America
Global balance sheet hits $1.8 trillion as asset values decouple from real economic output, McKinsey report says
The global economic balance sheet reached approximately 1.8 quadrillion (1,800 trillion) in 2025, rising from $1.7 quadrillion in 2024.
According to a report published by McKinsey, the world is wealthier than ever before. However, this wealth relies on increasingly inflated valuations of paper assets rather than real output. How this contradiction resolves itself will determine the future of the world’s leading economies, the report stated.
The report noted that several asset classes have further expanded their imbalance with the “underlying” economy. This dynamic heightens the probability of corrections occurring through inflation, asset valuation losses, or, in the best-case scenario, productivity gains.
Unlike growth in the capital stock that generates real output, the tendency to rely on elevated valuations fuels the risk of a painful correction—either through falling asset prices or prolonged inflation.
Nevertheless, a more optimistic scenario exists in which the world essentially grows into these high asset valuations, supported by an artificial intelligence-driven productivity boom.
Researchers found that global household wealth reached $570 trillion, representing a $40 trillion increase compared to 2025.
Yet only 20% of this increase stemmed from genuine capital accumulation—namely net new investments in machinery and equipment, housing and buildings, infrastructure, and intellectual property.
The remainder was driven by a combination of inflation and price appreciation in the market value of existing assets.
In the US and Canada, equity values served as the primary driver of wealth expansion. In China, France, and Germany, paper wealth declined under the weight of falling real estate prices. In the UK and Japan, inflation pushed asset values higher.
This marks a more extreme iteration of a long-standing trend: from 2000 to 2024, net investments accounted for 30% of global wealth growth.
Examining the structure from the baseline up, real assets encompass real estate, infrastructure, machinery and equipment, and intellectual property owned by households, governments, and corporations. These carry a combined value of $620 trillion and constitute global net assets across all sectors.
Financial assets held outside the financial sector include equities, bonds, loans, foreign currency and deposits, and pension funds. Every financial asset carries a corresponding liability, and these balance each other out on a global level.
This “financial layer” functions to separate wealth from asset ownership and stood close to the total value of real assets.
The financial sector, meanwhile, intermediates between these financial assets and liabilities. With a volume of $550 trillion, the financial sector has reached 90% of the value of real assets.
Wealth is ultimately the balancing item on balance sheets, equaling the difference between total assets and liabilities. This stood at $600 trillion in 2025.
In 2025, the growing detachment of balance sheets from the real economy was driven by the world’s two largest economies.
With the share of corporate profits in GDP doubling since 2000, US equity valuations rose to 2.4 times the net asset value of corporations.
In China, corporate debt reached 80% of real assets, compared to a global average of 50%.
US public debt is hovering near all-time highs, while the fastest increase was recorded in China.
On a global scale, a major share of corporate and household debt, as well as real estate assets, approached 25-year averages relative to GDP.
Inflation contributed to this normalization; however, values remain well above pre-2000 levels. Against a backdrop of flat investment, the ratio of productive assets to GDP remained stagnant.
Jan Mischke, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute, told Axios: “We can now say that every asset on this planet has been financialized.”
There are several plausible paths through which these elevated asset valuations could uncoil. One is a simple “muddle through” approach: low growth leads to low interest rates, which allows high valuations to persist. This is roughly what occurred in major economies during the 2010s.
However, more dramatic possibilities exist—some positive, others alarming.
The best-case scenario for the global economy involves a productivity leap driven by AI or other sources that sparks a GDP boom, thereby justifying the high valuations of equities and other asset classes. This is essentially what occurred in the late 1990s.
A more pessimistic possibility is that sustained inflationary pressure erodes the real value of assets, forcing them back toward historical norms and leaving people poorer in real terms. This occurred, arguably, during 2021–2022.
The most concerning scenario is a global asset price reset of the kind witnessed in 2002 and 2008.
“Overstretched scenarios have a tendency to mean-revert, including in positive ways like productivity acceleration,” Mischke said. “But occasionally, you also get a major debt crisis or a market crash.”
Arvind Govindarajan, one of the co-authors of the report, posed the central question: “For us in the US, the real question is: Will productivity and GDP be higher—in which case we see a productivity boost—or will we slide into an inflationary scenario?”
Entering 2026, major economies followed diverging roadmaps, according to the report. The US operated under a “productivity acceleration” scenario, though high public debt and stretched equities keep the possibility of “persistent inflation” or a “balance sheet reset” on the table.
Europe drifted toward “secular stagnation,” as sluggish demand pulled down growth and interest rates.
In China, while a partial balance sheet reset unfolded amid falling real estate values, public spending and corporate investment continued to support balance sheet growth.
America
Milei hardens Falklands stance with oil sanctions and defence push
Argentine President Javier Milei has said he will tighten sanctions on companies involved in oil projects around the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
Milei also said he would increase defence resources in the south of the country and submit a bill to Congress aimed at strengthening Argentina’s response to what he described as violations of sovereignty.
In a televised address, Milei said he would sign a decree to accelerate sanctions under Argentine law against companies participating in oil and gas extraction activities in the territory, which Argentina considers its own but which remains under British control.
Speaking in an address to the nation early on Friday morning, Milei said the United Kingdom was facing a migration and economic crisis, adding that this meant Argentina would prevail in its claim over the Falkland Islands:
“If we look at the structural crisis in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the country is facing multiple crises on many fronts, including migration, demographics, and a difficult economic situation. It is clear that Argentina’s future is extremely promising and that Argentina will prevail.”
Milei said Argentina would intensify efforts to sanction not only the companies involved, but also their shareholders, executives, and suppliers.
“We will continue to prevent companies that are directly or indirectly involved in projects (on the islands) without Argentina’s permission from operating on Argentine territory,” the Argentine leader said.
He also stated that the government would issue an emergency decree to expand defence resources, under which a naval base would be built in the nearby province of Tierra del Fuego and telecommunications capabilities would be strengthened.
Milei added that he would submit an urgent “national defence of sovereignty” bill to Congress in order to stiffen penalties for unauthorised activities around the islands, extend sanctions to suppliers, and broaden the legal framework to cover other activities affecting Argentina’s natural resources.
Milei noted that Argentina had determined that the Sea Lion offshore project, operated by Navitas Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration, could begin oil exploration work in the coming months, presenting an imminent threat to Argentine interests.
The remarks mark a harder line from Milei, who had previously called for the Falkland Islands dispute to be resolved through diplomacy even while seeking warmer ties with Britain.
A British overseas territory located roughly 500 km east of the Argentine mainland, the Falkland Islands have long been claimed by Argentina.
Britain has controlled the islands since 1833, and the two countries fought a brief war over them in 1982.
London maintains that residents of the Falkland Islands voted on their political status and right to self-determination in a referendum held in March 2013. An overwhelming majority of 99.8% voted to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.
In his speech, Milei stated that residents of the Falkland Islands do not possess the right to self-determination and called on the country to unite around its claim to the islands.
Arguing that the global wind is currently “blowing in favour of Argentina’s demands”, Milei said: “A short time ago, President [Donald] Trump announced that the US is reconsidering its historic stance on the Malvinas islands.”
The British conservative newspaper The Telegraph wrote that the move would appease the US president, who intervened in the dispute and implied he would not assist the United Kingdom in fighting off an invasion of the Falkland Islands.
Asked whether the US would “come to the aid” of Britain, Trump referred to his confrontation with Iran, saying: “Your country was not there to help me.”
Trump then questioned whether Britain would have the capacity to defend the islands, telling GB News:
“Look, I was there when the first war broke out. That was a very long time ago, and I watched it very closely. You handled yourselves very well. You took the islands back quite decisively, but it is very far away.”
Speculation is mounting that Buenos Aires and Washington are discussing an agreement granting the US access to oil extracted off the Malvinas.
On the eve of Milei’s speech, Argentine Minister of Energy and Mining Daniel Gonzalez Casartelli was in Washington to discuss energy investments with American oil companies and members of the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair clashed with the British right by demanding that the Falkland Islands be placed under Argentine sovereignty.
According to Bloomberg, Argentina is currently in the midst of an oil boom. Drilling activity is accelerating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation in Patagonia, which already produces more than 1 million barrels of oil and gas per day.
The country also has some offshore production operations, and exploration activities have been carried out in South Atlantic waters in recent years.
Meanwhile, Milei met Sarah Rogers, a senior US State Department official, at a conservative political forum held in Chile.
Reiterating Argentina’s claim to the islands, Milei said: “We must take back these islands, which are negligible in national terms. There is no other way forward. This is the best way to pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for this cause.”
America
US House passes bill to strip federal aid over Israel boycotts
The US House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to strip federal financial aid from colleges and universities that participate in boycotts against Israel.
The Republican-led measure targets calls for accountability directed at the Tel Aviv government over its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, as well as expressions of solidarity with Palestine on university campuses.
Entitled the “Protecting Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026”, the legislation was approved on Thursday in a 237–169 vote.
Only two Republican lawmakers voted against the measure, while 33 Democrats broke party lines to vote in favour. The bill will now proceed to the Senate.
Designated as H.R. 4795, the proposal bars colleges and universities that benefit from federal student aid programmes from engaging in commercial boycotts against Israel.
Institutions receiving Title VI funding for international studies and foreign language programmes are also required to certify that they do not prevent students or faculty from participating in academic programmes in the occupied territories, nor restrict Israeli students and academics from accessing their campuses.
The bill was co-sponsored by Representative Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, and Representative Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat.
Representative Tim Walberg, chairman of the House Education Committee, argued that taxpayer money should under no circumstances flow to institutions that “discriminate against Israel”.
Gottheimer, a staunch supporter of the Israeli government, stated that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is a campaign “targeting a single country and a single religion”.
Opponents of the bill emphasised that the measure seeks to solve a non-existent problem and constitutes an attack on constitutionally protected free speech.
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Bobby Scott, pointed out that not a single US college or university has actually joined the global BDS movement. Scott recalled that while student and faculty bodies have announced support for BDS, university administrations have refused to implement those demands.
During the floor debate, Scott said: “We must fight antisemitism wherever it appears, but we should not do so by penalising protected free speech or conflating a student’s view with university policy.”
Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who opposes the BDS movement, also voted against the bill. Nadler noted that the only way to protect opinions one agrees with is to defend the right to express opinions one does not agree with.
The liberal Jewish organisation J Street was also among the actors opposing the bill. The group warned that the measure conflates boycotts of the Israeli government with those directed at companies linked to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
J Street stated that the bill places Israel in an exceptional position, does nothing to protect Jewish students, and risks inflaming antisemitism rather than countering it. By contrast, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly backed the legislation.
The vote follows nearly three years of sustained protests by students and faculty against Israel’s war in Gaza.
According to data from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, attacks carried out following the 7 October 2023 operation and the subsequent military campaign launched by Israel have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, while flattening the vast majority of the region’s universities, schools, and civilian infrastructure.
Encampments erected on university campuses demanded an end to the carnage and called on universities to divest financial holdings from companies profiting from the occupation and the war.
The Washington administration and its allies frequently characterised these protests as antisemitic. The Trump administration, meanwhile, targeted universities with various investigations and threats to freeze federal funds.
Aiming to protect their congressional majority in the November midterm elections and during the final two years of Trump’s term, House Republicans are keeping the issue on the agenda to deepen divisions among Democrats, who have grown increasingly critical of Israel as mass casualties in Gaza mount.
In July, amid accusations that the campaign in Gaza had reached genocidal proportions, more than 100 House Democrats supported an initiative to cut certain military aid to Israel, a US ally.
Critics argue that the latest bill is an extension of anti-BDS legislation previously enacted across more than 30 US states, which compels public contractors and public institutions to pledge not to boycott Israel.
Free speech advocates have long maintained that these state laws conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The measure passed by the House of Representatives aims to expand this pressure to the entire federal student financial aid system.
Although no US university has formally adopted a BDS decision, the bill makes even limited commercial or academic distancing from the Israeli government—including entities operating in the occupied Palestinian territories—grounds for terminating federal funding.
America
Pentagon office takes 35% stake in Venezuela oil venture
The Trump administration’s oil agreement with Venezuela represents the riskiest venture to date for a Pentagon unit originally established for an entirely different purpose.
The White House announced this week that the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), an entity operating under the Department of Defence, will acquire a 35% stake “at no cost to American taxpayers” in North American Blue Energy Partners, a firm headed by politically connected Venezuelan investor Alejandro Betancourt.
The objective is to make Venezuelan oilfields more attractive to US investors, thereby increasing revenue for Caracas whilst simultaneously squeezing out Chinese and Russian firms.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the OSC has already facilitated equity acquisitions in at least five other companies during President Donald Trump’s second term. The OSC was created to provide loans for the development of critical technologies.
However, because the Venezuelan agreement involves petroleum rather than conventional critical technology, it stretches the agency’s statutory boundaries even further and has already prompted Democrats to pledge congressional investigations.
Should Democrats regain power in Washington this November, any oversight drive could place the office’s efforts to secure state equity positions in private corporations under intense scrutiny.
In an interview with Semafor, a former OSC official stated:
“Acquiring equity was never intended when the OSC was founded; that circumstance alone does not necessarily constitute a problem. Nevertheless, it raises some legitimate legal and ethical questions.”
Jon Hillman, who directs the council’s tracking system, noted in an interview that the Venezuelan oil deal “appears to be uncharted territory”, adding that the office’s “mission is to catalyze private investment into specific, critical supply chain technologies necessary for national security.”
The statute that established the OSC defines its authority to provide “capital support” as extending and guaranteeing loans and offering technical assistance.
A Pentagon spokesperson initially told Reuters that the office was “not acquiring equity” in private enterprises due to this constrained remit.
On Tuesday, however, a US official offered a contrasting account to journalists, stating that the authority to acquire a stake in Betancourt’s company via “penny warrants” was “granted to the OSC when it was enacted into law under the Biden administration.”
A “penny warrant” is a financial contract that confers upon its holder the right to purchase corporate shares at a negligible, nominal price.
The US official added:
“This is an entirely standard arrangement in terms of the OSC’s capacity to maintain the financial position it holds under this agreement, and all financial positions granted to the OSC comply fully with the law.”
Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center, said in an interview that it was “impossible to render a definitive legal opinion” because officials had “not advanced a precise legal theory.”
Harrell added that the Trump administration may be banking on no party possessing either the legal standing or the inclination to bring a lawsuit over the transaction.
That calculation encompasses oil corporations hoping to profit from the newly reopened Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Cari Stinebower, an attorney at the law firm Steptoe who advises petroleum firms seeking to conduct business in Venezuela, said: “I suspect everyone may be quietly perplexed. Yet I do not believe anyone will speak out, because virtually everyone wants to participate in the investment opportunities in Venezuela.”
Jack Reed, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is among those already demanding further particulars regarding the agency’s statutory authority to conclude the agreement.
Certain Republicans are likewise keen to obtain additional information concerning the Venezuelan deal.
The Biden administration formed the OSC in 2022 to provide loans to businesses developing technologies deemed “vital” to national security.
Recent legislative initiatives aimed at formally expanding its authority to encompass equity investments have so far foundered.
Yet under the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defence Steve Feinberg, the administration pressed forward regardless, enlisting bankers to help deploy a lending authority that surged from $1 billion to $200 billion courtesy of recent party-line Republican tax legislation.
The current director of the OSC, David Lorch, previously served as a managing director at Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm founded by Feinberg.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS strikes fail to break Iran as regional anchors rise, Dr. Moeini says
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoBlackwater founder Erik Prince creates air defence venture with Kyiv
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSouth Korea begins first commercial voyage via Northern Sea Route
-
Europe2 weeks agoUK and Russia edge closer to conflict over long-range drone supply
-
Opinion2 weeks agoWhat did the Israeli attack in Syria reveal?
-
Asia2 weeks agoIndia intel push on China risks dangerous miscalculation, study says
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina and Arab states launch 5-year anti-desertification plan
-
Russia1 week agoPutin circle weighs tactical nuclear risk as Ukraine talks stall
