Tag: Trading

Unlock Global Trade: Your Guide to Cash Flow Lending for High-Volume Importers

For Traders / Importers, the lifeblood of business is the movement of goods, but the greatest financial pressure is the time lag between paying the supplier and receiving payment from the customer. Cash Flow Lending is a specialised financial solution designed to bridge this crucial timing mismatch, ensuring Working Capital is readily available to maintain momentum.

For high-volume importers who lack significant fixed assets, this type of flexible funding is essential for maintaining robust operations and capitalising on large Trade Finance opportunities.

The Importer’s Core Challenge: Inventory and Time

A traditional importer faces two primary timing risks that create a severe Liquidity Gap:

  1. Advance Payment: Suppliers often demand payment upon shipment or before the goods even arrive in the warehouse.
  2. Credit Sales: The importer must then sell those goods to distributors or retailers, often extending 30- to 90-day credit terms to secure the sale.

Cash Flow Lending focuses on funding this interim period—the time the importer is waiting for customer payments—by assessing future projected revenues rather than relying heavily on the present value of tangible assets. This is the core function of Trade Finance that addresses the Liquidity Gap.

The Trade-Off: Unsecured vs. Secured Cash Flow

In the financial sector, Cash Flow Lending often carries higher interest rates than asset-based loans because it is typically unsecured, meaning the lender relies solely on the business’s future financial performance (EBITDA).

Type of Cash Flow LendingBasis for ApprovalAssociated Risk
UnsecuredFuture Cash Flow / Revenue ProjectionsHigher interest rates, shorter repayment terms (often 6-12 months).
Secured (Asset-Based)Value of physical assets (inventory, receivables)Lower rates, but assets are encumbered and at risk.

For high-volume Traders / Importers seeking millions in flexible Working Capital, the risk of high rates (unsecured) or asset encumbrance (secured) can severely undermine the profitability of the trade.

Collateral Transfer: De-Risking Trade Finance

For Traders / Importers who need large, competitive credit facilities without risking their balance sheet, the Collateral Transfer Facility offers a strategic way to optimise Cash Flow Lending.

Collateral Transfer introduces a high-grade, institutional External Security instrument (such as a Bank Guarantee or SBLC) into the funding structure, which can be utilised to secure a credit line or revolving facility from a lending bank.

This approach achieves three vital objectives for trade businesses:

  1. Non-Dilutive Capital: It provides capital without sacrificing equity, allowing the importer to retain full control.
  2. Competitive Rates: By providing institutional security, the importer can access Cash Flow Lending at competitive rates usually reserved for asset-backed deals, while keeping their core assets unencumbered.
  3. Scalable Working Capital: The facility can be structured for large volumes, ensuring that the availability of Working Capital grows in lockstep with the importer’s high-volume trade pipeline.

We specialise in arranging external security to facilitate large-scale Trade Finance and Cash Flow Lending for global Traders / Importers, ensuring that the liquidity you need is secured quickly and competitively.

Fuel Your Global Trade Volume

IntaCapital Swiss empowers Traders / Importers to bridge the Liquidity Gap and scale their operations.

Don’t let cash flow timing limit your trading volume. Contact our experts today to secure the financial backing required for high-volume trade.

The Executive’s Guide to Standby Letters of Credit: Securing Trade & Finance

For global enterprises, a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) is the ultimate mechanism for Risk Mitigation. Unlike a commercial letter of credit, which is intended to be the primary payment method, an SBLC is a secondary instrument—a powerful safety net that secures a financial obligation in the event of a buyer’s default.

Understanding the strategic application of the SBLC is crucial for managing Collateral Management and unlocking flexible capital access in International Trade.

What is a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC)?

An SBLC is a legal document issued by a bank or financial institution that guarantees the issuer will fulfill a non-payment obligation by a client. It assures the beneficiary (typically the seller or lender) that they will receive payment up to a specified amount if the client (the buyer or borrower) fails to meet the terms of the underlying contract.

  • Payment of Last Resort: The SBLC is ideally never drawn upon and is intended as a back-up if the client defaults. Its mere existence provides the credit assurance needed for a deal to proceed.
  • Contingent Liability: For the issuing bank, the obligation only exists contingently. This fact provides strategic financial benefits for the client, as the SBLC is generally not treated as immediate debt on their balance sheet, though specific accounting treatment depends on the applicable GAAP/IFRS interpretations.

Dual Roles: Securing Trade vs. Securing Finance

The flexibility of the SBLC allows it to serve two principal, high-value functions:

1. Securing Trade (Performance Risk)

In International Trade, the SBLC typically guarantees a contractual performance:

SBLC TypeGuarantee ProvidedExample
Performance SBLCGuarantees non-financial obligations (e.g., project completion).Assures a developer that a contractor will finish a building on time.
Advance Payment SBLCGuarantees repayment of a deposit if the seller fails to perform.Assures an importer their upfront payment will be returned if the exporter fails to ship.

2. Securing Finance (Credit Risk)

When dealing with Collateral Management and funding, the SBLC acts as verifiable security:

  • Credit Enhancement: A high-grade SBLC can be used to secure a loan or credit line from a third-party lender. The SBLC acts as collateral, substantially mitigating risk for the lender and leading to more competitive lending terms.
  • Collateral Transfer: When a company lacks sufficient internal security, they can access an SBLC (or Bank Guarantee) through a Collateral Transfer facility, which is the correct term for what is sometimes erroneously called “leasing.”

SBLC, BG, and Risk Mitigation

The SBLC is governed by international banking protocols, typically either the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) or the International Standby Practices (ISP98).

The distinction between an SBLC and a Bank Guarantee (BG) is often jurisdiction-based, but functionally, they both achieve the same objective: providing Risk Mitigation and third-party credit assurance. The successful usage of both instruments in Collateral Management and cross-border trade hinges on correct documentation under these standards and verifiable delivery via SWIFT MT760.

IntaCapital Swiss specialises in providing access to these instruments through our structured facilities, ensuring they are correctly documented and delivered via SWIFT, which is paramount for both successful monetisation and Bank Guarantee facilities.

By leveraging an SBLC, businesses gain a powerful, recognised instrument that supports trade expansion and ensures secure Capital Access without relying solely on their existing asset base.

Ready to Enhance Your Financial Security?

IntaCapital Swiss offers expert access to SBLC and Bank Guarantee facilities, providing tailored solutions for Risk Mitigation in trade and finance.

Don’t wait for capital. Your next major project needs verifiable security now. Contact our experts today to unlock the power of the MT760 and secure your bespoke funding solution.

Global Payments Decoded: What is a MT-103 and Why It Matters for Importers

For Importers and international traders, the movement of goods relies entirely on the guaranteed movement of capital. In this intricate world of cross-border commerce, the MT-103 is one of the most important payment messages in cross-border trade.

Understanding the function and finality of this single SWIFT Message is essential for Corporate Liquidity management and streamlining your Trade Finance operations.

What is a SWIFT MT-103 Message?

The MT-103 is a standardised SWIFT Message used specifically for a single customer transfer.

It is a specific instruction sent by one financial institution to another, requesting that a fixed, named amount of money be transferred to a specific beneficiary. Because of its globally standardised format and routing via the SWIFT Network, the MT-103 is universally accepted and recognised as the gold standard for secure, reliable Cross-Border Payments.

Key Characteristics of the MT-103:

  • Fungibility: It handles only one payment from one ordering customer.
  • Standardisation: It follows a strict, numbered field format, ensuring automated processing and minimising error.
  • Finality of Payment: Once processed and credited, the payment is generally treated as final and is very difficult to reverse, which underpins trust in international trade.

Why the MT-103 is Crucial for Importers

For Importers, the timely and confirmed issuance of the MT-103 is vital because it directly mitigates execution risk and impacts Capital Access timing:

  1. Proof of Payment: The MT-103 acts as definitive proof that the buyer’s bank has successfully sent the funds. This confirmation is often required by the supplier to release goods from customs or commence shipping.
  2. Trade Security: The message provides Finality of Payment. Once confirmed, the seller is secure in the knowledge that funds are irrevocably moving, preventing disputes and allowing the transaction to proceed smoothly.
  3. Liquidity Forecasting: Since the message confirms the date and amount of funds, it enables accurate Corporate Liquidity forecasting, allowing importers to manage cash flow and plan subsequent transactions effectively.

The Critical Link: MT-760 (Security) vs. MT-103 (Payment)

While the MT-103 is the instruction to pay the funds, it is frequently the Collateral Transfer facility that makes the payment possible or secure in the first place.

This is the distinction that matters most in Structured Finance:

  • SWIFT MT-760 (The Guarantee): This message is used to transfer a Bank Guarantee (BG) or Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC), which acts as Collateral or security. The BG is not a payment, but a non-cash instrument that guarantees the importer’s line of credit.
  • SWIFT MT-103 (The Instruction): This message is the cash payment instruction, often funded by the line of credit secured by the MT-760 BG.

Essentially, a BG or SBLC issued via MT-760 can secure the importer’s credit line, which the bank then uses to fund MT-103 payments. This strategic use of security to facilitate payments ensures Capital Access is not hindered by perceived credit risk.

Ready to Optimise Your Trade Finance?

Speed and certainty in Cross-Border Payments are achieved through superior structure and dedicated Liquidity Management.

IntaCapital Swiss provides specialised Corporate Funding solutions that leverage high-grade instruments to ensure your Funding Timeline is predictable and your trade operations run without delay.

Ready to guarantee your payments and accelerate your global deals? To discuss enhancing your import security and ensuring timely global payments, contact our experts today.

Bond Investors Edging Towards Emerging Markets

Investors in global bonds are eyeing a number of better-performing emerging markets, as they are currently a safer bet than their peers in the richer developed world, and some countries, such as South Korea, are delivering stronger returns. The strong performances seen in several emerging economies are due, according to experts, to governments cutting debt, improving their current account balances and getting to grips with inflation. Analysts also note that these economies have become attractive to bond investors due to a reversal of fiscal fortunes in industrial nations such as the Group of Seven* (aka the G7), where safe-haven status is eroding amid rising debt-to-output ratios.

*Group of Seven / G7 – This is an informal political forum for the leaders of seven advanced democratic economies, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Originally, it was known as the G8 until Russia was suspended in 2014 for the annexation of Crimea. The group meets annually to discuss and coordinate policy on major global issues such as economic governance, international security and climate change. The leader of the European Union (currently Ursula von der Leyen) has an unofficial seat at the table, enjoys all the privileges and is often dubbed the 8th member.

Analysts predict that at the close of business in 2025, and in terms of annual bond gains this year, it is set to be the strongest for emerging markets since the Covid-19 pandemic. Investors have become really impressed with a number of emerging market economies as they are now, for the first time in seven years, demanding the smallest premium over treasuries in the sovereign dollar-debt market. Indeed, for several AA-rated issuers, the spread has declined to an impressive 31 basis points, which in today’s world is a record and data released shows that, since the end of last year, average local currency debt yields have been below that of treasuries.

Experts advise that the ‘Carry Trade’ ** has become an influential tool in investing in local currency emerging market bonds, where low-interest rate volatility has favoured investment in this asset class. Sovereign and local bonds are not the only beneficiaries of the carry trade; currencies have also benefited, such as the Egyptian pound and the Nigerian Naira, both delivering 20% returns year-to-date when funded out of US Dollars. However, as one moves along the emerging market credit curve, the risk-to-reward ratio increases exponentially. Emerging market experts advise that political instability and debt distress are constant threats in a number of these economies and can be found mainly in Africa and Latin America. Also, for serious capital to be deployed, investors look to those countries with a sovereign risk of AA.

**Carry Trade – This is a financial strategy whereby an investor will borrow money at a low interest rate and invest in an asset with a higher interest rate with a view to profiting from the difference (known as the interest rate differential). Whilst this is mostly done in the foreign exchange markets, it is also applied to commodities, bonds and other assets.

However, according to analysts, there has been a palpable change in investment strategy in the emerging markets arena, with investors looking to commit directly to these economies without using the carry trade due to key macro fundamentals moving into favourable positions. It has also been noted that in the face of global trade and geopolitical dislocations, emerging markets have been resilient and have preserved fiscal governance, including balance of payments sustainability, resulting in inflows into the fixed income market, all of which is expected to continue into 2026.

Switzerland Close to Agreeing a Lower Tariff Rate with the United States

The Swiss government is reportedly close to agreeing a reduced tariff rate of 15% with the White House. However, experts caution that no deal will be finalised without the explicit approval of President Donald Trump. Switzerland has been subjected to one of the highest tariffs — 37%, announced by President Donald Trump at the end of July this year and implemented on 7th August. The measure has posed a serious threat to key Swiss exports such as watches, precision machinery, pharmaceuticals, and chocolate, making them significantly more expensive in one of their largest markets compared with products from countries facing lower tariffs.

According to sources close to the negotiations, Swiss Economy Minister Guy Parmelin has maintained regular contact with U.S. trade authorities, including a constructive video conference last Friday with Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative. Earlier this week, President Trump stated that he was “working on a deal” to reduce tariffs on Swiss exports to the United States, though he did not specify an exact rate.

Swiss officials have reportedly offered a package of investment proposals and pledges aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit. This includes greater market access for American energy firms in Switzerland, increased spending on U.S. defence equipment, and a commitment to expand gold refining capacity within the United States. Analysts suggest these concessions have paved the way for a possible breakthrough on tariffs.

In addition to official negotiations, when talks stalled in September, progress may have been revived by a charm offensive from prominent Swiss business figures — Rolex CEO Jean-Frederic Dufour, Cartier-owner Chairman Johann Rupert, and billionaire Alfred Ganter, co-founder of Partners Group, a key stakeholder in both Universal Genève and Breitling. Their visit to the Oval Office is believed to have improved the diplomatic tone, though it remained the task of Swiss officials to deliver a deal compelling enough to win over President Trump.

Analysts suggest that this potential agreement comes at a critical moment, as early signs indicate that high tariffs have begun to harm the Swiss economy. The Swiss National Bank recently stated that the economic outlook “has deteriorated due to significantly higher tariffs,” with unemployment rising to its highest level in four years. Financial commentators warn that tariffs are weighing on economic growth, with Q3 output (adjusted for sports events) expected to have contracted by 0.2%. Nonetheless, a 15% tariff would represent a highly positive development for Swiss industry, particularly the watch sector, given that the United States accounts for 19% of all Swiss watch exports.

Bitcoin Continues to Fall After October Crisis

Yesterday, Tuesday 4th November, Bitcoin fell 7.4%, dropping below the $100,000 mark ($96,794) for the first time since 23rd June this year. Experts in the sector suggest that Bitcoin holders, as well as cryptocurrency investors in general, have been selling this risk-on asset amid growing concerns over current stock valuations, which have likely been driven to unsustainable heights by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) trade. Bitcoin has now fallen 20% from its record high reached in October. While there was some recovery earlier today in New York, traders in the options markets are, according to analysts, placing bets on further declines.

Analysts suggest that one reason for the latest fall in Bitcoin’s price is that long-term holders of the cryptocurrency have, over the last month, offloaded approximately 400,000 coins with a combined value of $45 billion. Unlike the forced leveraged selling seen last month, the current decline is more measured, representing a continued sell-off in the spot market. This price fall has also diverged from the usual pattern where bursts of volatility stem from liquidations in the futures market. Data released by CoinGlass — a cryptocurrency derivatives data analysis platform providing real-time information- shows that since yesterday morning, around $2 billion in crypto positions have been liquidated.

One market expert has stated that a market imbalance is emerging. As leverage remains relatively subdued, attention has turned to long-term holders who are now selling Bitcoin. There appears to be a growing disconnect between these long-term sellers and first-time buyers, which is shaping a market no longer driven solely by sentiment. Analysts have observed that since major holders with between 1,000 and 10,000 Bitcoins (so-called “mega-whales”) began offloading large portions of their portfolios, and since last month’s crash, overall demand has waned.

Other analysts, however, suggest that despite the absence of specific bad news, the market is fatigued and struggling under multiple pressures. There are ongoing concerns regarding the trade war, whether tariffs will hold, and whether the Supreme Court will decide if such tariffs are legal. Added to this are the continuing government shutdown, spiralling public debt, overpriced stocks, and caution over U.S. interest rates. Furthermore, one analyst commented that fundamentals remain weak across the board following last month’s major sell-off.

Market commentators remain divided over Bitcoin’s near-term future. One analyst suggested that now Bitcoin has fallen below the $100,000 threshold, it could drop as far as $70,000 before resetting and recovering. Others, however, believe that Bitcoin will gradually climb back if economic and geopolitical conditions improve, particularly if the United States-China trade talks yield a stable agreement. Despite a recent outflow from Bitcoin ETFs, experts remain broadly optimistic that fund managers could see gains over the coming months, though with fundamentals still fragile, Bitcoin’s price outlook remains uncertain.

The London IPO Market – Still in the Doldrums

In Q1 and Q2 of this year, data released showed the London IPO market was down to just £182.8 million from nine raisings, as opposed to the same period in 2024, where eight IPOs raised £526.7 million, raising concerns that London is fading as a centre for global capital. Further data also showed that Q3 and Q4 of 2024 had only nine IPOs raising £258 million. Indeed, in April of this year, the market saw the most significant IPO for MHA, a professional services company that raised £98 million on AIM (Alternative Investment Market).

The City (City of London – the financial centre) is struggling to maintain its reputation as a centre and destination for high-growth listings as evidenced by reports suggesting that the CEO of AstraZeneca (pharmaceuticals) might well relocate their primary listing to the United States along with Wise (money transfer service), who with a valuation of £11 billion might also consider moving their listing to the United States as well. A further disappointment is Shein (Online fast fashion company), who were denied a London listing by the Chinese regulators, so they have opted for a listing in Hong Kong.

The above companies are just a part of a growing number of companies that have shelved listings in the city due to pushbacks from investors and challenges related to Brexit, which have negatively impacted valuations. As such, these companies have opted for listings not only in the United States but also in other markets where there are perceived higher valuations plus stronger investor appetite.

However, not all is doom and gloom as analysts report that the Labour government are making headway in reforming listing requirements, which it is hoped will help revive the market that headed south once the United Kingdom had left the European Union. However, 2026 should provide the biggest impetus in the London IPO market as there is a planned IPO by the software giant Visma valued at Euros 19 billion, and HG Capital is leaning towards the City for a listing, attracted by listing reforms, especially allowing euro-denominated stocks into flagship FTSE indexes.

Experts argue that out of all the European exchanges, London has been the hardest hit. However, in Q1 and Q2, bourses in Zurich, Milan, and Paris saw lower volumes than London, and overall Europe suffered its worst opening six months in IPO volumes. However, a large part of the problem has been President Trump’s tariffs, which unleashed a round of volatility which resulted in the market being shut for a while, delaying plans by issuers to go public. Analysts are hopeful of a rebound in 2026 with the new regulations attracting companies to the IPO market in London.

Bitcoin versus Altcoin – A Corporate Dilemma?

For a while now, and just in the background, there has been a long-simmering feud between the advocates of Altcoin and the purists of Bitcoin as they compete to win the corporate treasury boom*. Indeed, many companies have been loading up their balance sheets with unheard of amounts of digital assets, and the debate has come to the fore as to which tokens belong on the balance sheet and just as important is why they should appear there. Basically, the argument between the two sides rests on the premise as to how value should be stored and also how it should be grown.

*Corporate Treasury Boom – In this year alone, in excess of one hundred companies have been formed and are known as digital-asset treasury companies (or DATS) and have been buying cryptocurrencies, some of whom are struggling with this high-risk strategy. The philosophy underpinning these companies is just to buy cryptocurrencies and thereby offer investors a way into the digital-asset boom while at the same time offering lucrative returns.

Those who side with Bitcoin feel companies should be built on the premise that ideological purity and a hard supply cap should be the only digital-asset to legitimately appear as a treasury asset on the balance sheet. However, Altcoin supporters are promoting an investment scenario premised on dynamic returns offering yield generating tokens such as Solana and Ether which can be built into portfolios. Altcoin are challenging the ethos that Bitcoin is the only digital-asset that belongs on a balance sheet, and data released suggest that today they are edging ahead in the battle.

Indeed, data shows that altcoin prices are rallying whilst other data shows the purchases of Bitcoin by the corporate treasury companies are on the decline. Figures recently released show that in June of this year purchases were circa 66,000, however in August just 14,800 Bitcoin were purchased. Elsewhere, total Bitcoin holdings have declined with the accumulation rate by treasury companies sliding to 8% in August down from a March high of 163% which can account for the average purchase size declining 86% from its peak earlier in the year to just 343 Bitcoin in August. 

Experts suggest that Altcoin, with their capacity and ability to be distributed throughout the decentralised finance markets**, are better placed to generate yield. This premise appears to be supported in the marketplace, as ,just recently, a USD 500 Million investment by Pantera Capital was secured by Helius to build a Solana based treasury. Indeed, while some senior players (notably pro-Bitcoin) have suggested that Ether or Ethereum is not the best asset by any means for a treasury company, data shows that some USD 16 Billion in Ether have been added to the balance sheets of treasury companies. 

**Decentralised Finance Market – This market, also referred to as DeFi, is a blockchain-based financial system that provides traditional financial services such as lending, borrowing, and trading without intermediaries such as banks or brokerages. It operates on public, permissionless blockchains utilising smart contracts to speed up and automate the process, enabling peer-to-peer transactions for participants in the network. The DeFi market focuses on replicating traditional financial services within the crypto-asset ecosystem, but through automated protocols rather than centralised institutions.

However, the total holdings of Altcoins are, according to data released, not really comparable to the holdings of Bitcoin treasuries which currently total circa USD 116 Billion. But the shift towards Altcoins has not gone unnoticed. The battle for which coin to support will continue with the ultimate prize being corporate investment in either Bitcoin or Altcoin treasury companies, however one CEO has ventured that the ultimate strategy is to have a digital asset company with a blend of both Bitcoin and Altcoin.

The World Gold Council Looking to Launch a Digital Form of Gold

The WGC (World Gold Council)* is, according to experts within this arena, planning to launch gold in a digital form, which may well create major changes as to the collateralisation, trading and settlement of gold, whilst at the same time transforming the USD 900 Billion gold market centred in London. David Tait, the current CEO of the WGC, when interviewed, said this new form “will allow for the digital circulation of gold within the gold ecosystem, using it as a collateral for the first time”.

*The World Gold Council – The WGC is an international trade association for the gold industry, it is headquartered in London and whose members are gold mining companies. The WGC is a market development organisation for the gold industry and works to champion the use of gold as a strategic asset.

The WGC has said that the digitisation of gold will broaden its market reach and they are trying, according to their CEO, David Tait, to standardise that digital layer of gold such that the various financial products used in other markets can be used going forward in the gold market. Gold has recently proved that it is still extremely popular especially as a safe haven as only last week it reached a record price of USD 3,550 per ounce having also doubled in price over the last two years.

Each digital unit of gold will be known as PGI’s (“Pooled Gold Interests”) and this will allow investors to buy a form of fractional interest in gold bullion. Over many years the OTC* (over-the-counter) gold has been settled through two key structures i). allocated gold and ii). unallocated gold

i). Allocated Gold is a form of gold ownership where physical gold is purchased (bars) and are stored in a secure vault and is legally owned by the purchaser and ownership is insulated from credit risks of the custodian bank. However, in order to attain this status, there is a limitation on holding only whole-bar multiples and increased operational complexity.

ii). Unallocated Gold is where specific gold bars are not set aside for the holder, rather the holder has a contractual right against the institution where their unallocated gold is held in respect of their entitlement. Unallocated gold has traditionally provided holders with greater liquidity through deeper markets and quick and simple settlement mechanics. However, the status for unallocated gold is that it requires holders to take the credit risk against the institution where their unallocated gold is held.

*OTC or over-the-counter gold refers to gold being directly traded between two parties (the buyer and the seller) rather than through a formalised or centralised exchange. This allows for flexible, customised transactions with such terms as quantity, quality and delivery being negotiated privately. Major clients within this market include central banks, refiners and investors with the London market being a central hub for these 24-hour transactions.

This proposal from the WGC would create a third type of transaction for the OTC gold in London and the pilot scheme due to be launched at the beginning of Q1 in 2026, will include major banks and trading houses as joint or co-owners of the underlying gold. This third pillar in the OTC market is known as the Wholesale Digital Gold Ecosystem (the “ECOSYSTEM) and will underpin as mentioned above, the new form of digital gold bars the pooled gold interests or PGI. This third transaction, or as the WGC refer to it, as the “Third Foundational Pillar” has been designed to sit alongside existing settlement through allocated and unallocated gold, with the belief that gold when paired with the new structure could unlock significant opportunities across financial markets with regard to trading, investment and collateralisation.

A Brief Overview – The Global Outlook for the Remainder of 2025

The central banks’ banker BIS (Bank for International Settlements) recently said that fractious geopolitics and trade tensions have exposed deep fault lines in the global financial system and the then head of the BIS, Augustin Carstens, (retired 30th June 2025) said the U.S.-driven trade war and other policy shifts were fraying the long-established economic order. He went on to say the global economy is at a pivotal moment entering a new era of heightened uncertainty, which was testing public trust in institutions, as well as central banks.

Today, experts suggest that for the remainder of 2025 there will be a slowdown in economic growth characterised by falling inflation, however analysts point to sticky inflation in the United States, along with persistent risks emanating from geopolitical tensions, together with increasing trade tensions which could perhaps result in a more negative impact on the global economy. Indeed, some analysts who were expecting a soft landing for the global economy have retracted these opinions as said soft landing has suddenly disappeared from view, as long-established trade relationships began to crumble with the announcement back in April this year of higher-than-expected U.S. trade tariffs.

Some financial news outlets have suggested that emerging and long-standing structural challenges are being faced by the global economy, and, for over 20 years, productivity growth has been on a downward path in many of today’s advanced economies. Furthermore, with the introduction of Trump’s tariffs this could accentuate the decline as further pressure is placed upon supply chains who are also facing current geopolitical tensions (the ongoing invasion of Ukraine by Russia, Middle East tensions between Israel, Iran and Gaza, and the potential invasion of Taiwan by China) that could be the driver of more frequent supply shocks.

On the global inflation front, analysts suggest that inflation is set to decline, though at a divergent pace, with some economies enjoying further declines, whilst others, especially the United States, face possible increases due to tariffs. However, some forecasters are at odds with each other with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) predicting a steady global decline from 2024 to 2025, and one major Wall Street player suggesting a global core inflation increase for the remainder of 2025.

Some financial commentators have even pointed the finger at the President of the United States as a danger to the global economy, not only for the remainder of 2025 but potentially for the rest of his term in office. Indeed, his continued attacks on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, and his attacks on the Federal Reserve itself for not reducing interest rates could threaten global financial stability. Some experts have pointed out the incumbent President was not elected due to his extensive knowledge of interest rates and all the attendant data that aids central banks in their decisions to hold, drop, or increase rates. The fear is that if politicians and in this case a U.S. president takes effective control of the Federal Reserve for their own political aims, this could set a dangerous precedent for other central banks where monetary policy is subject on a global basis to political interference.

There are a number of negative factors that could affect the global economy by the end of this year. Experts suggest that apart from geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts and trade wars, there is the negative impact of high public and private debt possibly exacerbated by higher interest rates, together with persistent/sticky inflation in some advanced economies along with stagnant productivity and an ageing population which can all have a negative effect on sustainable economic growth. Interestingly, as of today, India has been hit by a doubling of tariffs (for buying Russian oil) from 25% to 50%. There is no agreement in sight therefore India could serve as a template by the end of the year and into 2026 as to what impact tariffs have on their economy.