankers’ bank, has warned that the hedge funds might have to dial back their stakes in government bond markets even quicker than they arrived — a possibility it describes as one of the most troubling financial stability risks in the world today.

Then there are the other concerns for bond markets.

The Bank of England said this month that AI hyperscalers borrowed more in the first half of 2026 than in the whole of 2025. So far this year they have accumulated as much new debt as the UK government. An interest-rate surprise from the Warsh Fed might not only unsettle Treasury yields but set off a vicious circle of margin calls — when a sudden price movement in assets bought with borrowed money requires an injection of capital — and fire sales by hedge funds that could create a dash for cash.

7. A cautionary tale on the difficulty of private enterprise establishing and managing entire railway systems comes from the example of Brightline Express, which connects Miami and Orlando, and became operational in 2023.

Brightline traces its roots to 2007, when Edens’ Fortress spent $3.5bn to acquire Florida East Coast Railway, then a listed freight transport company. Its tracks spanned from north to south in the Sunshine State, and construction for what would become Brightline began in 2014, with the Orlando service beginning a decade later. In a 2024 bond prospectus, Brightline executives forecast that by 2026 they would have nearly 8mn annual riders, split roughly evenly between the Orlando-Miami route and a more local service in South Florida. That base of customers was expected to generate $700mn in revenue... Even with customer levels up 16 per cent year to date through May this year, ridership will struggle to hit 4mn this year. Operating income has at best reached break-even before debt service costs... 

The promoter Wes Edens’ Fortress wrote off its investment long ago, and it is now hedge fund bondholders who are jockeying for control of Brightline. But alongside distressed debt specialists such as Nut Tree Capital Management, Aristeia Capital and Redwood Capital Management, there are a handful of more staid asset managers including Nuveen and First Eagle also at the table. As well as corporate bonds issued by subsidiaries, the group’s debt stack includes more than $2bn of traditional municipal bonds, half of which are guaranteed by a bond insurer.

Some thoughts on the AI trade

The AI trade is clearly blowing into a bubble of utterly spectacular proportions. 

FT Alphaville points to the interesting reality that both equity valuations and earnings of the underlying companies are in bubble territory. They quote from the monthly market update by Joachim Klement and Francisca Reis of Panmure Liberum.

In 1929, the cyclically-adjusted P/E-ratio (CAPE) of the S&P 500 reached 32.6x according to Prof. Robert Shiller’s data. This was 1.8 standard deviations above trend at the time. In 2000, the CAPE reached 44.2x, or 3.3 standard deviations above trend – a clear sign of a bubble. However, as our chart below shows, earnings in both instances were within normal range, less than one standard deviation above trend. Today, the CAPE is at 41.0x, or 2.9 standard deviations above trend. Once again, we are clearly in bubble territory for stock market valuations. 

However, unlike in previous bubbles, we are having extremely high CAPE at a time when earnings themselves are 1.8 standard deviations above trend. In other words, we are in a valuation bubble at a time when earnings are in a bubble themselves. If we correct for the earnings bubble, the current CAPE would be 67.6x or 4.6 standard deviations above trend, a bubble that surpasses anything ever seen in US history by an extreme margin. If valuations followed a normal distribution (which they don’t, so don’t take this literally), this would happen in 0.00019% of months or once every 43,432 years.

See just the Shiller CAPE ratio.

That being the case, what makes any assessment of the AI trade problematic is its unique nature. 

It is the creation of a general-purpose technology that is most certain to transform several aspects of business models, work practices and trends, and life itself (and maybe even more). There are five stakeholders on the supply side of the AI story - semiconductor chips, cloud and data centre infrastructure, LLMs, financing, and support services. They encompass a vast spectrum of businesses - chip designers and makers, equipment makers, cloud infrastructure services, AI LLM developers, data centre developers, utilities, financial institutions, etc. On the demand side are all the different kinds of AI applications users, spanning every imaginable industry. 

While the LLMs and the cloud services are software, the rest are all hardware. At the vanguard are the top public limited companies of our times, all with formidable moats and strong balance sheets. Till the recent surge in private credit, the AI investments were being financed from their large cash surpluses. Further, all of them make massive and growing profits, even creating an earnings bubble. Finally, given the network effects generally associated with digital technologies, the AI landscape is more likely to create winner-takes-all markets. 

Also, so far, the AI trade has been running on the massive investments pouring into the development of AI LLMs and their applications. This investment binge is being driven by an intensely competitive race to outdo each other in improving the LLM algorithms and building up scale capabilities. The achievements to date on this have been truly spectacular. The applications development, though gathering pace, is lagging. No killer Apps or hardware have emerged on the landscape. 

The true reckoning for the AI trade will depend on whether the AI algorithms developed will find commercially valuable use cases. More specifically, whether these use cases, which will emerge in the years ahead, will justify the massive investments already made and being committed. 

Even more specifically, if the market smell tests of the AI promise endure, the bubble will continue to inflate. Such persistence of bubble inflation is, to a great extent, the perpetuation of stories. Elon Musk and SpaceX are the totemic illustrations. The two critical metrics of aggregate profits possible from the AI industry are the addressable market and margins. However, both are nearly maxed out in the valuation pricing on the upstream (supply) side. The best that can therefore be expected is that the downstream (demand) AI applications industry starts to create successful products. This would let the AI trade inflate more, at least for the immediate future.

On the contrary, if the market smell test points to the other way, at least in a few vanguard areas like autonomous driving or software development or healthcare and life sciences, then all bets are off and the wheels will start to come off. Another downward pathway is if the upstream supply-side margins start to get squeezed due to competition or disruption or rising costs. Given the asymmetric nature of such turns (bubble inflated gradually upwards, but the pop could be rapid), we could then see a rapid unravelling of the AI trade, with all its disruptive implications. The disruptions could be economy-wide, far deeper and broader than with the dotcom and other bubbles, given the wide sweep of markets that the AI industry has enveloped. 

Interestingly, even as the seven largest data centre operators are planning to spend $848 bn this year, five times what they spent in 2022, the stock prices of the applications-side hyperscalers are struggling. Microsoft is down nearly 20% this year, and Meta is down 11%. The AI trade is now running purely on the chipmakers. 

The critical place in the market to keep a close eye on may be the downstream side of AI applications and product development.

Weekend reading links

1. New research by Emma Harrington, Natalia Emanuel, and Amanda Pallais shows that remote work is adversely impacting mental health. They paraphrase Robert Putnam to argue that Americans "typing alone" brings serious social consequences. 

In 2024, nearly 80 percent of workers said they would be happiest if they could work remotely... Surveys of over half a million Americans from the last decade and a half revealed an uncomfortable truth: Despite its advantages, remote work has significantly deepened Americans’ isolation and distress. Our estimates indicate that remote work explains a third of the deterioration in mental health between 2011 and 2024... Our study compares workers in jobs that could be done remotely, such as finance and software engineering, with workers in jobs that must be done in person. People in remote-capable jobs worked from home three times as often in 2024 as in 2019. As they did, their days became far more solitary. Eighty-four percent of remote workers spend their workday entirely alone. Over half report feeling less connected to their colleagues. Even when communicating online, people working from home receive less feedback from their co-workers and contact fewer people outside their immediate teams.

These workers did not compensate by socializing more outside work. More days passed with no social contact of any kind... In one study, when commuters were instructed to connect with a stranger near them, they reported being happier than those who continued in silence as usual, much to their own surprise. With fewer social encounters, workers in jobs that can be remote saw steeper increases in distress, mental health visits and prescriptions for antidepressants than other workers did... The pain was not evenly shared. People who lived with their spouse and kids saw their mental health hold fairly steady, while those who lived alone experienced a 20 percent decrease in mental well-being. Overall, we found that the rise of remote work increased distress by 7 percent, which accounts for a third of the total increase over the 13-year period we measured.

They argue that face-to-face time with colleagues has no substitute.

2. Katie Martin points to the different ways in which bonds and equities are reacting to Trump policies.

US government bonds, or Treasuries, have never recovered from the drop in price they suffered around the start of the war. Investors in this market, who broadly consider themselves a more cerebral bunch than those in stocks, never bought the hints of a ceasefire with Iran. Bond prices have still not returned to square one, leaving borrowing costs markedly higher. With the prospect of interest rate rises ahead to douse inflation pressures exacerbated by the Iran war, and relentless more borrowing, this is likely to remain the case for some time.

3. As AI threatens to bring down India's tech sector, this is a good article.

On the whole, Indian IT companies spent around 3.7 per cent of their total revenue on R&D in the year that the report covered. This is minuscule compared to around 15 to 25 per cent that Silicon Valley companies spend on R&D. The top IT companies are laggards of first order. For example, in 2022-23, Infosys spent just 0.9 per cent of its total revenue on R&D. The figure for TCS was 1.30 per cent. For Wipro it was 0.5 per cent while for HCL it was 1.60 per cent. The other big companies don’t fare all too well. Reliance, a giant in every way, spent only 0.53 per cent of its total turnover on R&D in 2022-23. Tata Steel is at 0.67 per cent. Maruti Suzuki spent 0.65 per cent on R&D.

4. Indian markets have more to fall before they become competitive.

The FPI outflows have tracked the decline of rupee, feeding a self-fulfilling cycle.

5. The costs of RBI's FCNR (B) deposits and foreign currency borrowing schemes. 

If the scheme were to attract $50 billion of FCNR (B) deposits and $20 billion of foreign borrowing by banks and public-sector enterprises, the mark-to-market loss on the RBI’s swap position could approach ₹64,000 crore at current market prices, besides increasing the RBI’s balance-sheet risk. This is not merely an accounting cost. The subsidy is real and will be monetised by participating non-resident Indians (NRIs), banks and borrowers.   

Large Indian banks are raising five-year FCNR (B) deposits in dollars at 6 per cent. Their attractiveness is evident from the willingness of overseas banks to lend against the same deposits at around 5 per cent. This, in turn, will allow wealthy NRIs to achieve double-digit leveraged dollar returns against India cross-border risk. Indian banks can further transform the FCNR (B) deposits into clean five-year rupee funding at around 6.4 per cent, below comparable government bond yields.

Will the RBI regret having offered the FCNR (B) deposits to NRIs?

Banks are being permitted to offer leverage to NRIs. The currency risk on such deposits will be borne by the RBI. As reported by this newspaper, State Bank of India is offering leverage of up to nine times on deposits of more than $1 million. Calculations indicate that this could translate into returns of over 14 per cent. Other banks are likely to come up with similar schemes for NRIs.

Banks are competing aggressively for FCNR (B), and are also offering leverage to increase returns.  

6. A new large-scale survey experiment of EU companies shows that firms substantially underestimate competitors' current AI investment, and when updated about their competitors' future AI investment plans they increase their own AI investment plans in a statistically significant manner. But this effect, while strong for domestic peers, is weak for information on foreign peers. 

We documented large underestimation of competitor AI investment, substantial belief updating in response to information, and a clear asymmetry in how firms react to domestic versus foreign competition... A 1 pp increase in the expected share of domestic peers investing in AI raises a firm's own expected AI investment rate by 0.570 pp. These complementarities are absent across borders: the effect of an increase in the expected share of foreign peers investing in AI on a firm's own expected AI investment rate is statistically insignificant... Firms update both domestic and foreign beliefs when informed, but their own expected AI investment rate responds primarily to domestic posterior beliefs. These findings suggest that strategic complementarities in innovation weaken with distance, broadly understood to include not only geography but also informational, cultural, and market frictions... This asymmetry helps explain why AI diffusion may remain geographically uneven, even within an integrated economic area like Europe. While firms may observe and learn from foreign competitors, their behavioral response to such foreign signals is much weaker compared to domestic competitors.

7. Aswath Damodaran makes a great point about hedge funds, private equity, and private credit - all niche businesses which had a role, but have vastly overextended themselves and set themselves up for failure. 

Each one began as a genuinely good niche business solving a real problem. Hedge funds 30 years ago produced positive alpha, beating passive investing by 3 to 5 percent annually. Today they look like expensive mutual funds, underperforming passive by roughly 1.5 percent. Private equity started as a focused, disciplined strategy for a small set of operators and has grown into a sprawling category that now struggles to deliver the returns that justified its emergence. Private credit had a legitimate original purpose, which was lending to borrowers that banks structurally could not serve. What killed each of these businesses was the same disease. Overreach. A $200 billion niche business gets sold as a $20 trillion opportunity. When that scaling happens, sloppiness follows, bad actors enter the space, and the average quality of every participant deteriorates. The original alpha disappears not because the strategy stopped working, but because too much money chased too few good deals. The danger with private credit is far more severe than the parallel problems in private equity and hedge funds. Equity investors take their losses and move on. Lending businesses, when they overreach, take others down with them. Banks. Pensions. Insurance companies. Sovereign wealth funds. The systemic linkages run far deeper than most participants understand, and the social costs of a real default cycle in private credit would extend well beyond the funds themselves.

8. Friedrich Merz initiates measures to address Germany's rising pension burden, which took up 41% of all federal government welfare spending in 2024. The proposals came from a bipartisan committee of MPs who were appointed to examine and make suggestions. 

Germany’s pay-as-you-go system is facing widening deficits, with 16.5mn baby boomers retiring by 2036 and only 12.5mn new workers joining the workforce, according to the Cologne Institute for Economic Research. The government in 2024 paid €118bn to plug holes in the system, or about a quarter of the total federal budget. That share could double to 50 per cent within the next two decades, according to economists... Under the proposal, a compulsory individual contribution of 2 per cent of salaries would “be managed centrally and invested in capital markets”... The move would be a novelty for risk-averse and cash-loving Germans, who have been more reluctant than European peers to embrace capital markets to invest their large savings... Other recommendations include linking the statutory retirement age — currently 67 — to the country’s life expectancy and withdrawing early-retirement incentives. For every year gained, people should work eight months longer, the commission proposed. The experts also suggested raising the age — currently 64 — at which people who have made contributions for 45 years are able to go into retirement with their full pensions. Unions are likely to oppose the measure.

9. India has been a laggard in attracting FDI.

10. Ten years on, Brexit has turned to 'Bregret'!

The Brexiteers persuaded a small majority — the vote was 52 percent to 48 percent — that Britain could throw out the austerity that had followed the 2008 global financial crash, reverse the hollowing out of well-paid manufacturing jobs and trade freely and profitably on international markets. Immigrants who had flocked to Britain from Eastern and Central Europe would be sent home. Europe merely held Britain back, and to choose to leave was to believe, as Britons had before, that the nation was meant for more... 

It was, of course, a fantasy... The economy has stalled and trade has shrunk. Britain is poorer than it might have been. Its gross domestic product is at least 4 percent — but could be as much as 8 percent — lower, according to independent calculations, while business investment is more than 10 percent lower. It added new frictions to the lives of Britons: new border checks when traveling to E.U. countries, stricter residency rules for living there, fewer opportunities for students to study abroad. Even just using a cellphone while “roaming” often costs more than it used to. There have been other costs, one of them a weakening of the glue between the nations of the United Kingdom itself. The referendum result was more a statement of English than of British nationalism — majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Forced to leave, Scottish nationalists claimed stronger cause to promote their case for full independence from England, and the complex political arrangements for Northern Ireland needed to protect the Good Friday peace agreement between Irish nationalists and British unionists in the province have weakened the cause of the unionists.

Rather than a newly independent Britain cutting a swath on the international stage, economic realities forced cuts in spending on foreign aid and diplomacy. The hopes among Brexiteers for a new Anglosphere, adding the English-speaking Commonwealth nations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States, turned to dust, and Britain’s privileged place in Washington was lost to Mr. Trump’s disdain for traditional alliances.

11. Fascinating graphic that maps the values of AI models.

The models’ answers, in English, on topics ranging from political petitions to God, suggest values that are different from those of most people. In fact, the models are often more extreme than the average respondent in every country included in the polling. On the survey’s “cultural map”, " AI models fall overwhelmingly into the quadrant populated by rich countries. The worldview of GPT models, created by OpenAI, is more secular than any country on earth (see chart 1). Gemini models, made by Google, place more weight on individual freedom (for example, “homosexuality is justifiable”) than people do anywhere. No model reflects the worldviews of most African or Muslim countries.

12. The Economist looks at the issue of popular backlash against AI. This scenario in particular is important.

Scenarios in which some countries give in to popular rage but others forge ahead are also worrying. If America succumbs, it could cede the global ai frontier, and the attendant cyber and military capabilities, to authoritarian China. Europe and Canada are more risk-averse than America. If they choked off ai while the rest of the world kept pushing forward, their losses could be unrecoverable. More than two centuries after the Industrial Revolution, few countries have managed to catch up with the first movers.

13. Rolex SA is a profit-making company with $12-13 bn in revenues and $3-4 bn in profits whose ultimate owner is a spiritual holding company (SHC), a charitable trust called the Hans Wildorf Foundation. Rolex SA has no public shareholders, investors, or owning family, and has been so since 1960. A similar example is Robert Bosch GmbH, the German engineering giant, which has 94% ownership by the Robert Bosch Foundation (SHC) holds 94 per cent and the Bosch family the rest. In both cases, the management and ownership have been clearly separated.

Examining the gravitational pull of index investing

The blockbuster IPO of SpaceX has drawn attention to the role of the index investing market segment, which originated fifty years ago. The scrutiny will only intensify in the days ahead as both Anthropic and OpenAI are listed. 

Despite only about 4 per cent of SpaceX’s shares being listed, a high level of demand was built in, also because some index investors will soon be required to add the company to their portfolios. Nasdaq amended its rules (as also CRSP and FTSE Russell) to allow SpaceX to enter the Nasdaq-100 index via fast-track, thereby providing it free liquidity through a captive market. Morningstar follows 6,006 US-registered mutual funds and 5,100 ETFs, covered by 3,203 separate benchmark indices against which $41.1tn of assets are managed. 

The current entry requirements for indices are very liberal for large companies.

However, what distinguishes SpaceX is its very low float (just 4.25% compared to above 90% for the other big companies) and the fact that it does not yet make any profit. Toby Nangle and Co at FT Alphaville tabulated that active fund managers (who want to ignore Musk) and passive portfolio managers (who have no choice) must purchase $14.2bn of SpaceX stock in the first three weeks of trading to avoid going short. 

We think that managers who have absolutely no interest in going either long or short Elon will need to collectively buy $8.5bn of SpaceX stock on the 19th June, a further $1bn on 26th June and a final $4.7bn on July 3. And so we’re talking a cumulative, de facto mandated $14.2bn of mutual fund and ETF orders by July 4 to avoid having to take a view on Elon. That number would’ve been around $11bn higher if the S&P 500 index committee had leaned a different way. But it’s $13.2bn bigger than the $1bn it would’ve been if index committees had sat tight on their existing fast-track methodologies. And this is before we count institutional assets like pension funds, insurers and foundations, as well as every single foreign owner whose benchmarking habits we currently lack information.

So this is a big deal. Clearly, the market has been brazenly manipulated by changing the rules to create the stage for SpaceX (and the other two mega IPOs). 

I took the help of Claude to generate a few graphics to understand the scale of index investing, its dynamics and distortions, and possible reforms. 

The conventional measures dramatically understate index investing because they count only labelled index mutual funds and ETFs. However, using the indexation definition, passive ownership of global equity mutual funds and ETFs is 50% and 60% for US equities. In fact, a stunning three-fourths of the equity market exposure of the big three US asset managers is through ETFs.

SpaceX’s shares could have an index exposure of 43% in a year when it joins the S&P 500, and that too on a volume which would be a fraction of that for the Mag7 firms. It is estimated that S&P 500 funds would need to absorb 19% of SpaceX's public float upon inclusion, with the Russell 1000 and Nasdaq-100 funds absorbing another 24%. A tiny supply of $22-27 bn would meet a mandatory demand of 43%. 

The research on the impact of index inclusion on stock price offers striking findings. Gabaix and Koijen find investing $1 in the stock market increases the market’s aggregate value by about $5. Since marginal holders of equity (index funds, pension funds, insurance companies) operate under mandates that fix their equity allocations within narrow bands, when aggregate demand shifts, few participants can absorb the change, and prices must move substantially to clear the market. 

Haddad-Huebner-Loualiche point to a Mathew Effect in indiex investing. They find that a $3.6trn market cap company is only about five times as liquid as a $100bn company, despite being 36 times the size. The largest stocks are disproportionately impacted by each dollar flowing into passive funds, causing the largest stocks to outperform and stock market concentration to rise. Passive investing has reduced market efficiency by over one-third.

Index investing brings the benefits of access to a low fee, diversified, and tax efficient asset pool to the retail investors. In the words of the legendary investor Jack Bogle, index investing is the equivalent of not looking for the needle but instead buying the haystack. 

However, it distorts price discovery, creates inelastic demand, amplifies concentration in stocks and asset managers, and erodes governance. All of these distortions are greater for the mega-cap stocks. 

Further, index-investing comes from asymmetric flow elasticity. While passive funds are mechanically symmetric (the 1:5 multiplication), the rest of the system (margin lenders, derivatives dealers, momentum funds, retail behavioural agents) is not. When flows reverse, the multiplier still applies, but additional positive feedback channels switch on, creating an overshoot below fundamental value before mean-reversion can bring prices back. The resultant instability can tip markets into prolonged and deeper downturns. This is an illustrative example

Suppose 2 years post-IPO, growth disappointments and rate-policy reversal trigger a ~20% net outflow from Nasdaq-100 trackers ($280 bn × 20% ≈ $56 bn). Applying the firm-level multiplier (~2 for stock-specific flows, higher for concentrated names): mechanical impact on SpaceX share price could be ~30–45%, on top of any fundamental revaluation. The same flow proportionally affects all Mag 7. Index investing does not just amplify upside — it removes the price-discoverers who normally cushion downside.

Below is a listing of some channels that amplify the downside. 

All things taken together, index investing must reconcile the conflicting requirements of democratising investing (through passive funds) and limiting market instability. The answer lies in the empirical fact - the more capital becomes index-tracking, the less price discovery the market performs, and the more the system is exposed to flow-driven valuation and procyclical unwinding. Clearly what is optimal for individual investor is not optimal for market function. In the circumstances, this can be an illustrative framework to reconcile the conflicting requirements. 

The problem with index investing is that of internalisation of its negative externalities. Passive investors capture the upside of cap-weighted indexation (low fees, diversification, momentum) without bearing the price-discovery cost, whereas active investors bear the cost of analysis but cannot compete on fees. 

This free-riding can be resolved only if passive investors internalise the marginal cost they impose on the system without eliminating the substantial benefits they deliver to retail investors. Like with carbon emissions, this can be done through fees, governance obligations, or structural caps. 

To dive a bit deeper, there are perhaps four levers for reforming index investing - index methodology (rules of index construction), voting and governance obligations, fund-level liquidity thresholds, and limiting structural concentration in the passive investment ecosystem. A combination of all of them is a formidable regulatory toolkit. 

Each lever will have its set of reforms. It may be required to prioritise a limited set reforms that have the highest-impact-per-cost. The simplest and highest value reform could be mandatory free float minimums (say 10-15%), a twelve-month public trading history before index inclusion, and a 4-5% cap on any single stock in an index. Second, bring index providers under SEC regulation as “investment advisers” subject to fiduciary duty and disclosure requirements. 

Third, for passive funds with more than 1% holding, return governance to the ETF or index fund holders by allowing them to vote their proportionate share directly via the fund, thereby reducing the influence of the Big Three asset managers. Fourth, cap the passive fund ownership of US banks at 10% (the regulatory "controlling interest" threshold) and impose mandatory liquidity stress tests for funds with more than $5 bn AUM in cases of extreme outflows and market dislocation. 

Fifth, the Department of Labour should tighten defined-contribution retirement-plan portfolio diversity rules, thereby providing a structural counterweight to cap-weighted default portfolios. Such plans must offer either equal-weight or capped-weight default or cap cap-weighted defaults at e.g. 80% of the plan portfolio. This would reduce forced concentration in 401(k) default portfolios. Finally, there could be regulatory roadmap for orderly winding-down of overweight positions during the life-cycle or retirement transition. A coordinated guidance, including some rule-based gradual decumulation, reduces fire-sale risk. 

The proposals above seek to reconcile the diversification and fee benefits of indexation while also internalising its costs. Once index providers face fiduciary duty, once Big Three votes are partially passed through, once retirement defaults include non-cap-weighted options, once liquidity is stress-tested, and there is some transition guidance, the same products can continue to serve retail savers while delivering far less of the distortion that has been documented.