DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 2

Fink and Ambani Urge Indians to Bet on Equities Over Gold as Financialization Deepens

0

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani are pushing a familiar but increasingly consequential argument in India’s financial discourse, that the country’s vast household savings would be better deployed in equity markets than locked away in gold.

Their intervention comes at a moment when market signals are mixed, investor sentiment is uneven, and the tension between tradition and financial modernization is once again in focus.

The remarks were made during a public fireside chat at a time when Indian equities have struggled to gain traction this year. The benchmark Nifty 50 is down nearly 2% so far, while gold has attracted attention amid heightened volatility driven by global interest rate uncertainty, geopolitical risks, and central bank buying. Against that backdrop, Ambani described domestic savings tied up in gold and silver as largely “unproductive,” arguing that money invested in equities compounds over time in ways physical assets do not.

The subtext of the conversation was not subtle. India’s household balance sheet remains heavily skewed toward physical assets, even as its capital markets mature and broaden. Gold, in particular, plays an outsized role, serving as a store of value, a hedge against inflation, and a cultural anchor that cuts across income levels. Yet for policymakers, economists, and global asset managers, that preference represents idle capital in an economy still hungry for long-term investment.

Fink’s message leaned heavily on the long view. He said the next 20 to 25 years would be an “era of India,” urging citizens to invest in their own country’s growth through capital markets rather than relying on traditional savings instruments. His confidence is rooted in macroeconomic forecasts that continue to set India apart from most major economies. The International Monetary Fund expects India to grow by 6.4% in 2026, making it the fastest-growing large economy globally. By contrast, global growth is projected at 3.3%, with economies such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan expected to expand only marginally.

That growth gap underpins the broader equity argument. In Fink’s telling, those who participate in an economy’s expansion through markets tend to accumulate far more wealth than those who keep their savings idle or confined to low-yield assets. Drawing on BlackRock’s experience in the United States, he said Americans who invested in the country’s growth were far “better off than those who just kept all their money in a bank account.”

In a separate interview with The Economic Times, he went further, predicting that Indian equities could “double and triple and quadruple” over the next two decades, while adding bluntly that he does not see gold delivering comparable returns.

Ambani’s intervention carried its own weight. As chairman of India’s largest conglomerate, his remarks reflected a corporate perspective that sees deeper domestic capital markets as essential to sustaining long-term growth. For companies like Reliance, a broader and more active retail investor base can lower funding costs, reduce dependence on foreign capital, and stabilize markets during periods of global risk aversion.

There is also a clear business dimension to the push. Reliance and BlackRock partnered last year to form Jio BlackRock Asset Management, marking the U.S. firm’s re-entry into India’s mutual fund industry. The joint venture launched its first equity fund in August and had assets under management of 31.98 billion rupees, or about $353 million, across its equity funds by the end of December.

While small relative to the size of India’s mutual fund industry, the figure signals the ambitions of global asset managers who see household financialisation as one of the country’s biggest untapped opportunities.

India’s savings landscape is already changing, albeit gradually. Mutual funds have become more popular as digital platforms simplify access, and systematic investment plans allow households to invest small sums at regular intervals. Data from the Association of Mutual Funds in India shows that investments through SIPs tripled to 2.89 trillion rupees, or about $31.9 billion, in the 2025 financial year compared with 2021. That steady flow of domestic money has helped cushion Indian markets even as foreign investors have been net sellers of equities for more than a year.

Still, physical assets continue to dominate. According to Bain & Company, Indians allocated nearly 59% of their assets to gold and real estate in the 2025 financial year, down from 66% a decade earlier but still a clear majority. Bain estimates that retail investor-driven assets in the mutual fund industry could rise to 300 trillion rupees, or about $3.3 trillion, by 2035, from 45 trillion rupees in fiscal year 2025. The scale of that potential shift highlights why figures like Fink and Ambani are pressing the issue now.

Market performance adds complexity to the narrative. Over the past year, the MSCI India Index delivered a dollar return of just 2.61%, sharply lagging the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, which returned 43.67%. That underperformance has tested investor patience and reinforced the appeal of gold during periods of uncertainty.

Over a five-year horizon, however, India has told a different story, with its equity index delivering nearly twice the returns of the broader emerging markets benchmark. Supporters of equities argue that this contrast illustrates the danger of focusing too narrowly on short-term cycles.

Beyond returns, the debate has broader economic implications. Redirecting household savings from gold to equities could reduce India’s reliance on gold imports, which have long weighed on the current account. It could also provide domestic companies with a more stable source of long-term capital, strengthening the financial system and supporting infrastructure and industrial investment.

Yet cultural inertia remains a powerful force. Gold’s role in Indian households is not purely financial; it is bound up with social security, weddings, inheritance, and trust in tangible assets. Shifting that mindset will likely require more than bullish forecasts from global financiers and industrialists.

Consistent market returns, stronger investor protection, and sustained financial literacy efforts will be critical in convincing households that equities can serve as a reliable engine of wealth.

Crypto Rails Experiences Massive Liquidations Amid Lingering Price Decline

0

Bitcoin (BTC) has dropped below $70,000, currently trading around $64,225 amid a sharp sell-off in the cryptocurrency market. This marks a significant decline from its all-time high.

Bitcoin is trading around $67,000 to $68,000 today with intraday lows dipping to approximately $66,500–$69,000 across exchanges like Coinbase, CoinMetrics, and others.

This represents a roughly 7–9% drop in the past 24 hours and over 20% losses for the week. It’s the lowest level since late 2024 post-U.S. election in November 2024, erasing much of the post-election rally and subsequent gains.

The drop below $70,000 occurred earlier today, triggering widespread liquidations and heightened pessimism among traders. The broader cryptocurrency market has also been hit hard. The total market capitalization currently stands around $2.3–$2.5 trillion down significantly in recent sessions, with daily drops of 5–7% reported.

From its peak in October 2025—when Bitcoin hit around $126,000 with some reports citing highs near $126,210; the crypto market has shed substantial value. Estimates indicate a decline of around 40–50% in total market cap from that October peak, aligning closely with your statement of “almost 50%.”

Bitcoin alone has lost about 44–46% from its October high. This has wiped out hundreds of billions in value across the sector, with recent weekly losses nearing $500 billion in some reports.

This appears to be part of a prolonged “crypto winter” phase that’s been building since early 2025, accelerated recently by: Broader risk-off sentiment in global markets, including tech stock weakness, a stronger U.S. dollar, and macro uncertainty like geopolitical tensions, weak earnings.

Forced deleveraging 

Massive liquidations of leveraged positions (billions in longs wiped out). Outflows from Bitcoin ETFs and fading institutional and investor confidence after the post-2024 election hype didn’t sustain. Bitcoin underperforming traditional safe-havens like gold, which has outperformed significantly over the same period.

The market shows extreme fear levels, with sentiment indicators at multi-month lows. While some analysts see potential for further downside toward $60,000 or lower support levels, others note that historical cycles often feature sharp corrections before recoveries. This is a volatile space—prices can shift quickly.

$70,000 acted as a major support level and psychological barrier. Breaching it has triggered accelerated forced deleveraging — billions in long positions liquidated, creating a self-reinforcing cascade of selling.

This has pushed BTC to intraday lows around $66,500–$69,000 with closes/levels varying by exchange, e.g., $67,000–$68,000 in many reports, entering an “air pocket” zone with thin historical buying interest between ~$70,000–$80,000.

Downside momentum could target $60,000–$65,000 or even lower supports like the 200-week moving average ($58,000) or realized price floors if panic persists. Indicators like the Fear & Greed Index have plunged into single digits (e.g., 11 in some readings), signaling capitulation.

Retail and leveraged traders are exiting en masse, while ETF outflows have intensified (billions monthly since late 2025 peaks). This could prolong volatility, with choppy relief bounces possible but limited without fresh inflows.

Most altcoins like ETH, SOL are down even steeper percentage-wise, amplifying the “Bitcoin dominance” shift as capital flees to perceived safety within crypto. Stablecoins like USDT have seen relative resilience (market cap growth in some periods), but overall liquidity is contracting — a classic bear market sign.

The move erases virtually all post-2024 U.S. election “Trump rally” euphoria (BTC surged on pro-crypto rhetoric). It resets expectations, shaking confidence in narratives around institutional adoption, strategic reserves, or rapid mainstream integration.

Crypto’s decline mirrors weakness in tech stocks, equities, and even precious metals in some sessions, tied to macro factors like a stronger USD, geopolitical tensions, disappointing earnings, and policy uncertainty. This suggests crypto is behaving more like a high-beta risk asset than a decoupled “digital gold.”

Reports describe a “crisis of faith” among holders, with ~46% of BTC supply now underwater and institutional caution rising. Prolonged weakness could delay further ETF inflows or corporate adoption; companies holding BTC on balance sheets facing mark-to-market pain.

Analysts point to historical parallels, where drawdowns of 40-50%+ often precede bottoms. Liquidity tightening (negative stablecoin growth in recent windows) and on-chain demand collapse reinforce risks of testing lower ranges ($55,000–$60,000) before stabilization.

Crypto markets are cyclical; sharp corrections often shake out weak hands, setting up for recoveries when macro conditions improve. Some forecasts still cluster 2026 year-end targets in $130,000–$175,000 ranges if ETF demand rebounds and adoption continues.

This drawdown highlights crypto’s volatility and correlation to traditional markets, potentially accelerating regulatory scrutiny or calls for better risk management. It could weed out speculative excess, strengthening fundamentals for survivors.

Gold has outperformed BTC significantly in this period, challenging “digital gold” claims in risk-off environments. However, long-term bulls see this as a healthy reset after overhyped post-election gains. This isn’t necessarily the start of a multi-year bear market like 2018 or 2022, but it represents a painful “reality check” after 2024–2025 hype.

The market is in capitulation mode — historically a contrarian buy signal for patient holders, though near-term downside risks remain elevated. Monitor key levels ($65,000–$70,000 support, ETF flows, macro data) closely, as reversals can be swift in crypto.

Gold and Silver Slide Sharply as Speculators Exit, Dollar Strength and Calmer Geopolitics Sap Safe-Haven Appeal

0

Gold and silver prices fell sharply on Thursday, unwinding much of a short-lived rally as investors locked in profits amid persistent volatility, a firmer U.S. dollar, and a cooling of geopolitical tensions that had briefly revived demand for safe-haven assets.

Spot gold slid 2% to $4,864.36 per ounce by 0920 GMT, after falling more than 3% earlier in the session. U.S. gold futures for April delivery were down 1.3% at $4,855.80. Silver bore the brunt of the sell-off, tumbling 11.3% to $78.13 an ounce after plunging nearly 17% at one point, underscoring the fragile sentiment gripping precious metals markets.

The sharp moves come after a period of extreme price swings. Both gold and silver suffered their steepest single-day losses in decades last Friday, only days after hitting record highs, as speculative positioning built up rapidly and then reversed just as quickly.

“This is an after-effect of the volatility we’ve seen since last Friday,” said Carsten Menke, an analyst at Julius Baer. “The market has not found an equilibrium yet, which is why we see another sell-off following the previous two days’ recovery.”

Menke said short-term volatility is likely to persist as investors struggle to recalibrate expectations around interest rates, geopolitics, and physical demand.

Gold extended its recent losses earlier this week, sliding to as low as $4,403.24 on Monday, while silver dropped to $71.32, their weakest levels in about a month. That decline followed news that Kevin Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor, had been nominated to lead the U.S. central bank. The nomination was seen by markets as reducing the risk of a sharply dovish Fed, supporting the dollar, and pressuring non-yielding assets such as gold.

The subsequent rebound in precious metals on Tuesday and Wednesday was driven largely by renewed concerns over U.S.-Iran tensions, which briefly reignited safe-haven buying. However, as fears of an immediate escalation faded and broader risk sentiment stabilized, those gains proved difficult to sustain.

Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, pointed to technical and regional factors amplifying Thursday’s sell-off, particularly in silver.

“Heavy selling emerged in the Chinese futures market and on the CME after failing to break resistance at $90.50,” he said.

Hansen added that weaker demand from China ahead of the Lunar New Year, combined with reports of a sizeable short position held by a Chinese investor, weighed heavily on sentiment.

The broader macro backdrop also turned less supportive. The U.S. dollar climbed to a two-week high, making dollar-priced commodities more expensive for holders of other currencies. Global equities slipped, while a broad range of commodities, including crude oil and copper, also moved lower as investors reassessed geopolitical risks and demand prospects.

Other precious metals were not spared. Spot platinum fell 6.5% to $2,082.76 per ounce, retreating further from its all-time high of $2,918.80 reached on January 26. Palladium dropped 3.5% to $1,711.69, extending recent losses.

Market participants say the violent swings highlight how crowded positioning and speculative flows have come to dominate short-term price action in precious metals. With inflation expectations, central bank policy signals, and geopolitical developments all pulling prices in different directions, traders are bracing for continued turbulence before a clearer trend emerges.

AI No Longer Hype, It’s Forcing Darwinian Reckoning in Software 

0

Software equities particularly SaaS and enterprise software stocks have experienced a significant crash/selloff in early February 2026, driven primarily by escalating investor fears that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) could disrupt or even cannibalize traditional software business models.

The selloff intensified around early February 2026, with a major catalyst being Anthropic’s release of new AI-driven automation tools including features like Claude plugins for legal and productivity tasks.

These tools demonstrated AI’s ability to automate workflows in areas like legal work, marketing, customer service, and administrative tasks—raising concerns that businesses might reduce or eliminate subscriptions to specialized software in favor of cheaper, more capable AI alternatives.

This sparked immediate sharp declines on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, with losses spilling over into Wednesday and beyond. Broader fears built on months of underperformance in the sector, amplified by comments from figures like Palantir CEO Alex Karp (who highlighted AI’s potential to write/manage enterprise software, threatening SaaS incumbents) and ongoing worries about AI capex vs. returns.

Software and services stocks lost hundreds of billions in market value in single sessions ~$300 billion on one Tuesday alone. The S&P 500 Software and Services Index or similar benchmarks like the Morningstar US Software Index or iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF/IGV dropped sharply: Down ~13% in the past week as of early February.

Some reports cite 15-20%+ monthly declines or 30%+ from recent peaks. The sector entered bear market territory in recent weeks, with the worst performance since the early 2000s dot-com fallout in some metrics.

Individual stocks hit hard: Thomson Reuters (-16%), LegalZoom (-20%), Intuit (-11%), Salesforce down ~26% YTD in 2026, ServiceNow, PayPal, Expedia, Equifax, and others saw double-digit percentage drops. Broader tech names like Microsoft, Adobe, and SAP also declined amid the contagion.

Investors worry AI represents an existential threat to software-as-a-service (SaaS) models: Cannibalization: AI agents could replace seat-based licensing, reducing demand for traditional apps.

Pricing pressure and moat erosion: Faster AI progress might commoditize software, with businesses opting for AI tools over renewals. AI spending surges, but total IT budgets grow slowly—implying AI eats into existing software allocations.

Terms like “SaaSpocalypse” or “software-mageddon” emerged among traders, describing panic selling. Not everyone sees this as terminal: Some analysts call the reaction overblown or “internally inconsistent,” comparing it to past panics like China’s DeepSeek AI scare in 2025 that proved temporary.

Others argue AI might expand markets rather than destroy them, or that software firms can adapt by integrating AI. Bargain-hunting has begun in some cases, with stabilization attempts by February 5, though volatility persists.

This event highlights a shift in 2026 market narrative: AI, once a universal tailwind for tech, is increasingly seen as creating clear winners and losers (disrupted incumbents in software). The selloff has rippled into broader tech and even related areas like consulting, but it’s most acute in software equities.

Markets remain volatile as investors reassess valuations amid this disruption debate. Not everyone sees doom—some view this as a temporary “repricing” akin to past panics, with AI ultimately expanding markets and enabling better software. Bulls point to strong earnings beats across the sector and argue the reaction is inconsistent.

Volatility will likely persist into earnings season as companies prove or fail to prove AI as a tailwind. This crash marks a pivotal narrative shift: AI is no longer just hype—it’s forcing a Darwinian reckoning in software. The fittest (those adapting fastest) survive and consolidate; others face prolonged pressure.

Investors should watch for signs of stabilization, like enterprise AI adoption stories or pricing model innovations, but expect choppiness as the market digests whether this is an overreaction or the start of a multi-year transformation.

Tesla Introduces Cheaper Model Y as Musk Pushes Sales Reset While Pivoting the Company Toward Robotics

0

Tesla is expanding its lower-cost offerings with the introduction of a pared-down all-wheel-drive version of the Model Y, while also simplifying how it names its vehicles — a move that underscores the company’s broader effort to reset its product strategy after months of softening demand.

The decision points to a tension at the heart of the company’s strategy: even as Elon Musk increasingly positions Tesla as a future-focused robotics and autonomy company, he continues to make incremental, pragmatic moves to stabilize and revive vehicle sales in the here and now.

The newly introduced pared-down Model Y AWD starts at $43,630, about $7,000 below the Model Y Premium AWD. As with Tesla’s other lower-cost trims, the model achieves its price point by stripping out features once considered core to the brand’s appeal, including leather seats, the panoramic glass roof, and rear climate-control screens. The approach mirrors the strategy used for the Standard Rear-Wheel-Drive Model Y unveiled three months earlier, which started at $41,630 and cut roughly $5,000 off the price of the RWD Premium variant.

The AWD version slots between Tesla’s cheapest and most expensive offerings. It sacrifices range — at 294 miles per charge, it is the shortest-range Model Y — but delivers a notable performance boost. The car accelerates from zero to 60 mph in 4.6 seconds, significantly faster than the rear-wheel-drive model. For buyers balancing price, traction, and performance, the trim is designed to broaden Tesla’s appeal without a full redesign or new platform.

Alongside the pricing changes, Tesla has quietly simplified its branding by dropping the “Standard” label from its entry-level Model 3 and Model Y vehicles. The cheapest versions are now branded simply as “Rear-Wheel Drive,” while “Premium” and “Performance” remain for higher trims. The change reflects Tesla’s long-standing preference for minimal trim complexity, but it also suggests an effort to make its lineup easier to understand at a time when buyers are more price-sensitive, and competition is intensifying.

These moves come as Tesla works to arrest a sales slowdown. The company’s five-car lineup posted a 9% decline in sales, and Tesla lost its position as the world’s largest EV seller to BYD last year. In Europe, Volkswagen overtook Tesla in electric vehicle sales, underscoring how quickly the competitive landscape has shifted as legacy automakers and Chinese manufacturers scale up.

While Musk has repeatedly said Tesla’s long-term value will come from autonomy, AI, and robotics, the company is still overwhelmingly dependent on vehicle sales for revenue and cash flow. That reality helps explain why Musk continues to approve pricing tweaks, new trims, and lineup adjustments even as he talks up a post-car future.

During Tesla’s most recent earnings call, Musk confirmed the company would discontinue its oldest models, the Model S and Model X, describing the move as an “honorable discharge.” Those vehicles have become marginal contributors to Tesla’s business. In 2024, the Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X together accounted for just over 50,000 units — a little more than 3% of Tesla’s total deliveries of 1.64 million vehicles. Sunsetting the S and X allows Tesla to concentrate resources on higher-volume models like the Model 3 and Model Y, which remain critical to keeping factories running and margins afloat.

At the same time, Musk is steadily reframing Tesla’s identity. The company has launched a robotaxi service in Austin, is planning the release of its autonomous Cybercab, and is ramping up development of Optimus, its humanoid robot. Musk has argued that autonomy and robotics will ultimately dwarf the value of Tesla’s car business, positioning the automaker as an AI and robotics company rather than a traditional manufacturer.

Yet the introduction of a cheaper Model Y highlights a more grounded reality. Even as Tesla pivots strategically toward robotics, Musk appears unwilling to abandon near-term efforts to defend market share and stimulate demand in its core automotive business. The company has relied on price cuts, feature simplification, and targeted new trims rather than breakthrough new mass-market models, suggesting a cautious approach as it waits for autonomy and robotics to mature.

In that sense, Tesla’s latest lineup changes reflect a dual-track strategy. Publicly, Musk is selling a vision of a future dominated by self-driving systems and humanoid robots. Operationally, Tesla is still fighting a very traditional battle: keeping its cars affordable, competitive, and appealing in an EV market that is no longer forgiving. The cheaper Model Y is less a contradiction of Tesla’s robotics pivot than a reminder that, for now, cars still pay the bills.