Nigeria’s equities market closed deep in the red on Friday, November 7, marking the fifth straight day of losses as investors continued to dump stocks amid fiscal policy concerns and mounting geopolitical tension.

The Nigerian All-Share Index (ASI) fell by 501.7 points to close at 149,524.8 points, down from 150,026.6 points the previous day. The 0.33% daily decline extended the week’s cumulative loss to 2.11%, erasing an estimated N2.8 trillion in market value.

Equity capitalization mirrored the bearish momentum, dropping to N94.9 trillion across 24,637 deals, compared to N95.3 trillion in the previous session. Market activity also thinned, as the total volume of shares traded fell to 527 million from 619 million recorded on Wednesday, signaling a growing retreat by both domestic and foreign investors.

Some analysts believe the latest selloffs are being driven largely by fears surrounding the federal government’s planned 25% capital gains tax, which is scheduled to take effect in January 2026. The tax will apply to profits exceeding N150 million and is being interpreted as a signal that the government may be looking to squeeze additional revenue from investment income amid a worsening fiscal deficit.

Several portfolio managers have said that the move could drain liquidity from the market, especially among high-net-worth investors and institutional funds that rely on equities for long-term returns.

The proposed tax is believed to be raising serious questions about Nigeria’s investment climate, sending the wrong signal at a time when the market is already battling low confidence.

However, fiscal analysts believe the government is under pressure to expand its tax base as debt servicing consumes an increasing share of national revenue. With inflation still in double digits and oil production yet to recover fully, the administration’s fiscal space is tightening rapidly.

Adding to the unease are geopolitical tensions after U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning of potential military action against Nigeria if the authorities don’t act fast to stop the killing of Christians. The threat has stirred anxiety among foreign investors, many of whom are reportedly reviewing their Nigerian exposure amid fears of sanctions or diplomatic fallout.

This renewed tension follows months of friction between Washington and Abuja, which many have tied to Nigeria’s vocal support for Palestine. The United States has stood by Israel, targeting countries that support Palestine in the Gaza conflict that has claimed thousands of lives before the ceasefire deal brokered by Donald Trump. Trump’s latest comments are seen as a sharp escalation that could have economic implications, especially for Nigeria’s already fragile foreign investment flows.

The selloff has cut across nearly all major sectors, including banking, consumer goods, and industrials, as traders race to protect capital. Analysts say the situation underscores how vulnerable the market has become to both policy unpredictability and external shocks.

On the gainers’ list, NCR and MCNICHOLS provided rare glimmers of green, rising 9.94% and 9.82%, respectively. But the decliners’ chart remained crowded, led by BERGER and CILEASING, which plunged 10.00% and 9.86%.

WEMABANK and CONHALLPLC topped the trading volume chart, driving the day’s activity despite the overall negative sentiment.

Financial analysts have warned that unless the federal government clarifies its capital gains tax policy and moves swiftly to restore investor confidence, the bearish trend could deepen into next week.

China’s exports declined in October for the first time in nearly two years, signaling renewed strain in global demand and marking a pause in the country’s fragile trade recovery, even after recent progress in easing tensions with the United States.

According to data released by China’s General Administration of Customs, outbound shipments fell 1.1% year-on-year in U.S. dollar terms, ending a seven-month streak of growth. The contraction, which caught economists by surprise, followed a strong 8.3% rise in September and was largely attributed to a high base from last year and the fading of front-loading by exporters ahead of the U.S.-China leaders’ meeting.

Economists surveyed by Reuters had expected exports to grow by 3%, underscoring the magnitude of the miss. Imports, meanwhile, rose just 1%, falling short of the 3.2% forecast, as weak consumer confidence, sluggish housing activity, and soft labor conditions continued to depress domestic demand.

Reuters quoted Zhiwei Zhang, president and chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, saying the slowdown was expected after months of accelerated shipments.

“It seems the frontloading finally faded in October,” he explained, adding that exports would likely normalize in the coming months as both Washington and Beijing suspended additional trade curbs for at least one year.

The cooling momentum came just days after U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in South Korea, where both sides agreed to de-escalate trade tensions that had threatened to spiral into another full-blown tariff war. The agreement included the rollback of several punitive measures, such as export controls and tariffs on critical minerals and advanced technology, while Beijing committed to purchasing more U.S. agricultural products and strengthening efforts to stop fentanyl exports.

As part of the deal, the effective U.S. tariff rate on Chinese exports fell to 31%, according to estimates by Macquarie Group. Yet, the effects of earlier trade restrictions remain visible in the latest customs data. Exports to the U.S. plunged 25% in October from a year earlier, marking the seventh consecutive month of double-digit declines, while imports from the U.S. fell by nearly 23%.

Trade between the two largest economies has been shrinking steadily through 2025. In the first ten months of the year, Chinese shipments to the U.S. dropped 17.8%, while U.S. goods entering China declined 12.6%, narrowing the bilateral trade surplus by 20% to $233 billion.

Still, Beijing has managed to maintain overall export growth of 5.3% during the period, thanks to aggressive efforts by Chinese exporters to diversify into alternative markets. Shipments to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations rose 14.3%, to the European Union by 7.5%, and to Africa by 26.1%.

That diversification helped China’s total trade surplus swell to $964.8 billion in the first ten months of 2025 — 23% higher than the same period in 2024. The numbers highlight Beijing’s success in pivoting toward developing regions to offset its weakening trade with the U.S.

Oxford Economics expects this trend to persist, projecting Chinese exports to grow between 3.5% and 5% annually in real terms. The research firm also upgraded its outlook for China’s GDP growth to 4.5% in 2026 and 4.4% in 2027, supported by Beijing’s ongoing industrial expansion and the push to deepen manufacturing capabilities under the next five-year plan.

But analysts warn that exports alone cannot sustain growth for long. Now that export momentum weakens, China needs to rely more on domestic demand, Zhang said, suggesting that policymakers will likely unveil fresh fiscal stimulus in early 2026.

Larry Hu, chief China economist at Macquarie Group, agreed, saying Beijing would increasingly turn to local consumption to drive the economy.

He said at some point between 2026 and 2030, boosting domestic demand will become the central growth strategy.

Beijing is expected to retain its “around 5%” GDP growth target next year, using calibrated stimulus to balance recovery without triggering overheating. The government has also stepped up campaigns to address industrial overcapacity, a long-standing issue that has led to intense price competition and thinning profit margins across key sectors.

China’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that profits at major industrial firms rose 3.2% in the first nine months of the year, a modest gain that masks significant stress in manufacturing. Purchasing Managers’ Index data showed factory activity contracted for the seventh straight month in October, signaling that the global slowdown and renewed trade friction are still weighing heavily on China’s industrial base.

The latest figures suggest that while the trade truce with Washington offers some breathing space, China’s export engine remains vulnerable. With front-loading exhausted and global demand uneven, Beijing faces the challenge of engineering a more balanced recovery.

The universal truth, first posited by Pythagoras, is that the universe is numbers. The continuous human mandate, therefore, is the mastery of those numbers, a feat now entirely executed by computational engines of semiconductors. Before any technological giant, from Google to OpenAI, can achieve its next milestone, electrons must be fired across transistors, organized painstakingly on a silicon landscape.

Elon Musk’s consideration of building a massive, dedicated semiconductor fab is not merely a corporate contingency plan to solve a supply chain hiccup; it is a profound declaration of digital geopolitics. For a trillion-dollar compensation plan tethered to the delivery of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Full Self-Driving (FSD), the foundation must be the indispensable substrate of computation, demanding total control.

Elon Musk says Tesla may have to build its own massive semiconductor fabrication plant to meet the company’s rising chip needs — a move that underscores both Tesla’s growing dependence on artificial intelligence and the immense challenge of meeting the lofty milestones tied to Musk’s $1 trillion compensation plan.

Speaking at Tesla’s annual shareholders meeting on Thursday, Musk said the company’s existing chip supply from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Samsung Electronics would fall short of what’s needed to power Tesla’s expanding AI, robotics, and self-driving systems.

The strategic why behind this move is dictated by the insatiable appetite of deep-tech AI. Tesla’s future success relies on generating, processing, and acting upon data at an exponentially increasing scale. Dependency on external fabricators, however capable they may be (like TSMC), introduces critical vulnerabilities via bottlenecks, competing demands, and intellectual property risks. For a visionary player, this dependency is a terminal strategic flaw.

The only viable path forward is absolute vertical integration, where the core means of production are controlled in-house. In this calculus, the immense capital and engineering complexity of building a foundry are simply deemed a lower cost than the catastrophic business risk of not controlling the creation of the silicon upon which the entire ecosystem is built.

If Musk successfully executes this gambit, we will witness a tectonic shift in global economic and political balance. This move transcends standard business competition; it is the consolidation of power across the entire technological stack. Imagine the emergent entity: controlling the microprocessors, designing the AI software, launching the satellite network (Starlink), building the vehicles and robots of the future, and potentially even providing the electrical power to run them. This degree of self-sovereignty creates direct leverage and transforms dependency into an absolute competitive advantage. For established silicon empires, the challenge is no longer just about price or process node efficiency; it’s about existential relevance in a world rapidly integrating the source code of the physical world.

Good People, this will be the most dominant self-sovereignty in all absolute sense because Musk will integrate the source code of the physical world into his bank accounts