Author: admin heyokha

Has central bank independence ever been tested like this before? One war is tough enough. We may have three.


Has central bank independence ever been tested like this before? One war is tough enough. We may have three.

Published: May 05 2026

Last week’s post on Yellen left us turning over a question. Has central bank independence ever been tested like this before? Are there moments in history we should be reading our own moment against?

It is worth pausing for a sentence on what we mean. Central bank independence is the working assumption that the people who set interest rates can do so without being told what to do by the people who issue debt.

The Fed has had it, in modern form, since Paul Volcker’s 1979 appointment; most of the rest of the developed world adopted some version of it over the following two decades. Whether that assumption survives the next few years is the question hanging over markets right now.

Our reading is that the answer to the question we started with is yes. Central bank independence has been tested before, on at least four separate occasions in the last century, and the pattern is suggestive: they cluster, with surprising consistency, around wars.

The institution looks, on closer inspection, like a peacetime convention. We seem to be entering not one war but three at once.

 

A century of wartime tests of central-bank independence.

Source: Heyokha Research

The pattern: one war tends to be enough

The record is consistent enough to be suggestive. Central banks fold to fiscal needs when the state declares a real emergency. Not always cleanly, not always quickly, but reliably enough to look like a rule.

In late July 1914, with WWI breaking out, U.S. Treasury Secretary William McAdoo asked the New York Stock Exchange to close, to stop foreign liquidations of American assets. It stayed closed, in some form, for four months. The Federal Reserve had been signed into law eight months earlier and would not actually open its doors until November. Independence was an idea. War was the test.

From April 1942 through March 1951, at the Treasury’s request, the Fed pegged short Treasury bills at 0.375% and capped long Treasury yields at 2.5%. CPI peaked at 19.7% YoY in March 1947, making the real long-bond yield that month roughly minus seventeen percent. An investor who held a 30-year Treasury through the peg lost something close to half their purchasing power. The Fed only got its independence back via the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord, six years after the war had ended. The independence of an institution and the patience of its bondholders, it turns out, are not the same thing.

The hoarding of T-Bills to fund the war debt

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1976).

 

In December 1965, William McChesney Martin’s Fed raised the discount rate during Vietnam financing. Two days later, LBJ summoned him to the Texas ranch (where the President was recovering from gallbladder surgery) and, by most accounts, physically pushed him around the room with the line: Martin, my boys are dying in Vietnam, and you won’t print the money I need. Martin held the line on the rate decision in public. Years later, he confessed to a friend: To my everlasting shame, I finally gave in to him.

The institution had no protection. The man’s stubbornness did, briefly.

In September 1979, Arthur Burns gave the Per Jacobsson lecture in Belgrade titled “The Anguish of Central Banking.” It read less as theory than as confession: central bankers who try to defy political pressure during a national emergency tend to lose, because the emergency is real, the public sides with the government, and the central bank has no political constituency of its own. Volcker, the figure who briefly seemed to refute him, was being pressed by Reagan’s Treasury to ease by 1986 and was eased into retirement in 1987. The exception, it turns out, also tends to prove the pattern.

source: Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research

So the pattern, viewed from sufficient height: one genuine national emergency tends to override the convention. We are currently looking at three.

The dashboard, this spring

The hot war. The U.S. has been in active engagement with Iran since early February. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on 28 February formally opened what the press is now calling the 2026 Iran war. Tankers in and around the Strait of Hormuz are being seized; Iranian drones are being shot down over the Gulf. With Iran reportedly negotiating with China for hypersonic anti-ship missiles, the kind designed to neutralise U.S. naval power in the region, the contest looks less like a regional skirmish than a U.S.-China proxy with Iran as the contested ground.

The cold war. No soldiers shooting; every other lever of state power being pulled. Tariff threats on countries arming Iran. Secondary-sanction letters to Chinese banks. Beijing’s recent 18-point regulation giving authorities the power to investigate and bar foreign-company executives from leaving the country. The arc of containment is being drawn in real time, and capital is being trapped on both sides of it.

The one still ongoing. Russia-Ukraine, now in its fifth year. The EU adopted its 20th sanctions package on 23 April. There is no ceasefire. The war has settled into the kind of grinding precedent that quietly redirects European savings into national defence, which is a precedent in its own right.

Each alone might be enough to override the convention. Stacked, they’re harder to argue against. We are also stacking them on top of a fiscal position that didn’t exist in 1942 or 1965. U.S. net interest expense reached $970 billion in FY2025 (3.2% of GDP) and is projected to clear $1 trillion in FY2026, already the second-largest line in the federal budget, ahead of defence and behind only Social Security. The temptation to lean on the Fed is not a personality trait of the current administration. It is the gravitational pull of the math.

U.S. federal net interest expense as share of GDP, with FY2026 projection.

Source: CBO, U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

What Burns was really saying

Burns’s anguish was about the gap between the model an economist studies and the institution an economist actually runs. The model assumes the central bank stands apart. The institution does not. It funds whatever the state needs funded when the state declares an emergency. The freedom, mostly, is in how: in the tone, the framing, the press conference.

Excerpts from Arthur Burns’ lecture (former Fed chair in 1970-1978 who is known to let inflation run rampant). This lecture is essentially his defense on Fed’s independence being difficult to uphold

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis

In practice, if our reading is right, the playbook will look fairly familiar. Powell will signal it one way. Whoever replaces Powell will signal it more quietly. The substance will be similar: rates capped relative to inflation, captive buyers of U.S. bonds manufactured, the debt stock eroded in real terms over the next decade. The wars get paid for, slowly, by whoever’s savings sit in nominal currency or government debt.

Markets keep treating each new data point (a rate decision, a Treasury auction, a Powell press conference) as a referendum on whether the regime is changing. We understand the appeal: watching the data point is something you can do, and feels like agency. Our suspicion, offered in the spirit it deserves, is that the referendum has been held. What’s left is the speed at which bond, equity and currency markets adjust to the new state.

If that’s roughly right, and we hold it the way one ought to hold any reading of an ongoing event, the implications are the ones we’ve been quietly writing about for years. Gold, owned for the boring decades and not just the loud ones. Real assets with pricing power. Some non-USD exposure, since this is, eventually, a story about the unit of account. A polite skepticism toward any narrative that quietly assumes a developed-world central bank will choose inflation control over fiscal accommodation in this environment.

That choice was probably always going to be made for them. One war, the record suggests, is already tough enough. We repeat again dear readers – we are in three. It will be near impossible to have a choice.

 

Tara Mulia
For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: May 05 2026

Last week’s post on Yellen left us turning over a question. Has central bank independence ever been tested like this before? Are there moments in history we should be reading our own moment against?

It is worth pausing for a sentence on what we mean. Central bank independence is the working assumption that the people who set interest rates can do so without being told what to do by the people who issue debt.

The Fed has had it, in modern form, since Paul Volcker’s 1979 appointment; most of the rest of the developed world adopted some version of it over the following two decades. Whether that assumption survives the next few years is the question hanging over markets right now.

Our reading is that the answer to the question we started with is yes. Central bank independence has been tested before, on at least four separate occasions in the last century, and the pattern is suggestive: they cluster, with surprising consistency, around wars.

The institution looks, on closer inspection, like a peacetime convention. We seem to be entering not one war but three at once.

 

A century of wartime tests of central-bank independence.

Source: Heyokha Research

The pattern: one war tends to be enough

The record is consistent enough to be suggestive. Central banks fold to fiscal needs when the state declares a real emergency. Not always cleanly, not always quickly, but reliably enough to look like a rule.

In late July 1914, with WWI breaking out, U.S. Treasury Secretary William McAdoo asked the New York Stock Exchange to close, to stop foreign liquidations of American assets. It stayed closed, in some form, for four months. The Federal Reserve had been signed into law eight months earlier and would not actually open its doors until November. Independence was an idea. War was the test.

From April 1942 through March 1951, at the Treasury’s request, the Fed pegged short Treasury bills at 0.375% and capped long Treasury yields at 2.5%. CPI peaked at 19.7% YoY in March 1947, making the real long-bond yield that month roughly minus seventeen percent. An investor who held a 30-year Treasury through the peg lost something close to half their purchasing power. The Fed only got its independence back via the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord, six years after the war had ended. The independence of an institution and the patience of its bondholders, it turns out, are not the same thing.

The hoarding of T-Bills to fund the war debt

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1976).

 

In December 1965, William McChesney Martin’s Fed raised the discount rate during Vietnam financing. Two days later, LBJ summoned him to the Texas ranch (where the President was recovering from gallbladder surgery) and, by most accounts, physically pushed him around the room with the line: Martin, my boys are dying in Vietnam, and you won’t print the money I need. Martin held the line on the rate decision in public. Years later, he confessed to a friend: To my everlasting shame, I finally gave in to him.

The institution had no protection. The man’s stubbornness did, briefly.

In September 1979, Arthur Burns gave the Per Jacobsson lecture in Belgrade titled “The Anguish of Central Banking.” It read less as theory than as confession: central bankers who try to defy political pressure during a national emergency tend to lose, because the emergency is real, the public sides with the government, and the central bank has no political constituency of its own. Volcker, the figure who briefly seemed to refute him, was being pressed by Reagan’s Treasury to ease by 1986 and was eased into retirement in 1987. The exception, it turns out, also tends to prove the pattern.

source: Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research

So the pattern, viewed from sufficient height: one genuine national emergency tends to override the convention. We are currently looking at three.

The dashboard, this spring

The hot war. The U.S. has been in active engagement with Iran since early February. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on 28 February formally opened what the press is now calling the 2026 Iran war. Tankers in and around the Strait of Hormuz are being seized; Iranian drones are being shot down over the Gulf. With Iran reportedly negotiating with China for hypersonic anti-ship missiles, the kind designed to neutralise U.S. naval power in the region, the contest looks less like a regional skirmish than a U.S.-China proxy with Iran as the contested ground.

The cold war. No soldiers shooting; every other lever of state power being pulled. Tariff threats on countries arming Iran. Secondary-sanction letters to Chinese banks. Beijing’s recent 18-point regulation giving authorities the power to investigate and bar foreign-company executives from leaving the country. The arc of containment is being drawn in real time, and capital is being trapped on both sides of it.

The one still ongoing. Russia-Ukraine, now in its fifth year. The EU adopted its 20th sanctions package on 23 April. There is no ceasefire. The war has settled into the kind of grinding precedent that quietly redirects European savings into national defence, which is a precedent in its own right.

Each alone might be enough to override the convention. Stacked, they’re harder to argue against. We are also stacking them on top of a fiscal position that didn’t exist in 1942 or 1965. U.S. net interest expense reached $970 billion in FY2025 (3.2% of GDP) and is projected to clear $1 trillion in FY2026, already the second-largest line in the federal budget, ahead of defence and behind only Social Security. The temptation to lean on the Fed is not a personality trait of the current administration. It is the gravitational pull of the math.

U.S. federal net interest expense as share of GDP, with FY2026 projection.

Source: CBO, U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

What Burns was really saying

Burns’s anguish was about the gap between the model an economist studies and the institution an economist actually runs. The model assumes the central bank stands apart. The institution does not. It funds whatever the state needs funded when the state declares an emergency. The freedom, mostly, is in how: in the tone, the framing, the press conference.

Excerpts from Arthur Burns’ lecture (former Fed chair in 1970-1978 who is known to let inflation run rampant). This lecture is essentially his defense on Fed’s independence being difficult to uphold

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis

In practice, if our reading is right, the playbook will look fairly familiar. Powell will signal it one way. Whoever replaces Powell will signal it more quietly. The substance will be similar: rates capped relative to inflation, captive buyers of U.S. bonds manufactured, the debt stock eroded in real terms over the next decade. The wars get paid for, slowly, by whoever’s savings sit in nominal currency or government debt.

Markets keep treating each new data point (a rate decision, a Treasury auction, a Powell press conference) as a referendum on whether the regime is changing. We understand the appeal: watching the data point is something you can do, and feels like agency. Our suspicion, offered in the spirit it deserves, is that the referendum has been held. What’s left is the speed at which bond, equity and currency markets adjust to the new state.

If that’s roughly right, and we hold it the way one ought to hold any reading of an ongoing event, the implications are the ones we’ve been quietly writing about for years. Gold, owned for the boring decades and not just the loud ones. Real assets with pricing power. Some non-USD exposure, since this is, eventually, a story about the unit of account. A polite skepticism toward any narrative that quietly assumes a developed-world central bank will choose inflation control over fiscal accommodation in this environment.

That choice was probably always going to be made for them. One war, the record suggests, is already tough enough. We repeat again dear readers – we are in three. It will be near impossible to have a choice.

 

Tara Mulia
For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Welcome to the Banana Republic


Welcome to the Banana Republic

Published: Apr 24 2026

Once in a while, a thesis you’ve been quietly writing for years lands on the front page via someone the market cannot ignore. Last week, that was Janet Yellen.

Speaking at the HSBC Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong on April 15, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and before that former Fed Chair, was asked about the Trump administration’s campaign to pressure the Federal Reserve into cutting rates to reduce the government’s debt service costs. Her answer was not diplomatic:

“How often does the president of a developed country express the view that the interest rate should be set to reduce the debt service cost?

This is what you hear in a banana republic.”

– Janet Yellen, Hong Kong, 15 April 2026

Source: South China Morning Post

She added that she had “never seen a threat of this level to the Fed before,” and called the White House’s floated threats of criminal charges against Chair Jerome Powell “the ultimate step,” an “unprecedented” way of interfering with central bank independence.
We have been writing about this dynamic since 2018. Not this specific headline, but this specificargument. In our quarterly reports, our special report Gold: The Return of Real Money, and as recently as our April 3 blog The 1974 Illusion, we have argued the same thing: when a government carries a structurally unsustainable debt load, the arithmetic leaves only one viable exit. What is new is that it is now being proposed openly, from the White House, with a straight face.

The Playbook Of An Indebted Government

When a government carries a debt load it cannot grow or tax its way out of, it reaches for the same playbook every time. The playbook has a name, financial repression, and the mechanics are simple:

  • Cap nominal rates below inflation. Pressure the central bank, directly or via appointments, to keep policy rates low even as prices rise.
  • Let inflation run hot. Don’t fight it. Let it erode the real value of the outstanding debt stock.
  • Create captive buyers. Force pension funds, banks, and insurers to hold low-yielding sovereign paper by regulation, tax incentive, or outright mandate.
  • Wait. Over a decade or two, the real burden of the debt silently melts. The holders of the bonds, usually savers and retirees, pay the bill through lost purchasing power.

Source: Heyokha Research

This is not theoretical. The United States ran this exact playbook from 1946 to 1951 to work off the WWII debt stock. The UK did the same across the post-war decades, Japan has run a variant for thirty years, and every emerging market that has ever been in fiscal trouble has arrived at the same door. There is no clever third option. The arithmetic always wins.

Now it’s higher than WW2!
Source: Bloomberg

The Arithmetic That Forces It

We laid the numbers out in The 1974 Illusion. They are worth repeating, because the gap between what the math says and what markets are pricing is where the opportunity lives.

  • U.S. federal debt: ~$39 trillion. Debt-to-GDP now above 120%, higher than the post-WWII peak that triggered the last formal repression episode.
  • Interest expense + mandatory outlays: ~92% of federal tax revenue. That leaves almost nothing left over to run the country, never mind rebuilding infrastructure or funding a great-power rivalry.
  • The gap Trump wants closed: 250 basis points. Fed funds sits at 3.50–3.75%; the White House wants 1%. Not all of it flows through overnight: long rates don’t follow Fed funds one-for-one, and only maturing debt reprices. But about $7–9 trillion of Treasury paper rolls every year, so even a partial pass-through compounds into hundreds of billions over a few cycles. That is the prize.

 

Paul Volcker could hike to 17% in 1980 because debt-to-GDP was 33% and the sovereign could absorb the medicine. In 2026, with the structural inflation now building on the back of the Iran energy shock, the same medicine kills the patient. The Volcker playbook is dead, and everyone who runs the numbers knows it.

Source: Heyokha Research

So the choice is not between hawkish discipline and dovish indulgence. The choice is between an explicit repression regime, run openly, and a quiet one, run by nods and winks. Yellen’s point is that Trump is picking the former. That is what makes it a banana republic: not the arithmetic, but the willingness to stop pretending.

Three Red Lines in Just Two Working Days

If this were only an American story, one could call it a political aberration that corrects when administrations change. It isn’t. In five working days in April, three supposedly-inviolable lines got walked past in public.

  • April 15, Hormuz. The U.S. turned back the Rich Starry, a sanctioned tanker attempting to break the American blockade at the entrance to the Strait. Washington is now actively interdicting the flow of energy to China. The mechanism is explicit.
  • April 16, London. The House of Commons passed the first leg of a bill letting a government minister mandate the asset allocation of UK pension funds. This is literal financial repression, legislated, at a moment when most of the market is busy looking at equities making new highs.
  • April 16, Bloomberg TV. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the man who effectively nationalised much of the American financial system in 2008, admitted on air that there is a “break the glass” plan for the moment the U.S. government cannot sell Treasuries at a yield it can afford. One man saying that in public at that moment is not an accident. That is a former Treasury Secretary pre-positioning the idea in the discourse.

 

These are not three stories. They are one story: governments reaching, in public, for coercive tools the post-1980 consensus promised would stay on the shelf. Control of commodity flows. Control of where private savings clear. Control of the price a Treasury pays for its own debt. Three levers. One direction of travel. All of it inside two working days.

What To Do When The Playbook Is Public

The uncomfortable truth about financial repression is that it is engineered to punish the people who did exactly what they were told to do: save responsibly in sovereign bonds and hold cash in the local currency. It has to work that way for the arithmetic to resolve. A few things follow:

  1. Gold is insurance, not speculation. We argued in Gold: The Return of Real Money that a reversion to historical gold-to-monetary-base ratios implies fair value well north of where we are today. Yellen’s quote didn’t change our view. It shortened the distance between our view and the consensus one.
  2. Own real assets with genuine pricing power. Commodity producers outside the repression geography, food-chain businesses whose margins flex with input costs, and equities with monopolistic or near-monopolistic pricing. Bonds are not shelters in this regime.
  3. Treat inflation expectations as the variable, not the constant. The entire developed-world pricing complex is currently behaving as if inflation expectations are anchored. Yellen’s warning and the UK pension bill say the same thing: that assumption is on borrowed time.

The Arithmetic Doesn’t Wait

This isn’t a prediction. The playbook is already running, in public, with fingerprints on it. Yellen put a name on it this week. Paulson rehearsed its next move on Bloomberg. Westminster started legislating the machinery on the 16th. The only part still pending is the part where markets stop discounting it.

For our readers, none of this is new. We’ve argued the structure, written about gold as insurance rather than speculation, and laid out the arithmetic in blog after blog. What is new this week is that the argument no longer requires a footnote.

 

 

Tara Mulia
For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Apr 24 2026

Once in a while, a thesis you’ve been quietly writing for years lands on the front page via someone the market cannot ignore. Last week, that was Janet Yellen.

Speaking at the HSBC Global Investment Summit in Hong Kong on April 15, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and before that former Fed Chair, was asked about the Trump administration’s campaign to pressure the Federal Reserve into cutting rates to reduce the government’s debt service costs. Her answer was not diplomatic:

“How often does the president of a developed country express the view that the interest rate should be set to reduce the debt service cost?

This is what you hear in a banana republic.”

– Janet Yellen, Hong Kong, 15 April 2026

Source: South China Morning Post

She added that she had “never seen a threat of this level to the Fed before,” and called the White House’s floated threats of criminal charges against Chair Jerome Powell “the ultimate step,” an “unprecedented” way of interfering with central bank independence.
We have been writing about this dynamic since 2018. Not this specific headline, but this specificargument. In our quarterly reports, our special report Gold: The Return of Real Money, and as recently as our April 3 blog The 1974 Illusion, we have argued the same thing: when a government carries a structurally unsustainable debt load, the arithmetic leaves only one viable exit. What is new is that it is now being proposed openly, from the White House, with a straight face.

The Playbook Of An Indebted Government

When a government carries a debt load it cannot grow or tax its way out of, it reaches for the same playbook every time. The playbook has a name, financial repression, and the mechanics are simple:

  • Cap nominal rates below inflation. Pressure the central bank, directly or via appointments, to keep policy rates low even as prices rise.
  • Let inflation run hot. Don’t fight it. Let it erode the real value of the outstanding debt stock.
  • Create captive buyers. Force pension funds, banks, and insurers to hold low-yielding sovereign paper by regulation, tax incentive, or outright mandate.
  • Wait. Over a decade or two, the real burden of the debt silently melts. The holders of the bonds, usually savers and retirees, pay the bill through lost purchasing power.

Source: Heyokha Research

This is not theoretical. The United States ran this exact playbook from 1946 to 1951 to work off the WWII debt stock. The UK did the same across the post-war decades, Japan has run a variant for thirty years, and every emerging market that has ever been in fiscal trouble has arrived at the same door. There is no clever third option. The arithmetic always wins.

Now it’s higher than WW2!
Source: Bloomberg

The Arithmetic That Forces It

We laid the numbers out in The 1974 Illusion. They are worth repeating, because the gap between what the math says and what markets are pricing is where the opportunity lives.

  • U.S. federal debt: ~$39 trillion. Debt-to-GDP now above 120%, higher than the post-WWII peak that triggered the last formal repression episode.
  • Interest expense + mandatory outlays: ~92% of federal tax revenue. That leaves almost nothing left over to run the country, never mind rebuilding infrastructure or funding a great-power rivalry.
  • The gap Trump wants closed: 250 basis points. Fed funds sits at 3.50–3.75%; the White House wants 1%. Not all of it flows through overnight: long rates don’t follow Fed funds one-for-one, and only maturing debt reprices. But about $7–9 trillion of Treasury paper rolls every year, so even a partial pass-through compounds into hundreds of billions over a few cycles. That is the prize.

 

Paul Volcker could hike to 17% in 1980 because debt-to-GDP was 33% and the sovereign could absorb the medicine. In 2026, with the structural inflation now building on the back of the Iran energy shock, the same medicine kills the patient. The Volcker playbook is dead, and everyone who runs the numbers knows it.

Source: Heyokha Research

So the choice is not between hawkish discipline and dovish indulgence. The choice is between an explicit repression regime, run openly, and a quiet one, run by nods and winks. Yellen’s point is that Trump is picking the former. That is what makes it a banana republic: not the arithmetic, but the willingness to stop pretending.

Three Red Lines in Just Two Working Days

If this were only an American story, one could call it a political aberration that corrects when administrations change. It isn’t. In five working days in April, three supposedly-inviolable lines got walked past in public.

  • April 15, Hormuz. The U.S. turned back the Rich Starry, a sanctioned tanker attempting to break the American blockade at the entrance to the Strait. Washington is now actively interdicting the flow of energy to China. The mechanism is explicit.
  • April 16, London. The House of Commons passed the first leg of a bill letting a government minister mandate the asset allocation of UK pension funds. This is literal financial repression, legislated, at a moment when most of the market is busy looking at equities making new highs.
  • April 16, Bloomberg TV. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the man who effectively nationalised much of the American financial system in 2008, admitted on air that there is a “break the glass” plan for the moment the U.S. government cannot sell Treasuries at a yield it can afford. One man saying that in public at that moment is not an accident. That is a former Treasury Secretary pre-positioning the idea in the discourse.

 

These are not three stories. They are one story: governments reaching, in public, for coercive tools the post-1980 consensus promised would stay on the shelf. Control of commodity flows. Control of where private savings clear. Control of the price a Treasury pays for its own debt. Three levers. One direction of travel. All of it inside two working days.

What To Do When The Playbook Is Public

The uncomfortable truth about financial repression is that it is engineered to punish the people who did exactly what they were told to do: save responsibly in sovereign bonds and hold cash in the local currency. It has to work that way for the arithmetic to resolve. A few things follow:

  1. Gold is insurance, not speculation. We argued in Gold: The Return of Real Money that a reversion to historical gold-to-monetary-base ratios implies fair value well north of where we are today. Yellen’s quote didn’t change our view. It shortened the distance between our view and the consensus one.
  2. Own real assets with genuine pricing power. Commodity producers outside the repression geography, food-chain businesses whose margins flex with input costs, and equities with monopolistic or near-monopolistic pricing. Bonds are not shelters in this regime.
  3. Treat inflation expectations as the variable, not the constant. The entire developed-world pricing complex is currently behaving as if inflation expectations are anchored. Yellen’s warning and the UK pension bill say the same thing: that assumption is on borrowed time.

The Arithmetic Doesn’t Wait

This isn’t a prediction. The playbook is already running, in public, with fingerprints on it. Yellen put a name on it this week. Paulson rehearsed its next move on Bloomberg. Westminster started legislating the machinery on the 16th. The only part still pending is the part where markets stop discounting it.

For our readers, none of this is new. We’ve argued the structure, written about gold as insurance rather than speculation, and laid out the arithmetic in blog after blog. What is new this week is that the argument no longer requires a footnote.

 

 

Tara Mulia
For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



The Calorie Chokepoint: Why Hormuz is a Food Crisis in Slow Motion


The Calorie Chokepoint: Why Hormuz is a Food Crisis in Slow Motion

Published: Apr 17 2026

We sat down to watch the latest sci-fi film “Project Hail Mary” last week expecting something light but got the opposite.

Early in the film, the head of an international task force lays out the stakes to the main character being sent on a desperate space mission: an alien microorganism is slowly consuming the sun’s energy. At current trajectory of colder temperatures, food production will collapses and roughly 25% of the world’s population will die of starvation. Very dire situation for the main character.

Source: MGM

We couldn’t stop thinking about it — not because we’re facing a dying sun, but because a version of a similar downward cascade is playing out right now in the Strait of Hormuz. The oil story has dominated every headline. What isn’t being talked about nearly enough is what’s happening to food.

This Is Not Just an Oil Story

Since late February 2026, the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively disrupted, caught in the crossfire of an escalating Iran conflict. The world knows this. Markets have priced in the oil shock. Analysts have run the Brent scenarios. That conversation is well underway.

Here is the conversation that hasn’t started yet.

The Strait of Hormuz isn’t just the world’s most important oil chokepoint. It is also the jugular vein of global fertilizer trade. And right now, it is being squeezed.

Source: Goldman Sachs

Consider what flows through those 33 kilometers of water:

  • Around 34% of global urea shipments
  • Around 23% of global ammonia
  • Around 20% of global phosphates

 

That means close to 50% of world urea exports originate west of Hormuz and must pass through it. That also means close to 30% of all global fertilizer trade transits the Strait.

Oil gets the headlines because its price moves immediately and visibly. Fertilizer deserves its own headline because its price also moves quite quickly and the damage lands months later in the food supply, long after the Strait has reopened and the world has moved on.

The Price Shock Is Already Here

We said slow motion. But the first act has already been fast. In the roughly six weeks since disruption intensified, fertilizer markets have repriced violently:

  • Urea: up around 70% in six weeks, now above $800/ton; up roughly 104% year-to-date on a futures basis
  • India import bids: $935–959/ton — roughly double what buyers were paying two months ago

 

To put the immediate jolt in context: in the first weeks post-disruption, fertilizer markets saw a 28–30% spike. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a supply chain cardiac event.

Will we see it test higher prices than the Russian-Ukraine war?

Source: Bloomberg

We Have Seen This Movie Before — In 2022

In our earlier blog “Rising Fertiliser and Food Prices: Who Will Be Spared?”, written in April 2022, we tracked what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine and effectively weaponized the nitrogen supply chain. The mechanism was the same: a geopolitical shock hit the gas supply (ammonia’s key feedstock), fertilizer plants went dark across Europe, and prices detonated.

The 2022 Ukraine shock produced:

  • Ammonia prices up ~200% from pre-war levels at peak
  • Global urea prices hitting record highs above $900/ton
  • Food price index (FAO) reaching its highest level ever recorded — March 2022
  • Export bans from India, China, and Russia as countries hoarded supply
  • Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan facing acute fertilizer shortages

In case you need a refresher of how it went down back in 2022

Source: Heyokha research, Bloomberg

In 2022, the shock was upstream energy: gas prices broke fertilizer production. In 2026, the shock is logistics: a physical blockade on the world’s most fertilizer-intensive shipping lane. The mechanism is different. The destination is the same.

The Chain Reaction Nobody Is Pricing In

Here is what makes this crisis different from an oil shock — and more dangerous for long-term inflation. Oil prices move, and within months, the effect is felt at the pump. Consumers adjust. Central banks watch CPI. The feedback loop is fast and visible.

Fertilizer doesn’t work that way. It operates on an agricultural calendar. And right now, we are in the exact wrong moment of that calendar.

The sequence looks like this:

  • Fertilizer prices spike (now) → farmers in Asia, Africa, and LatAm face input costs they cannot absorb
  • Planting decisions change (within weeks) → farmers reduce application rates, switch to lower-input crops, or skip planting altogether
  • Crop yields fall (harvest season, Q3–Q4 2026) → lower output than the market expects
  • Food supply tightens (post-harvest) → grain, rice, and staple inventories shrink
  • Food prices rise (lagged CPI impact) → the inflation the market didn’t price in arrives on schedule

 

This is not cyclical inflation. This is not a demand shock that the Fed can cool with a rate hike. This is structural inflation driven by a real, physical constraint on one of the most inelastic goods on earth: food. You cannot print more rice. You cannot stimulate your way to a better harvest.

And crucially — the data will look fine right now. Commodity desks will note that food CPI has not moved. Analysts will say the market is calm. That calm is the problem. The harvest hasn’t happened yet.

Who Gets Hit First

Not everyone feels this equally. The geography of vulnerability follows the fertilizer import map, and it skews heavily toward the countries least able to absorb it. India is already bidding urea at $935–959 per ton, roughly double two months ago. Bangladesh, Pakistan, and much of Sub-Saharan Africa run food expenditure ratios above 50% of household income; a 30–50% fertilizer input shock is not an abstraction for the people at the end of this supply chain — it is a decision about whether to plant at all. When farmers in import-dependent economies reduce application rates or skip a crop cycle, the deficit gets quietly written into soil that won’t talk back until harvest season.

Source: Bloomberg

The Inflation That Was Already Coming

We want to be precise about something: this is not a new worry for us. We first wrote about ammonia as a geopolitical weapon in early 2022, in “Rising Fertiliser and Food Prices: Who Will Be Spared?” — before most investors were treating it as anything other than a niche commodity story. The thesis then was that supply chain breakdown, energy crisis, and geopolitical tension had crystallised into a perfect storm for food prices, and that the effects would travel through the system far more slowly and durably than markets expected.

Later that year, when food prices briefly cooled and analysts declared the crisis over, we pushed back in “The End of the Decade of Plenty” blog back in November 2022. The FAO food price index had fallen 14.7% from its March peak,  but the dollar had risen 21.5% over the same period, meaning most countries were actually paying more in local currency terms. Export bans were proliferating. The underlying supply-side pressures had not resolved; they had merely gone quiet. We said then: don’t mistake a pause for a resolution.

That lesson applies with full force today. The latest data from FAO ((Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)) is already seeing Food Price Index rising for a second consecutive month, driven by energy related pressures from the Middle East conflict.

Averaged 128.5 points in March 2026, up 3.0 points from February

Source: FAO

What we are describing is not a cyclical event central banks can hike away. It is structural inflation — driven by real, physical constraints on the most inelastic thing on earth. You cannot print more rice. The Hormuz crisis will eventually ease and shipping lanes will reopen, but the harvest that didn’t happen won’t come back.

You cannot retroactively fertilize a field that went under-dosed in April. The consequences are already baked into the ground.

The question for investors isn’t whether this inflation arrives, it’s whether you’re positioned for a world where food prices reprice structurally and stay there. We’ve long believed the answer lies in owning the things scarcity makes more valuable and the kind of exposure to real assets that actually benefits when the fiction of infinite, frictionless abundance runs into a closed strait. The broader point is the same one we’ve been making since the decade of plenty ended: efficiency was the trade of the last era; resilience is the trade of this one.

In the film, (spoiler alert) humanity gets its Hail Mary — a one-in-a-billion miracle, executed by a lone astronaut and some extra-terrestrial help, arriving in the nick of time. Inspiring. Also not our base case.

What is our Hail Mary?
source: MGM

The real-world version of this story doesn’t end with a miracle. It ends with whoever read the data early enough being fine, and whoever assumed the world would stay frictionless being very surprised by their future grocery bill.

 

 

Tara Mulia
For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Apr 17 2026

We sat down to watch the latest sci-fi film “Project Hail Mary” last week expecting something light but got the opposite.

Early in the film, the head of an international task force lays out the stakes to the main character being sent on a desperate space mission: an alien microorganism is slowly consuming the sun’s energy. At current trajectory of colder temperatures, food production will collapses and roughly 25% of the world’s population will die of starvation. Very dire situation for the main character.

Source: MGM

We couldn’t stop thinking about it — not because we’re facing a dying sun, but because a version of a similar downward cascade is playing out right now in the Strait of Hormuz. The oil story has dominated every headline. What isn’t being talked about nearly enough is what’s happening to food.

This Is Not Just an Oil Story

Since late February 2026, the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively disrupted, caught in the crossfire of an escalating Iran conflict. The world knows this. Markets have priced in the oil shock. Analysts have run the Brent scenarios. That conversation is well underway.

Here is the conversation that hasn’t started yet.

The Strait of Hormuz isn’t just the world’s most important oil chokepoint. It is also the jugular vein of global fertilizer trade. And right now, it is being squeezed.

Source: Goldman Sachs

Consider what flows through those 33 kilometers of water:

  • Around 34% of global urea shipments
  • Around 23% of global ammonia
  • Around 20% of global phosphates

 

That means close to 50% of world urea exports originate west of Hormuz and must pass through it. That also means close to 30% of all global fertilizer trade transits the Strait.

Oil gets the headlines because its price moves immediately and visibly. Fertilizer deserves its own headline because its price also moves quite quickly and the damage lands months later in the food supply, long after the Strait has reopened and the world has moved on.

The Price Shock Is Already Here

We said slow motion. But the first act has already been fast. In the roughly six weeks since disruption intensified, fertilizer markets have repriced violently:

  • Urea: up around 70% in six weeks, now above $800/ton; up roughly 104% year-to-date on a futures basis
  • India import bids: $935–959/ton — roughly double what buyers were paying two months ago

 

To put the immediate jolt in context: in the first weeks post-disruption, fertilizer markets saw a 28–30% spike. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a supply chain cardiac event.

Will we see it test higher prices than the Russian-Ukraine war?

Source: Bloomberg

We Have Seen This Movie Before — In 2022

In our earlier blog “Rising Fertiliser and Food Prices: Who Will Be Spared?”, written in April 2022, we tracked what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine and effectively weaponized the nitrogen supply chain. The mechanism was the same: a geopolitical shock hit the gas supply (ammonia’s key feedstock), fertilizer plants went dark across Europe, and prices detonated.

The 2022 Ukraine shock produced:

  • Ammonia prices up ~200% from pre-war levels at peak
  • Global urea prices hitting record highs above $900/ton
  • Food price index (FAO) reaching its highest level ever recorded — March 2022
  • Export bans from India, China, and Russia as countries hoarded supply
  • Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan facing acute fertilizer shortages

In case you need a refresher of how it went down back in 2022

Source: Heyokha research, Bloomberg

In 2022, the shock was upstream energy: gas prices broke fertilizer production. In 2026, the shock is logistics: a physical blockade on the world’s most fertilizer-intensive shipping lane. The mechanism is different. The destination is the same.

The Chain Reaction Nobody Is Pricing In

Here is what makes this crisis different from an oil shock — and more dangerous for long-term inflation. Oil prices move, and within months, the effect is felt at the pump. Consumers adjust. Central banks watch CPI. The feedback loop is fast and visible.

Fertilizer doesn’t work that way. It operates on an agricultural calendar. And right now, we are in the exact wrong moment of that calendar.

The sequence looks like this:

  • Fertilizer prices spike (now) → farmers in Asia, Africa, and LatAm face input costs they cannot absorb
  • Planting decisions change (within weeks) → farmers reduce application rates, switch to lower-input crops, or skip planting altogether
  • Crop yields fall (harvest season, Q3–Q4 2026) → lower output than the market expects
  • Food supply tightens (post-harvest) → grain, rice, and staple inventories shrink
  • Food prices rise (lagged CPI impact) → the inflation the market didn’t price in arrives on schedule

 

This is not cyclical inflation. This is not a demand shock that the Fed can cool with a rate hike. This is structural inflation driven by a real, physical constraint on one of the most inelastic goods on earth: food. You cannot print more rice. You cannot stimulate your way to a better harvest.

And crucially — the data will look fine right now. Commodity desks will note that food CPI has not moved. Analysts will say the market is calm. That calm is the problem. The harvest hasn’t happened yet.

Who Gets Hit First

Not everyone feels this equally. The geography of vulnerability follows the fertilizer import map, and it skews heavily toward the countries least able to absorb it. India is already bidding urea at $935–959 per ton, roughly double two months ago. Bangladesh, Pakistan, and much of Sub-Saharan Africa run food expenditure ratios above 50% of household income; a 30–50% fertilizer input shock is not an abstraction for the people at the end of this supply chain — it is a decision about whether to plant at all. When farmers in import-dependent economies reduce application rates or skip a crop cycle, the deficit gets quietly written into soil that won’t talk back until harvest season.

Source: Bloomberg

The Inflation That Was Already Coming

We want to be precise about something: this is not a new worry for us. We first wrote about ammonia as a geopolitical weapon in early 2022, in “Rising Fertiliser and Food Prices: Who Will Be Spared?” — before most investors were treating it as anything other than a niche commodity story. The thesis then was that supply chain breakdown, energy crisis, and geopolitical tension had crystallised into a perfect storm for food prices, and that the effects would travel through the system far more slowly and durably than markets expected.

Later that year, when food prices briefly cooled and analysts declared the crisis over, we pushed back in “The End of the Decade of Plenty” blog back in November 2022. The FAO food price index had fallen 14.7% from its March peak,  but the dollar had risen 21.5% over the same period, meaning most countries were actually paying more in local currency terms. Export bans were proliferating. The underlying supply-side pressures had not resolved; they had merely gone quiet. We said then: don’t mistake a pause for a resolution.

That lesson applies with full force today. The latest data from FAO ((Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)) is already seeing Food Price Index rising for a second consecutive month, driven by energy related pressures from the Middle East conflict.

Averaged 128.5 points in March 2026, up 3.0 points from February

Source: FAO

What we are describing is not a cyclical event central banks can hike away. It is structural inflation — driven by real, physical constraints on the most inelastic thing on earth. You cannot print more rice. The Hormuz crisis will eventually ease and shipping lanes will reopen, but the harvest that didn’t happen won’t come back.

You cannot retroactively fertilize a field that went under-dosed in April. The consequences are already baked into the ground.

The question for investors isn’t whether this inflation arrives, it’s whether you’re positioned for a world where food prices reprice structurally and stay there. We’ve long believed the answer lies in owning the things scarcity makes more valuable and the kind of exposure to real assets that actually benefits when the fiction of infinite, frictionless abundance runs into a closed strait. The broader point is the same one we’ve been making since the decade of plenty ended: efficiency was the trade of the last era; resilience is the trade of this one.

In the film, (spoiler alert) humanity gets its Hail Mary — a one-in-a-billion miracle, executed by a lone astronaut and some extra-terrestrial help, arriving in the nick of time. Inspiring. Also not our base case.

What is our Hail Mary?
source: MGM

The real-world version of this story doesn’t end with a miracle. It ends with whoever read the data early enough being fine, and whoever assumed the world would stay frictionless being very surprised by their future grocery bill.

 

 

Tara Mulia
For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



The Tollbooth at the End of the World: Dark Ships, Side Deals, and the Sprint for Physical Gold


The Tollbooth at the End of the World: Dark Ships, Side Deals, and the Sprint for Physical Gold

Published: Apr 10 2026

Trying to gauge the exact status of the Strait of Hormuz from a desk is a bit like trying to review a restaurant by reading the menu through a telescope. You can spend all day squinting at maritime transponder data on a Bloomberg terminal, trying to guess if the shipping lanes are clear.

Citrini Research decided to do something a bit more practical: they sent an analyst directly to the Strait of Hormuz.

Analyst #3 is either the bravest person alive or the most suicidal

source: Citrini Research

What their field agent found completely dismantles the mainstream narrative. The Strait of Hormuz hasn’t been completely barricaded, nor is it freely open. It has morphed into a geopolitical tollbooth. Standard maritime tracking is basically useless right now because as much as 50% of the vessel traffic is running “dark.”

Ships are turning their transponders off and tiptoeing through the Qeshm-Larak channel to dodge drones. It is global trade on incognito mode.

But the real punchline isn’t how the ships are passing. It is who is passing.

By early April, at least 10 major nations, including staunch U.S. allies like France, Japan, and India, had actively negotiated direct transit access with Iran. Think about that for a second. Sovereign nations allied with Washington are making bespoke side-deals with the exact country the U.S. is currently in direct conflict with.

It’s the geopolitical equivalent of finding out your loyal business partners are quietly negotiating a separate supply contract with your biggest rival.

Why are U.S. allies suddenly acting like free agents? Well take a look at Trump’s own tweet:

Last week, Donald Trump lashed out at European allies who refused to join the Middle East conflict. His message to countries sweating over their jet fuel and energy supplies was refreshingly blunt: “Build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” adding that they should “go get your own oil.”

This validates the exact macro thesis we mapped out in 2018. De-globalization isn’t a forecast anymore. The United States has officially retired as the guarantor of frictionless global trade.

The Tollbooth Empire

This brings us to an interesting framework recently outlined by Jiang Xueqin, better known online as “Professor Jiang.” If you haven’t seen him on your timeline yet, he is a Beijing-based educator who recently skyrocketed to internet fame after an old YouTube lecture of his predicting the exact contours of the 2026 US-Iran war went incredibly viral.

Jiang points out a stark reality: If the U.S. is facing de-dollarization, how does it maintain its global leverage? By pivoting to a war of attrition.

For the last 50 years, the U.S. leveraged its status as the global reserve currency to encourage free trade. But if nations are going to actively opt out of the dollar system, the American strategy has to shift from guaranteeing the sea lanes to simply controlling the chokepoints. Whether it is the Panama Canal, the Strait of Malacca, or naval blockades in the Caribbean, the new playbook is brutally simple: If you want to access Western resources, you have to pay the toll and ask for permission.

Source: GIS, Visual Capitalist

The global reaction to this new reality is a sudden, very expensive realization that every nation needs to build its own security apparatus. Industrial nations are waking up to the fact that if the energy supply from the GCC or Russia goes offline, like the 40% of Russian oil export capacity that recently got hit by Ukrainian drones, they are completely on their own. That is your fuel, your food, and your savings. The geopolitical anxiety is getting so heavy that rumors are even circulating about European nations drafting travel restrictions for fighting-age males just to prepare for conscription.

Nothing says “transitory geopolitical friction” quite like preparing for a national draft.

Heyokha’s “On the Ground” Research

Here at Heyokha, we also pride ourselves on doing on-the-ground research. Though, admittedly, our latest fieldwork didn’t involve dodging drones in the Middle East. It involved walking through the MRT stations and observing billboards here in Central Jakarta.

The desperate scramble for physical security isn’t just a macroeconomic debate for Davos attendees; it has hit the retail streets.

Right now, Jakarta is plastered with advertisements for the “Tring! Golden Run 2026″—a massive 5K and 10K race sponsored by Pegadaian, the state-owned pawnbroker. The prize? Participants are literally racing to win physical gold vouchers.

And guess what? It is completely sold out.

Fresh off the streets

 

Sounds like a great deal to me

When everyday citizens are voluntarily sprinting 10 kilometers through the Jakarta humidity just to get their hands on a fraction of an ounce of gold, the psychological shift has happened. People are already moving. Literally sprinting. The sea lanes are heavily contested, the fiat system has been weaponized, and public trust in paper promises is evaporating.

Gold is no longer just a hedge. It is the only thing that makes sense.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Apr 10 2026

Trying to gauge the exact status of the Strait of Hormuz from a desk is a bit like trying to review a restaurant by reading the menu through a telescope. You can spend all day squinting at maritime transponder data on a Bloomberg terminal, trying to guess if the shipping lanes are clear.

Citrini Research decided to do something a bit more practical: they sent an analyst directly to the Strait of Hormuz.

Analyst #3 is either the bravest person alive or the most suicidal

source: Citrini Research

What their field agent found completely dismantles the mainstream narrative. The Strait of Hormuz hasn’t been completely barricaded, nor is it freely open. It has morphed into a geopolitical tollbooth. Standard maritime tracking is basically useless right now because as much as 50% of the vessel traffic is running “dark.”

Ships are turning their transponders off and tiptoeing through the Qeshm-Larak channel to dodge drones. It is global trade on incognito mode.

But the real punchline isn’t how the ships are passing. It is who is passing.

By early April, at least 10 major nations, including staunch U.S. allies like France, Japan, and India, had actively negotiated direct transit access with Iran. Think about that for a second. Sovereign nations allied with Washington are making bespoke side-deals with the exact country the U.S. is currently in direct conflict with.

It’s the geopolitical equivalent of finding out your loyal business partners are quietly negotiating a separate supply contract with your biggest rival.

Why are U.S. allies suddenly acting like free agents? Well take a look at Trump’s own tweet:

Last week, Donald Trump lashed out at European allies who refused to join the Middle East conflict. His message to countries sweating over their jet fuel and energy supplies was refreshingly blunt: “Build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” adding that they should “go get your own oil.”

This validates the exact macro thesis we mapped out in 2018. De-globalization isn’t a forecast anymore. The United States has officially retired as the guarantor of frictionless global trade.

The Tollbooth Empire

This brings us to an interesting framework recently outlined by Jiang Xueqin, better known online as “Professor Jiang.” If you haven’t seen him on your timeline yet, he is a Beijing-based educator who recently skyrocketed to internet fame after an old YouTube lecture of his predicting the exact contours of the 2026 US-Iran war went incredibly viral.

Jiang points out a stark reality: If the U.S. is facing de-dollarization, how does it maintain its global leverage? By pivoting to a war of attrition.

For the last 50 years, the U.S. leveraged its status as the global reserve currency to encourage free trade. But if nations are going to actively opt out of the dollar system, the American strategy has to shift from guaranteeing the sea lanes to simply controlling the chokepoints. Whether it is the Panama Canal, the Strait of Malacca, or naval blockades in the Caribbean, the new playbook is brutally simple: If you want to access Western resources, you have to pay the toll and ask for permission.

Source: GIS, Visual Capitalist

The global reaction to this new reality is a sudden, very expensive realization that every nation needs to build its own security apparatus. Industrial nations are waking up to the fact that if the energy supply from the GCC or Russia goes offline, like the 40% of Russian oil export capacity that recently got hit by Ukrainian drones, they are completely on their own. That is your fuel, your food, and your savings. The geopolitical anxiety is getting so heavy that rumors are even circulating about European nations drafting travel restrictions for fighting-age males just to prepare for conscription.

Nothing says “transitory geopolitical friction” quite like preparing for a national draft.

Heyokha’s “On the Ground” Research

Here at Heyokha, we also pride ourselves on doing on-the-ground research. Though, admittedly, our latest fieldwork didn’t involve dodging drones in the Middle East. It involved walking through the MRT stations and observing billboards here in Central Jakarta.

The desperate scramble for physical security isn’t just a macroeconomic debate for Davos attendees; it has hit the retail streets.

Right now, Jakarta is plastered with advertisements for the “Tring! Golden Run 2026″—a massive 5K and 10K race sponsored by Pegadaian, the state-owned pawnbroker. The prize? Participants are literally racing to win physical gold vouchers.

And guess what? It is completely sold out.

Fresh off the streets

 

Sounds like a great deal to me

When everyday citizens are voluntarily sprinting 10 kilometers through the Jakarta humidity just to get their hands on a fraction of an ounce of gold, the psychological shift has happened. People are already moving. Literally sprinting. The sea lanes are heavily contested, the fiat system has been weaponized, and public trust in paper promises is evaporating.

Gold is no longer just a hedge. It is the only thing that makes sense.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



The 1974 Illusion: Why Wall Street is Dead Wrong About the Gold Sell-Off


The 1974 Illusion: Why Wall Street is Dead Wrong About the Gold Sell-Off

Published: Apr 03 2026

Let’s talk about the gold panic.

This past March, gold took a sharp around 15% dive in 4 weeks. Cue the mainstream commentators rushing to their history books, frantically pointing to the mid-1970s. They want you to look at the correction between December 1974 and August 1976, when gold plummeted 44% amid oil shocks and rate hikes.

The narrative they are peddling? An oil shock is happening right now too. The bull run is over. Pack it up.

It’s a great story. But it is built on a massive macro illusion. Comparing the monetary landscape of 1974 to the mathematical reality of 2026 is worse than comparing apples to oranges—it’s like comparing a paper cut to a terminal diagnosis.

If you are selling your physical assets here, you are falling for a massive liquidity trap. Let’s look at the math.

The Death of the Volcker Playbook

To understand why 1974 played out the way it did, you have to look at the sovereign balance sheet.

Back then, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was sitting around 33%. The fiscal house was relatively clean. Because the government wasn’t drowning in leverage, Paul Volcker had the superpower of policy flexibility. He could hike the fed funds rate above 17% to crush inflation. It was brutal medicine, but the system could absorb it. Real rates spiked, inflation died, and gold naturally corrected.

Source: Heyokha Research

Welcome to 2026. Debt-to-GDP is 122%. The federal debt is a staggering $39 trillion.

You cannot run the Volcker playbook on a $39 trillion mountain of debt. Today, even at current interest rates, nearly 92% of all tax revenue is being consumed just to pay back interest expense and mandatory outlays.

Read that again: 92%.

Source: Heyokha Research

There is almost nothing left over to run the country, let alone rebuild infrastructure or fund a global arms race. If the Federal Reserve actually hiked rates high enough to combat today’s structural inflation, they would instantly bankrupt the U.S. Treasury.

The policy flexibility of the 1970s is dead and buried. What cured inflation then would collapse the sovereign now.

The Only Exit: Financial Repression

So, if raising rates triggers a sovereign default, what does the government do?

They do the only thing the math allows: Financial Repression.

They have to artificially cap nominal interest rates below the actual rate of inflation. They fire up the printers, buy their own debt, and force captive audiences (like pension funds and banks) to hold low-yielding government paper.

Source: Heyokha Research

Make no mistake—this isn’t a policy failure. It is the exact design.

By letting inflation run hotter than those capped interest rates, the real value of that $39 trillion debt silently melts away. The government pays off its historical debts with heavily devalued dollars, and regular citizens and investors foot the bill through a relentless loss of purchasing power.

The History of Shake-Outs and Liquidity Squeeze

 When nominal rates are capped and inflation runs hot, real rates turn deeply negative. Returns for low-yielding bonds drops, weakening the dollar and making the case for finite gold even stronger.

Which brings us to the recent anomaly 15% drop.

That wasn’t a structural breakdown. It was a classic liquidity squeeze. We saw the exact same script play out during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, gold plummeted nearly 30% in a matter of months. Twelve years later, during the COVID panic of March 2020, roughly had a 15% drawdown.

When equity and bond portfolios crash, highly leveraged investors are forced to liquidate their only remaining “winner”—gold—just to cover margin calls. It’s a desperate scramble for cash, not a shift in the fundamental thesis.

And what happens immediately after the forced liquidation ends? The surge.

In 2008, that drop was the springboard for a massive rally that took gold to all-time highs by 2011. In 2020, the March dump preceded a furious run-up later that same year. Every major gold bull market in history has shake-outs, which is normal and healthy.

Source: Heyokha Research

Back to the 1970s, the infamous 44% correction convinced the mainstream that the gold trade was dead. They were wrong. It was the precursor to a 721% surge.

Source: Heyokha Research

The March 2026 drop is playing out exactly according to the historical script. It is the springboard for the next massive leg up.

While retail investors panic-sell the dip, the smart money is doing the exact opposite. Global central banks are aggressively accelerating their physical gold accumulation and structurally abandoning the dollar. Because global mine production has essentially plateaued, fulfilling that massive institutional demand is mathematically impossible without a significant upward revaluation in price.

Source: Metals Focus, World Gold Council

Every major gold bull market in history has shake-outs, which is normal and healthy. That 1970s correction? It was the precursor to a 721% surge. The March 2026 drop is just the springboard for the next massive leg up.

As the fiat system breaks under the weight of its own debt, gold remains the only constant. A reversion to historical gold-to-monetary base ratios puts fair value north of $20,000 (Read more on how high gold can go up to in our Special Report – Gold the Return of Real Money)

In a world of weaponized fiat, hard assets are the ultimate financial sovereignty.

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Apr 03 2026

Let’s talk about the gold panic.

This past March, gold took a sharp around 15% dive in 4 weeks. Cue the mainstream commentators rushing to their history books, frantically pointing to the mid-1970s. They want you to look at the correction between December 1974 and August 1976, when gold plummeted 44% amid oil shocks and rate hikes.

The narrative they are peddling? An oil shock is happening right now too. The bull run is over. Pack it up.

It’s a great story. But it is built on a massive macro illusion. Comparing the monetary landscape of 1974 to the mathematical reality of 2026 is worse than comparing apples to oranges—it’s like comparing a paper cut to a terminal diagnosis.

If you are selling your physical assets here, you are falling for a massive liquidity trap. Let’s look at the math.

The Death of the Volcker Playbook

To understand why 1974 played out the way it did, you have to look at the sovereign balance sheet.

Back then, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was sitting around 33%. The fiscal house was relatively clean. Because the government wasn’t drowning in leverage, Paul Volcker had the superpower of policy flexibility. He could hike the fed funds rate above 17% to crush inflation. It was brutal medicine, but the system could absorb it. Real rates spiked, inflation died, and gold naturally corrected.

Source: Heyokha Research

Welcome to 2026. Debt-to-GDP is 122%. The federal debt is a staggering $39 trillion.

You cannot run the Volcker playbook on a $39 trillion mountain of debt. Today, even at current interest rates, nearly 92% of all tax revenue is being consumed just to pay back interest expense and mandatory outlays.

Read that again: 92%.

Source: Heyokha Research

There is almost nothing left over to run the country, let alone rebuild infrastructure or fund a global arms race. If the Federal Reserve actually hiked rates high enough to combat today’s structural inflation, they would instantly bankrupt the U.S. Treasury.

The policy flexibility of the 1970s is dead and buried. What cured inflation then would collapse the sovereign now.

The Only Exit: Financial Repression

So, if raising rates triggers a sovereign default, what does the government do?

They do the only thing the math allows: Financial Repression.

They have to artificially cap nominal interest rates below the actual rate of inflation. They fire up the printers, buy their own debt, and force captive audiences (like pension funds and banks) to hold low-yielding government paper.

Source: Heyokha Research

Make no mistake—this isn’t a policy failure. It is the exact design.

By letting inflation run hotter than those capped interest rates, the real value of that $39 trillion debt silently melts away. The government pays off its historical debts with heavily devalued dollars, and regular citizens and investors foot the bill through a relentless loss of purchasing power.

The History of Shake-Outs and Liquidity Squeeze

 When nominal rates are capped and inflation runs hot, real rates turn deeply negative. Returns for low-yielding bonds drops, weakening the dollar and making the case for finite gold even stronger.

Which brings us to the recent anomaly 15% drop.

That wasn’t a structural breakdown. It was a classic liquidity squeeze. We saw the exact same script play out during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, gold plummeted nearly 30% in a matter of months. Twelve years later, during the COVID panic of March 2020, roughly had a 15% drawdown.

When equity and bond portfolios crash, highly leveraged investors are forced to liquidate their only remaining “winner”—gold—just to cover margin calls. It’s a desperate scramble for cash, not a shift in the fundamental thesis.

And what happens immediately after the forced liquidation ends? The surge.

In 2008, that drop was the springboard for a massive rally that took gold to all-time highs by 2011. In 2020, the March dump preceded a furious run-up later that same year. Every major gold bull market in history has shake-outs, which is normal and healthy.

Source: Heyokha Research

Back to the 1970s, the infamous 44% correction convinced the mainstream that the gold trade was dead. They were wrong. It was the precursor to a 721% surge.

Source: Heyokha Research

The March 2026 drop is playing out exactly according to the historical script. It is the springboard for the next massive leg up.

While retail investors panic-sell the dip, the smart money is doing the exact opposite. Global central banks are aggressively accelerating their physical gold accumulation and structurally abandoning the dollar. Because global mine production has essentially plateaued, fulfilling that massive institutional demand is mathematically impossible without a significant upward revaluation in price.

Source: Metals Focus, World Gold Council

Every major gold bull market in history has shake-outs, which is normal and healthy. That 1970s correction? It was the precursor to a 721% surge. The March 2026 drop is just the springboard for the next massive leg up.

As the fiat system breaks under the weight of its own debt, gold remains the only constant. A reversion to historical gold-to-monetary base ratios puts fair value north of $20,000 (Read more on how high gold can go up to in our Special Report – Gold the Return of Real Money)

In a world of weaponized fiat, hard assets are the ultimate financial sovereignty.

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



The End of an Era: Why We Are Finally Calling It


The End of an Era: Why We Are Finally Calling It

Published: Mar 27 2026

Everyone knows the world is fracturing. We cannot read a financial headline today without seeing the impact of tariffs or supply chain realignments. But acknowledging a headline is not the same as pricing in a permanent reality.

The broader market still treats geopolitical friction as a temporary headache, viewing it as a short-term risk premium that will eventually be resolved by the next election cycle or a neat trade deal. They still believe, deep down, that capital’s ultimate loyalty is to the lowest marginal cost. They are wrong. The era of frictionless borders is on life support, and its impending death is a trend we have been tracking for years.

The Red Thread: We Saw the Fractures in 2018

We have been talking about the reality of deglobalization as far back as our Q3 2018 report. When the U.S. and China first started trading tariff blows, the mainstream financial media brushed it off as a temporary political spat that would be resolved with a neat trade deal.

We disagreed. We noted then that this was the first tremor of a massive, structural decoupling.

By our Q2 and Q3 2019 reports, the writing was clearly on the wall. The trade dispute had morphed into a full-blown technology cold war. With entities being blacklisted and supply chains fracturing, we explicitly warned that the era of relying purely on hyper-efficient global trade was coming to an end. We saw that the unipolar world order was breaking apart and that strategic competition was replacing economic integration. We knew that a system built purely on chasing the lowest marginal cost across oceans was fundamentally fragile.

Read our reports here!

 

There is clear external validation of just how permanent that fracture has become, look at the architecture of the East today. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) now counts 10 full members accounting for 40% of the world’s population, 30% of global GDP (PPP), and 60% of the Eurasian landmass. All in all, they are holding 20% of proven global oil reserves and 44% of proven natural gas. This is not some fringe realignment. It is a structured, institutional counter to the Western-led order.

The Present Reality: The “Rupture” is Here

Fast forward to today, and the exact deglobalization thesis we mapped out in 2018 is now the consensus among global leaders. There is proof that the old system is breaking, just listen to the people who used to run it.

At the World Economic Forum earlier this year, Mark Carney bluntly defined the current state of international relations as a “rupture,” noting that it is not merely a transition. He warned that the old rules-based order no longer functions as advertised, with economic integration now being actively weaponized by great powers.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explicitly declared that the era of globalization is over. He has consistently argued that the old economic consensus failed to moderate national rivalries, pushing instead for aggressive industrial policy, new trade barriers, and a focus on national security over cheap consumer goods.

The clearest proof of this rupture is the semiconductor war. Initial U.S. export controls were viewed in Beijing as a declaration of economic war. The response? According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, China now leads in 57 of 64 critical technologies—up from leading in just three a couple of decades ago. The attempt to contain China through tech restrictions ultimately backfired, incentivizing self-reliance and accelerating the very technological competition it sought to prevent.

Now, the U.S. is reacting in kind. Despite heavy political rhetoric regarding deregulation, the U.S. government spent heavily in 2025 to take direct equity stakes in major private companies like Intel and MP Materials. When the U.S. government starts directly buying 10% to 15% stakes in chipmakers and rare earth mines, they are no longer operating in a free-market global economy. This is what weaponized economic integration looks like from the inside.

Capital Chasing Security

The data and the rhetoric are finally aligned. We are watching the artificial intelligence arms race turn aggressively physical. Governments are finally waking up to the fact that they cannot power a sovereign AI grid or secure a defense supply chain with a multilateral trade agreement. They need secure transit and hard assets.

Capital is no longer chasing the lowest marginal cost. It is chasing security.

The transition is brutal. The symptoms are everywhere: sticky inflation, weaponized industrial policy, and a panicked rush into hard assets and physical commodities.

Since we have been warning about this exact trend for over half a decade, and looking at the current state of the fractured global board, we felt it was finally time to acknowledge the inevitable.

So, we wrote a premature obituary.

But every death brings a rebirth. As the illusion of a frictionless global economy is laid to rest, a new era is already rising from the ashes. This is the renaissance of the physical.

When supply chains fracture and fiat currencies are actively weaponized in great power competition, paper promises lose their premium. In times of deep systemic fear, capital instinctively flees the abstract and seeks out the tangible.

This is exactly why our conviction in precious metals and hard assets has never been stronger.

While the broader market panics over every geopolitical headline and scrambles to adjust their portfolios to the latest tariff threat, we are already anchored. Physical gold, silver, and critical industrial commodities do not rely on friendly diplomatic relations or multilateral trade agreements to hold their value. They carry no counterparty risk. They are the ultimate form of financial sovereignty.

We are simply holding the assets built to thrive in the reality of the new, fractured world.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!



Admin heyokha



Share

Published: Mar 27 2026

Everyone knows the world is fracturing. We cannot read a financial headline today without seeing the impact of tariffs or supply chain realignments. But acknowledging a headline is not the same as pricing in a permanent reality.

The broader market still treats geopolitical friction as a temporary headache, viewing it as a short-term risk premium that will eventually be resolved by the next election cycle or a neat trade deal. They still believe, deep down, that capital’s ultimate loyalty is to the lowest marginal cost. They are wrong. The era of frictionless borders is on life support, and its impending death is a trend we have been tracking for years.

The Red Thread: We Saw the Fractures in 2018

We have been talking about the reality of deglobalization as far back as our Q3 2018 report. When the U.S. and China first started trading tariff blows, the mainstream financial media brushed it off as a temporary political spat that would be resolved with a neat trade deal.

We disagreed. We noted then that this was the first tremor of a massive, structural decoupling.

By our Q2 and Q3 2019 reports, the writing was clearly on the wall. The trade dispute had morphed into a full-blown technology cold war. With entities being blacklisted and supply chains fracturing, we explicitly warned that the era of relying purely on hyper-efficient global trade was coming to an end. We saw that the unipolar world order was breaking apart and that strategic competition was replacing economic integration. We knew that a system built purely on chasing the lowest marginal cost across oceans was fundamentally fragile.

Read our reports here!

 

There is clear external validation of just how permanent that fracture has become, look at the architecture of the East today. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) now counts 10 full members accounting for 40% of the world’s population, 30% of global GDP (PPP), and 60% of the Eurasian landmass. All in all, they are holding 20% of proven global oil reserves and 44% of proven natural gas. This is not some fringe realignment. It is a structured, institutional counter to the Western-led order.

The Present Reality: The “Rupture” is Here

Fast forward to today, and the exact deglobalization thesis we mapped out in 2018 is now the consensus among global leaders. There is proof that the old system is breaking, just listen to the people who used to run it.

At the World Economic Forum earlier this year, Mark Carney bluntly defined the current state of international relations as a “rupture,” noting that it is not merely a transition. He warned that the old rules-based order no longer functions as advertised, with economic integration now being actively weaponized by great powers.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explicitly declared that the era of globalization is over. He has consistently argued that the old economic consensus failed to moderate national rivalries, pushing instead for aggressive industrial policy, new trade barriers, and a focus on national security over cheap consumer goods.

The clearest proof of this rupture is the semiconductor war. Initial U.S. export controls were viewed in Beijing as a declaration of economic war. The response? According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, China now leads in 57 of 64 critical technologies—up from leading in just three a couple of decades ago. The attempt to contain China through tech restrictions ultimately backfired, incentivizing self-reliance and accelerating the very technological competition it sought to prevent.

Now, the U.S. is reacting in kind. Despite heavy political rhetoric regarding deregulation, the U.S. government spent heavily in 2025 to take direct equity stakes in major private companies like Intel and MP Materials. When the U.S. government starts directly buying 10% to 15% stakes in chipmakers and rare earth mines, they are no longer operating in a free-market global economy. This is what weaponized economic integration looks like from the inside.

Capital Chasing Security

The data and the rhetoric are finally aligned. We are watching the artificial intelligence arms race turn aggressively physical. Governments are finally waking up to the fact that they cannot power a sovereign AI grid or secure a defense supply chain with a multilateral trade agreement. They need secure transit and hard assets.

Capital is no longer chasing the lowest marginal cost. It is chasing security.

The transition is brutal. The symptoms are everywhere: sticky inflation, weaponized industrial policy, and a panicked rush into hard assets and physical commodities.

Since we have been warning about this exact trend for over half a decade, and looking at the current state of the fractured global board, we felt it was finally time to acknowledge the inevitable.

So, we wrote a premature obituary.

But every death brings a rebirth. As the illusion of a frictionless global economy is laid to rest, a new era is already rising from the ashes. This is the renaissance of the physical.

When supply chains fracture and fiat currencies are actively weaponized in great power competition, paper promises lose their premium. In times of deep systemic fear, capital instinctively flees the abstract and seeks out the tangible.

This is exactly why our conviction in precious metals and hard assets has never been stronger.

While the broader market panics over every geopolitical headline and scrambles to adjust their portfolios to the latest tariff threat, we are already anchored. Physical gold, silver, and critical industrial commodities do not rely on friendly diplomatic relations or multilateral trade agreements to hold their value. They carry no counterparty risk. They are the ultimate form of financial sovereignty.

We are simply holding the assets built to thrive in the reality of the new, fractured world.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!



Admin heyokha



Share

[Reflection] Q4 2025


[Reflection] Q4 2025

Published: Mar 25 2026

The era of “set it and forget it” asset allocation has officially ended. As the traditional $60/40$ portfolio fractures, we are witnessing a fundamental shift where government bonds—once a reliable shield—have transformed into a primary source of market volatility.

In this Q4 2025 reflection report, we dive deep into the new logic of a de-globalizing world, where the battlegrounds have shifted from software to the physical infrastructure of the global economy.




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Mar 25 2026

The era of “set it and forget it” asset allocation has officially ended. As the traditional $60/40$ portfolio fractures, we are witnessing a fundamental shift where government bonds—once a reliable shield—have transformed into a primary source of market volatility.

In this Q4 2025 reflection report, we dive deep into the new logic of a de-globalizing world, where the battlegrounds have shifted from software to the physical infrastructure of the global economy.




Admin heyokha



Share



The Hormuz Panic, The Urals Premium, and Why We Aren’t Shocked


The Hormuz Panic, The Urals Premium, and Why We Aren’t Shocked

Published: Mar 11 2026

Right now, everyone’s eyes are glued to the war, and the most obvious gauge of global panic is the price of oil.

When the Strait of Hormuz is impacted, the market’s fight-or-flight response kicks in instantly. We saw it play out perfectly this week: oil prices shot up roughly 27% in a week and then shot down 10% in a single day, and the Asian economic engines, namely Korea, Japan, and India, immediately bled out.

A mini rollercoaster in the span of a week
Source: Bloomberg

I think most of us have seen the headlines by now: 20 million barrels per day, representing 25% of the global seaborne oil trade, passes through the Strait. The vast majority of those flows are destined directly for Asian markets.

Currently, those Asian markets have bounced back with some countries like South Korea aggressively responded by tapping into their strategic oil reserves. But let’s be honest: was that double digit price shake-ups necessary? Is this as structural as people say?

The big question on everyone’s mind right now is: Where will the oil price go, and how high? The truth is, unless you are God, no one knows. Anyone giving you a definitive price target is guessing.

Just look at the Ukraine and Russia conflict. When it started, the market priced in a swift resolution. Here we are, entering its fifth year, and the war is still grinding on. The lesson is simple: uncertainty is the only certainty, and these geopolitical shocks can stretch out far longer than the market’s attention span allows.

The New Oil Map: The Urals Premium

While the West fixates on the Middle East, the actual flow of global energy has already fundamentally rewired itself.

Take a look at the outcome we’ve seen with India. India’s sanctions on buying Russian oil were temporarily lifted. This naturally leads to the question: what if Russian oil were to go back public on the open market?


Source: Trading Economics

Historically, Russian Urals traded at a heavy discount to the Brent benchmark. That era is over. Today, India is actually buying Urals close to a premium to the current Brent market. This has nothing to do with crude quality and everything to do with security.

With the Middle East essentially blocked off and the Strait of Hormuz compromised, Russian oil is the only “guaranteed” energy source that doesn’t have to float through an active war zone to reach Asia. India is happily paying a premium for that peace of mind. Urals are no longer a distressed asset; they are the safest molecules available.

So why wouldn’t Russia price gouge its buyers? They have to play the friendly neighbor.


Source: Statista, IEA

Right now, roughly 85% of all Russian crude oil exports go to just two countries: China (47%) and India (38%). These nations are Russia’s sole economic lifelines. Because they are all intertwined within the BRICS circle, and because Russia is entirely reliant on Beijing and New Delhi for everything else, Moscow cannot push the price significantly higher without risking the relationships keeping their economy afloat.

We expect a hard floor built on the need for secure supply, and a hard ceiling built on BRICS diplomacy.

History May Rhyme: Case in point the 1973 Oil Shock

If you want to understand the mechanics of what might happen next, look back to the 1973 oil shock.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, geopolitical alliances caused an Arab oil embargo, resulting in a sudden, violent disruption of global energy flows. Crude oil prices essentially quadrupled in a matter of months, jumping from around $3 a barrel to nearly $12 by 1974.


Source: Bloomberg

The initial supply shock lasted for months, but the inflationary ripple effect defined the entire decade. Fiat currencies lost purchasing power, equities chopped sideways, and investors fled to hard assets. Precious metals went on a historic run as physical commodities became the ultimate safe haven, with gold prices surging from roughly $100 an ounce in early 1973 to an unprecedented $660-plus by 1980.

The Heyokha View: Deglobalization is Here

Markets might keep getting shocked by these headlines, but we are not.

We are watching the long-term trend of deglobalization play out exactly as expected. The frictionless, perfectly optimized global supply chains of the last decade are dead. We are in a volatile economy, marked by fractured trade routes and premium pricing for security.

In times of deep systemic fear, capital seeks out things that are real. That is exactly why we remain anchored in the hard assets we’ve held since long before this current wave of geopolitical chaos made the front page.

We don’t try to guess the top of the oil market. We just hold the hard assets that are built to store value and survive the storm.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Mar 11 2026

Right now, everyone’s eyes are glued to the war, and the most obvious gauge of global panic is the price of oil.

When the Strait of Hormuz is impacted, the market’s fight-or-flight response kicks in instantly. We saw it play out perfectly this week: oil prices shot up roughly 27% in a week and then shot down 10% in a single day, and the Asian economic engines, namely Korea, Japan, and India, immediately bled out.

A mini rollercoaster in the span of a week
Source: Bloomberg

I think most of us have seen the headlines by now: 20 million barrels per day, representing 25% of the global seaborne oil trade, passes through the Strait. The vast majority of those flows are destined directly for Asian markets.

Currently, those Asian markets have bounced back with some countries like South Korea aggressively responded by tapping into their strategic oil reserves. But let’s be honest: was that double digit price shake-ups necessary? Is this as structural as people say?

The big question on everyone’s mind right now is: Where will the oil price go, and how high? The truth is, unless you are God, no one knows. Anyone giving you a definitive price target is guessing.

Just look at the Ukraine and Russia conflict. When it started, the market priced in a swift resolution. Here we are, entering its fifth year, and the war is still grinding on. The lesson is simple: uncertainty is the only certainty, and these geopolitical shocks can stretch out far longer than the market’s attention span allows.

The New Oil Map: The Urals Premium

While the West fixates on the Middle East, the actual flow of global energy has already fundamentally rewired itself.

Take a look at the outcome we’ve seen with India. India’s sanctions on buying Russian oil were temporarily lifted. This naturally leads to the question: what if Russian oil were to go back public on the open market?


Source: Trading Economics

Historically, Russian Urals traded at a heavy discount to the Brent benchmark. That era is over. Today, India is actually buying Urals close to a premium to the current Brent market. This has nothing to do with crude quality and everything to do with security.

With the Middle East essentially blocked off and the Strait of Hormuz compromised, Russian oil is the only “guaranteed” energy source that doesn’t have to float through an active war zone to reach Asia. India is happily paying a premium for that peace of mind. Urals are no longer a distressed asset; they are the safest molecules available.

So why wouldn’t Russia price gouge its buyers? They have to play the friendly neighbor.


Source: Statista, IEA

Right now, roughly 85% of all Russian crude oil exports go to just two countries: China (47%) and India (38%). These nations are Russia’s sole economic lifelines. Because they are all intertwined within the BRICS circle, and because Russia is entirely reliant on Beijing and New Delhi for everything else, Moscow cannot push the price significantly higher without risking the relationships keeping their economy afloat.

We expect a hard floor built on the need for secure supply, and a hard ceiling built on BRICS diplomacy.

History May Rhyme: Case in point the 1973 Oil Shock

If you want to understand the mechanics of what might happen next, look back to the 1973 oil shock.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, geopolitical alliances caused an Arab oil embargo, resulting in a sudden, violent disruption of global energy flows. Crude oil prices essentially quadrupled in a matter of months, jumping from around $3 a barrel to nearly $12 by 1974.


Source: Bloomberg

The initial supply shock lasted for months, but the inflationary ripple effect defined the entire decade. Fiat currencies lost purchasing power, equities chopped sideways, and investors fled to hard assets. Precious metals went on a historic run as physical commodities became the ultimate safe haven, with gold prices surging from roughly $100 an ounce in early 1973 to an unprecedented $660-plus by 1980.

The Heyokha View: Deglobalization is Here

Markets might keep getting shocked by these headlines, but we are not.

We are watching the long-term trend of deglobalization play out exactly as expected. The frictionless, perfectly optimized global supply chains of the last decade are dead. We are in a volatile economy, marked by fractured trade routes and premium pricing for security.

In times of deep systemic fear, capital seeks out things that are real. That is exactly why we remain anchored in the hard assets we’ve held since long before this current wave of geopolitical chaos made the front page.

We don’t try to guess the top of the oil market. We just hold the hard assets that are built to store value and survive the storm.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



The Goldfish Economy: Finding Market Absurdity in Heavy Times


The Goldfish Economy: Finding Market Absurdity in Heavy Times

Published: Mar 06 2026

It has been a sobering, anxious week. When the geopolitical reality gets this dark, sometimes the only way to process the stress is to step back and find a sliver of humor in the sheer, chaotic absurdity of human behavior.

If you have ever wondered why that behavior feels so erratic lately, or why you can’t finish a movie without checking your phone, blame Mr. Beast.

In a December 2025 interview, Jimmy Donaldson, better known as the guy who gets 200 million views by burying himself alive or handing out islands, claimed that roughly 2% of all human time may now be spent on YouTube. He noted that to capture an American audience today, you actually have to make longer videos (pushing 25 to 30 minutes) to cut through the noise of TikTok’s doom-scrolling. But here is the catch: to keep people watching, the content has to be relentlessly fast-paced and constantly escalating. We have been trained to demand an adrenaline spike every five seconds.

Source: The New York Times, Youtube

We are officially living in the Goldfish Economy. Our collective attention span is shattered. We read the headline, skip the article, and trade the vibe.

Which brings me to the absolute comedy of the Indonesian stock market this week.

Over the weekend, the world watched with a knot in its stomach as tensions flared in the Middle East, with Iran launching drones and missiles toward Israel. It is a serious, complex crisis. The immediate, logical market fear was a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy. Crude oil prices were expected to spike.

So, how did the highly sophisticated, incredibly focused retail investor process this heavy reality on Monday morning?

They panicked, opened their trading apps, seemed to search the word “OIL,” and aggressively bought the first ticker they saw: OILS IJ.

They bought it so fast and so hard that the stock hit its upper limit circuit breaker (Auto Reject Atas, or ARA) and nearly again the day after. The chart went vertical.

There is just one tiny, hilarious problem.

OILS IJ is the ticker for PT Indo Oil Perkasa Tbk.

They do not drill for crude oil. They do not have tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. They do not deal in fossil fuels at all.

OILS IJ refines coconut oil.

Geopolitics, powered by coconuts

Source; Bloomberg

Yes. In the face of a military conflict threatening global crude energy supplies, day traders blindly panic-bought a company that makes the stuff you use to fry tempeh and make your hair shiny. It is the purest distillation of the Mr. Beast era. No one read the prospectus. No one checked the underlying business. They saw a scary headline, matched the word “oil” to a ticker, and smashed the buy button before their attention drifted to a 15-second video of a cat doing a backflip.

But before we laugh too hard at the retail crowd hoarding coconut oil, we have to admit: the Goldfish Economy infects the big leagues, too.

Knee-jerk reactions are the new global standard. Look at what happened to gold this very same week.

The V-shape recovery of institutional attention spans

Source: Bloomberg

On the exact same geopolitical noise, algorithms and institutional panic-sellers momentarily lost their minds. They aggressively flushed the ultimate safe-haven asset, sending gold plunging down below $5,050 an ounce in a vicious, split-second shakeout.

And then? The attention span reset. The market remembered what physical metal actually is, and the price violently slingshot right back up, settling comfortably back above $5,130.

It was a classic algorithmic head-fake, a trap perfectly designed for a market running on a 15-second attention span.

This is the reality of investing today. Whether it is a coconut oil company surging on a literal misunderstanding or gold momentarily plunging on algorithmic panic, the market is built to shake out the impatient.

The edge no longer goes to the fastest trader. It goes to the one who can actually sit still, read the fine print, and outlast the panic.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Mar 06 2026

It has been a sobering, anxious week. When the geopolitical reality gets this dark, sometimes the only way to process the stress is to step back and find a sliver of humor in the sheer, chaotic absurdity of human behavior.

If you have ever wondered why that behavior feels so erratic lately, or why you can’t finish a movie without checking your phone, blame Mr. Beast.

In a December 2025 interview, Jimmy Donaldson, better known as the guy who gets 200 million views by burying himself alive or handing out islands, claimed that roughly 2% of all human time may now be spent on YouTube. He noted that to capture an American audience today, you actually have to make longer videos (pushing 25 to 30 minutes) to cut through the noise of TikTok’s doom-scrolling. But here is the catch: to keep people watching, the content has to be relentlessly fast-paced and constantly escalating. We have been trained to demand an adrenaline spike every five seconds.

Source: The New York Times, Youtube

We are officially living in the Goldfish Economy. Our collective attention span is shattered. We read the headline, skip the article, and trade the vibe.

Which brings me to the absolute comedy of the Indonesian stock market this week.

Over the weekend, the world watched with a knot in its stomach as tensions flared in the Middle East, with Iran launching drones and missiles toward Israel. It is a serious, complex crisis. The immediate, logical market fear was a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy. Crude oil prices were expected to spike.

So, how did the highly sophisticated, incredibly focused retail investor process this heavy reality on Monday morning?

They panicked, opened their trading apps, seemed to search the word “OIL,” and aggressively bought the first ticker they saw: OILS IJ.

They bought it so fast and so hard that the stock hit its upper limit circuit breaker (Auto Reject Atas, or ARA) and nearly again the day after. The chart went vertical.

There is just one tiny, hilarious problem.

OILS IJ is the ticker for PT Indo Oil Perkasa Tbk.

They do not drill for crude oil. They do not have tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. They do not deal in fossil fuels at all.

OILS IJ refines coconut oil.

Geopolitics, powered by coconuts

Source; Bloomberg

Yes. In the face of a military conflict threatening global crude energy supplies, day traders blindly panic-bought a company that makes the stuff you use to fry tempeh and make your hair shiny. It is the purest distillation of the Mr. Beast era. No one read the prospectus. No one checked the underlying business. They saw a scary headline, matched the word “oil” to a ticker, and smashed the buy button before their attention drifted to a 15-second video of a cat doing a backflip.

But before we laugh too hard at the retail crowd hoarding coconut oil, we have to admit: the Goldfish Economy infects the big leagues, too.

Knee-jerk reactions are the new global standard. Look at what happened to gold this very same week.

The V-shape recovery of institutional attention spans

Source: Bloomberg

On the exact same geopolitical noise, algorithms and institutional panic-sellers momentarily lost their minds. They aggressively flushed the ultimate safe-haven asset, sending gold plunging down below $5,050 an ounce in a vicious, split-second shakeout.

And then? The attention span reset. The market remembered what physical metal actually is, and the price violently slingshot right back up, settling comfortably back above $5,130.

It was a classic algorithmic head-fake, a trap perfectly designed for a market running on a 15-second attention span.

This is the reality of investing today. Whether it is a coconut oil company surging on a literal misunderstanding or gold momentarily plunging on algorithmic panic, the market is built to shake out the impatient.

The edge no longer goes to the fastest trader. It goes to the one who can actually sit still, read the fine print, and outlast the panic.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



AI Agents Don’t Need Dashboards: The Trillion-Dollar Repricing of Software Debt


AI Agents Don’t Need Dashboards: The Trillion-Dollar Repricing of Software Debt

Published: Feb 27 2026

In November 2025, we warned you about the invisible engine funding the artificial intelligence boom in our piece, When AI Meets Private Credit: The Vessel, Not the Flaw. We noted that an opaque constellation of non-bank lenders was quietly fronting massive chunks of the $6.7 trillion needed for global AI infrastructure.

Six months prior, in AI Just Ate Your CRM. Now What?, we mapped out the existential threat facing traditional software, arguing that AI models would soon bypass clunky user dashboards entirely.

Today, those two distinct tectonic plates—shadow finance and AI software disruption are violently colliding. And the tremors are starting to crack the foundation of Wall Street.

Is This The Canary in the Coal Mine?

The shaking started a few weeks ago with Blue Owl Capital.

Blue Owl is a titan in the private credit space, managing nearly $300 billion in investor cash. But recently, their stock plunged as much as 10% in a single day. Why? They abruptly changed the rules on how investors can pull their money out of a major fund, shifting from a guaranteed 5% quarterly redemption to a discretionary payout model.

For perspective, Blue Owl is the second largest behind Blackstone on controlling almost half of BDC assets

Source: Financial Times, Pitchbook

Wall Street veterans immediately flashed back to August 2007. When a massive shadow lender suddenly throws up the gates to stop cash from leaving, it begs the ultimate question: What are they afraid of?

The answer lies in their loan books. In recent years, private credit has extended trillions of dollars in loans to businesses. And their absolute favorite borrower? Software companies.

By industry estimates, at least 20% of all loans extended by private credit funds—and heavily concentrated within Business Development Companies (BDCs)—have gone to software firms. But the true number is likely much higher. A recent Bloomberg analysis found at least 250 investments, worth over $9 billion, that were quietly categorized by lenders as “business services” or “specialty retail” instead of software.

Source: Bloomberg, Barclays, Bloomberg

Private credit lenders loved software for one reason: predictable, recurring revenue. A company with 5,000 employees pays for 5,000 software “seats” every single month. That steady cash flow made it incredibly easy to underwrite massive loans.

But what happens to those loans when AI obliterates the “per-seat” business model?

The “SaaSpocalypse” and the Agentic Future

Let’s add some nuance to the “AI eats software” narrative.

People are panicked that AI will simply delete software companies from existence. That is not entirely true. Software isn’t dying; it is going headless.

To understand this, we need to look at the shift from basic AI Chatbots to AI Agents. A chatbot answers your questions. An AI Agent actually executes multi-step tasks for you across the internet. But an AI Agent does not have eyes. It doesn’t care about pretty dashboards, drop-down menus, or human-friendly interfaces.

It talks to software through an API (Application Programming Interface).

Think of an API as a “Digital Drive-Thru.” If you want food, you don’t have to park, walk inside the restaurant, read the menu, and sit at a table (the old software UI). Instead, you pull your car up to the drive-thru window, hand them a specific, structured order, and they hand you the food. An API allows an AI Agent to pull up to a software company, hand it code, and get the data back instantly without ever “looking” at the website.

A Day in the Life: The Agentic Shift

Let’s look at how this destroys the traditional software workflow. Compare a Marketing Manager’s job today versus the Agentic reality of 2027:

The Old Way (Software as a Destination):

  1. You log into Google Analytics, manually clicking through filters to discover sales are down in Indonesia.
  2. You log into Canva, picking a template and manually dragging your brand logo to create a “20% Off” flyer.
  3. You log into Mailchimp, uploading the flyer, typing the copy, and manually segmenting your Indonesian VIP email list to hit send.

Result: You spent two hours acting as the “Human Glue” holding three different websites together.

The New Way (Software as an Invisible Engine): You open one command window—your AI Agent—and simply say: “Sales in Indonesia are lagging. Create a 20% discount campaign and send it to our top customers there.”

The Agent acts as the Director:

  • It calls Google Analytics via API to instantly identify the lapsed customers.
  • It calls Canva via API to automatically generate a perfectly on-brand flyer.
  • It calls Mailchimp via API to blast the email through their trusted servers.

Result: You never looked at a single website. The software companies provided the grunt work invisibly in the background.

The Infrastructural Moats: Why Software Survives

So, why doesn’t the AI just build its own Mailchimp or Canva? Because traditional software companies own the physical and digital infrastructure.

  • The Pipe Moat (Mailchimp): An AI can write a brilliant email, but if it sends 10,000 messages from an unknown server, Gmail will instantly block it as spam. Mailchimp owns the “Trusted Pipes” that the internet respects.
  • The Sensor Moat (Google Analytics): An AI doesn’t inherently know what is happening on your website. Google has millions of digital sensors tracking clicks. The AI needs that raw data to “see.”
  • The Guardrail Moat (Canva): An AI hallucination might accidentally make your corporate logo neon pink. Canva provides the strict “Brand Kits” that force the AI to stay inside the lines.

Software companies aren’t going to zero. They will survive by becoming the invisible plumbing of the internet.

This transformation does not automatically spell out a wave of mass defaults. Just hours after delivering another blowout earnings report, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang pushed back against Wall Street’s doomsday narrative.

His message was blunt: AI agents are not going to cannibalize enterprise software; they are going to become its power users. As he explained, “These agentic AI will be intelligent software that uses these tools on our behalf.”

Whether it is an Excel spreadsheet, a ServiceNow workflow, or an SAP database, these platforms exist for a fundamentally good reason. They are the organizational infrastructure. AI agents won’t replace the tools; they will operate them. As Huang noted, in the end, we still need these tools to finish the work and format the information in a way humans can actually understand.

The A2A Ecosystem: When Agents Talk to Agents

If you think the future is just your company’s internal AI agent pulling levers on different software APIs, you are still thinking too small. The industry is rapidly moving toward an external, machine-to-machine economy powered by open standards like Google’s Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol.

While internal “multi-agent” architectures involve a closed team of AIs working within your own company’s walled garden, A2A is the open internet for agents. It allows an AI built by one company to dynamically discover, securely communicate with, and effectively hire an entirely independent AI built by another company.

How A2A works

Source: Google

In our marketing example, you wouldn’t just use one AI. Your “Director Agent” would use the A2A protocol to hire a specialized “Google Analytics Agent” to pull the data, securely negotiate with a specialized “Canva Agent” to design the creative, and hand the final product to a specialized “Mailchimp Agent” for delivery.

Software companies will no longer just build platforms; they will build and lease specialized agents into this global workforce. For the private credit industry, this adds another layer of complexity. They aren’t just underwriting software tools anymore; they are underwriting digital employees operating in an entirely autonomous machine-to-machine economy.

The Economic Obliteration and the New Moats

For the shadow banking system holding hundreds of billions in debt, this isn’t an extinction event—it is a massive repricing of risk. The software industry isn’t dying; it is simply mutating into a new form. To keep generating cash and paying back those private credit loans, software companies must fundamentally change what they sell and how they charge for it.

  • The Death of the License and the Rise of the “Call”: Currently, if you have 50 employees, you buy 50 human “seats.” But what happens when a single AI agent can seamlessly do the work of those 50 people? The traditional per-seat license implodes. To survive, software companies must pivot to consumption pricing. Bosses will no longer pay flat monthly subscriptions for humans; they will pay fractions of a penny for every “API call” the agent makes. Software ceases to be a fixed subscription and becomes a variable expense—exactly like paying your electric bill.
  • Data Security is the New UI: For the last decade, companies spent billions making software “human-friendly.” That capital is now stranded. Agents don’t care about sleek drop-down menus, intuitive design, or pretty color schemes. Human-targeted UI improvements are no longer a selling feature. Instead, the ultimate premium feature is data security. When autonomous machines are rapidly moving massive amounts of proprietary company data across the internet via APIs, the surviving software giants will be the ones offering ironclad security, impenetrable “guardrails,” and flawless backend execution.
  • Open the API Gates: Software companies must become radically open. If a platform tries to build a walled garden and block AI agents from plugging in, the agent will simply take its transaction to a competitor that is open. In the agentic future, the path of least resistance wins the revenue.

For the $300 billion private credit market, the game has fundamentally changed. The lenders who survive this cycle will be the ones who realize that the companies they are funding are no longer selling dashboards to humans. They are selling secure, invisible tools to machines.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Published: Feb 27 2026

In November 2025, we warned you about the invisible engine funding the artificial intelligence boom in our piece, When AI Meets Private Credit: The Vessel, Not the Flaw. We noted that an opaque constellation of non-bank lenders was quietly fronting massive chunks of the $6.7 trillion needed for global AI infrastructure.

Six months prior, in AI Just Ate Your CRM. Now What?, we mapped out the existential threat facing traditional software, arguing that AI models would soon bypass clunky user dashboards entirely.

Today, those two distinct tectonic plates—shadow finance and AI software disruption are violently colliding. And the tremors are starting to crack the foundation of Wall Street.

Is This The Canary in the Coal Mine?

The shaking started a few weeks ago with Blue Owl Capital.

Blue Owl is a titan in the private credit space, managing nearly $300 billion in investor cash. But recently, their stock plunged as much as 10% in a single day. Why? They abruptly changed the rules on how investors can pull their money out of a major fund, shifting from a guaranteed 5% quarterly redemption to a discretionary payout model.

For perspective, Blue Owl is the second largest behind Blackstone on controlling almost half of BDC assets

Source: Financial Times, Pitchbook

Wall Street veterans immediately flashed back to August 2007. When a massive shadow lender suddenly throws up the gates to stop cash from leaving, it begs the ultimate question: What are they afraid of?

The answer lies in their loan books. In recent years, private credit has extended trillions of dollars in loans to businesses. And their absolute favorite borrower? Software companies.

By industry estimates, at least 20% of all loans extended by private credit funds—and heavily concentrated within Business Development Companies (BDCs)—have gone to software firms. But the true number is likely much higher. A recent Bloomberg analysis found at least 250 investments, worth over $9 billion, that were quietly categorized by lenders as “business services” or “specialty retail” instead of software.

Source: Bloomberg, Barclays, Bloomberg

Private credit lenders loved software for one reason: predictable, recurring revenue. A company with 5,000 employees pays for 5,000 software “seats” every single month. That steady cash flow made it incredibly easy to underwrite massive loans.

But what happens to those loans when AI obliterates the “per-seat” business model?

The “SaaSpocalypse” and the Agentic Future

Let’s add some nuance to the “AI eats software” narrative.

People are panicked that AI will simply delete software companies from existence. That is not entirely true. Software isn’t dying; it is going headless.

To understand this, we need to look at the shift from basic AI Chatbots to AI Agents. A chatbot answers your questions. An AI Agent actually executes multi-step tasks for you across the internet. But an AI Agent does not have eyes. It doesn’t care about pretty dashboards, drop-down menus, or human-friendly interfaces.

It talks to software through an API (Application Programming Interface).

Think of an API as a “Digital Drive-Thru.” If you want food, you don’t have to park, walk inside the restaurant, read the menu, and sit at a table (the old software UI). Instead, you pull your car up to the drive-thru window, hand them a specific, structured order, and they hand you the food. An API allows an AI Agent to pull up to a software company, hand it code, and get the data back instantly without ever “looking” at the website.

A Day in the Life: The Agentic Shift

Let’s look at how this destroys the traditional software workflow. Compare a Marketing Manager’s job today versus the Agentic reality of 2027:

The Old Way (Software as a Destination):

  1. You log into Google Analytics, manually clicking through filters to discover sales are down in Indonesia.
  2. You log into Canva, picking a template and manually dragging your brand logo to create a “20% Off” flyer.
  3. You log into Mailchimp, uploading the flyer, typing the copy, and manually segmenting your Indonesian VIP email list to hit send.

Result: You spent two hours acting as the “Human Glue” holding three different websites together.

The New Way (Software as an Invisible Engine): You open one command window—your AI Agent—and simply say: “Sales in Indonesia are lagging. Create a 20% discount campaign and send it to our top customers there.”

The Agent acts as the Director:

  • It calls Google Analytics via API to instantly identify the lapsed customers.
  • It calls Canva via API to automatically generate a perfectly on-brand flyer.
  • It calls Mailchimp via API to blast the email through their trusted servers.

Result: You never looked at a single website. The software companies provided the grunt work invisibly in the background.

The Infrastructural Moats: Why Software Survives

So, why doesn’t the AI just build its own Mailchimp or Canva? Because traditional software companies own the physical and digital infrastructure.

  • The Pipe Moat (Mailchimp): An AI can write a brilliant email, but if it sends 10,000 messages from an unknown server, Gmail will instantly block it as spam. Mailchimp owns the “Trusted Pipes” that the internet respects.
  • The Sensor Moat (Google Analytics): An AI doesn’t inherently know what is happening on your website. Google has millions of digital sensors tracking clicks. The AI needs that raw data to “see.”
  • The Guardrail Moat (Canva): An AI hallucination might accidentally make your corporate logo neon pink. Canva provides the strict “Brand Kits” that force the AI to stay inside the lines.

Software companies aren’t going to zero. They will survive by becoming the invisible plumbing of the internet.

This transformation does not automatically spell out a wave of mass defaults. Just hours after delivering another blowout earnings report, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang pushed back against Wall Street’s doomsday narrative.

His message was blunt: AI agents are not going to cannibalize enterprise software; they are going to become its power users. As he explained, “These agentic AI will be intelligent software that uses these tools on our behalf.”

Whether it is an Excel spreadsheet, a ServiceNow workflow, or an SAP database, these platforms exist for a fundamentally good reason. They are the organizational infrastructure. AI agents won’t replace the tools; they will operate them. As Huang noted, in the end, we still need these tools to finish the work and format the information in a way humans can actually understand.

The A2A Ecosystem: When Agents Talk to Agents

If you think the future is just your company’s internal AI agent pulling levers on different software APIs, you are still thinking too small. The industry is rapidly moving toward an external, machine-to-machine economy powered by open standards like Google’s Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol.

While internal “multi-agent” architectures involve a closed team of AIs working within your own company’s walled garden, A2A is the open internet for agents. It allows an AI built by one company to dynamically discover, securely communicate with, and effectively hire an entirely independent AI built by another company.

How A2A works

Source: Google

In our marketing example, you wouldn’t just use one AI. Your “Director Agent” would use the A2A protocol to hire a specialized “Google Analytics Agent” to pull the data, securely negotiate with a specialized “Canva Agent” to design the creative, and hand the final product to a specialized “Mailchimp Agent” for delivery.

Software companies will no longer just build platforms; they will build and lease specialized agents into this global workforce. For the private credit industry, this adds another layer of complexity. They aren’t just underwriting software tools anymore; they are underwriting digital employees operating in an entirely autonomous machine-to-machine economy.

The Economic Obliteration and the New Moats

For the shadow banking system holding hundreds of billions in debt, this isn’t an extinction event—it is a massive repricing of risk. The software industry isn’t dying; it is simply mutating into a new form. To keep generating cash and paying back those private credit loans, software companies must fundamentally change what they sell and how they charge for it.

  • The Death of the License and the Rise of the “Call”: Currently, if you have 50 employees, you buy 50 human “seats.” But what happens when a single AI agent can seamlessly do the work of those 50 people? The traditional per-seat license implodes. To survive, software companies must pivot to consumption pricing. Bosses will no longer pay flat monthly subscriptions for humans; they will pay fractions of a penny for every “API call” the agent makes. Software ceases to be a fixed subscription and becomes a variable expense—exactly like paying your electric bill.
  • Data Security is the New UI: For the last decade, companies spent billions making software “human-friendly.” That capital is now stranded. Agents don’t care about sleek drop-down menus, intuitive design, or pretty color schemes. Human-targeted UI improvements are no longer a selling feature. Instead, the ultimate premium feature is data security. When autonomous machines are rapidly moving massive amounts of proprietary company data across the internet via APIs, the surviving software giants will be the ones offering ironclad security, impenetrable “guardrails,” and flawless backend execution.
  • Open the API Gates: Software companies must become radically open. If a platform tries to build a walled garden and block AI agents from plugging in, the agent will simply take its transaction to a competitor that is open. In the agentic future, the path of least resistance wins the revenue.

For the $300 billion private credit market, the game has fundamentally changed. The lenders who survive this cycle will be the ones who realize that the companies they are funding are no longer selling dashboards to humans. They are selling secure, invisible tools to machines.

 

 

Tara Mulia

For more blogs like these, subscribe to our newsletter here!




Admin heyokha



Share



Stay Connected with Heyokha

Sign up to receive insights, updates, and perspectives directly from Heyokha

Stay Connected with Heyokha

Sign up to receive insights, updates, and perspectives directly from Heyokha

Heyokha Footer Logo

We drive our mission with an exceptional culture through applying a growth mindset where holistic and on the ground research is at our core.

About Heyokha
Publications
Impact
Help
×

Terms & Conditions

You must read the following information before proceeding. By accessing this website and any pages thereof, you acknowledge that you have read the following information and accept the terms and conditions set out below and agree to be bound by such terms and conditions. If you do not agree to such terms and conditions, please do not access this website or any pages thereof.

The website has been prepared by Heyokha Brothers Limited and is solely intended for informational purposes and should not be construed as an inducement to purchase or sell any security, product, service, or investment. The Site does not solicit an offer to buy or sell any financial instrument or enter into any agreement. It is important to note that the opinions expressed on the Site are not considered investment advice, and it is recommended that individuals seek independent advice as needed to address their specific objectives, financial situation, or needs. It is the responsibility of the persons who access this website to observe all applicable laws and regulations.

The Site offers general information exclusively and does not consider the individual circumstances of any person. The data, opinions, and estimates presented on the Site are current as of the publication date and are subject to changes without notice. Additionally, it is possible that such information may become obsolete with time.

Intended Users

The content presented on this website is exclusively intended for authorized intermediaries and qualified investors within Hong Kong, such as institutional investors, professional investors, and accredited investors (as defined under the SFO). It is not intended for retail investors or individuals located outside of Hong Kong.

The products and services mentioned on this website may or may not be authorized or registered for distribution in a particular jurisdiction and may not be suitable for all investor types. It is important to note that this website is not intended to constitute an offer or solicitation, nor is it directed toward individuals if the provider of the information is prohibited by any law of any jurisdiction from making the information available. Moreover, the website is not intended for any use that would violate local laws or regulations. The provider of the information is not permitted to promote any products or services mentioned on this website in jurisdictions where such promotion would be prohibited.

If you are not a qualified investor or licensed intermediary in Hong Kong, you should not proceed any further.

No Investment Advice

The information provided on this Website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, hold, or transact in any investment. It is strongly recommended that individuals seek professional investment advice before making any investment decisions.

The information presented on this Website does not consider the investment objectives, specific needs, or financial situations of any investor. It is important to note that nothing on this Website is intended to constitute financial, legal, accounting, or tax advice.

Before making any investment decision, individuals should carefully consider whether an investment aligns with their investment objectives, specific needs, and financial situation. This should also include informing oneself of any potential tax implications, legal requirements, foreign exchange restrictions, or exchange control requirements that may be relevant to an investment based on the laws of one’s citizenship, residence, or domicile. If there is any doubt regarding the information on this Website, it is recommended that individuals seek independent professional financial advice.

It is important to note that any opinion, comment, article, financial analysis, market forecast, market commentary, or other information published on the Website is not binding on Heyokha or its affiliates, and they are not responsible for the information, opinions, or ideas presented.

Obligations and Resposibilities of Users

Users are solely responsible for protecting and backing up their data and equipment, as well as taking reasonable precautions against any computer virus or other destructive elements. Additionally, users must ensure that their access to the Site is adequately secured against unauthorized access.

Users are prohibited from using the Site for any unlawful, defamatory, offensive, abusive, indecent, menacing, or threatening purposes, or in any way that infringes upon intellectual property rights or confidentiality obligations. Furthermore, users may not use the Site to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or anxiety to others, or in any way that violates any applicable laws or regulations.

Users must comply with any terms notified to them by third-party suppliers of data or services to the Site. This may include entering into a direct agreement with such third parties in respect of their use of the dat

Third-Party Content

This website may contain Third Party Content or links to websites maintained by third parties that are not affiliated with Heyokha. Heyokha does not participate in the preparation, adoption, or editing of such third-party materials and does not endorse or approve such content, either explicitly or implicitly. Any opinions or recommendations expressed on third party materials are solely those of the independent providers and not of Heyokha. Heyokha is not responsible for any errors or omissions relating to specific information provided by any third party.

Although Heyokha aims to provide accurate and timely information to users, neither Heyokha nor the Third-Party Content providers guarantee on the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, usefulness, or any other aspect of the information presented. Heyokha is not responsible or liable for any content, including advertising, products, or other materials on or available from third party sites. Users access and use Third Party content is at their own risk, and it is provided for informational purposes only. Both Heyokha and the Third-Party shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from users’ reliance upon such information.

Intellectual Property Rights

The content of this website is subject to copyright and other intellectual property laws. All trademarks, service marks, logos, and brand features displayed on the website are owned by their respective owners, except as explicitly noted. Users may use the information on this website and reproduce it for personal reference only. However, reproduction, distribution, transmission, incorporation in any other database, document, or material, and sale or distribution of any part of the contents of the website is strictly prohibited. Users may download or print individual sections of the website for personal use and information only, provided they are legally entitled to access the material and retain all copyright and other proprietary notices.

Any unauthorized use of the content, trademarks, service marks, or logos displayed on the website may violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property laws, as well as laws of privacy and publicity and communications. Any reference or link to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favouring by our company.

We provide such references or links solely for the convenience of our users and to provide additional information. Our company is not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external website or resource linked to or referenced from our website. Users are solely responsible for complying with the terms and conditions of any external websites or resources.

Cookies

In order to enhance user experience and simplify future visits, this website may utilize cookies to track your activity. However, if you do not want to store cookies on your device, you can disable them by adjusting your browser’s security settings.

Data Privacy

Please read our Privacy Statement before providing Heyokha with any personal information on this website. By providing any personal information on this website, you will be deemed to have read and accepted our Privacy Statement.

Use of Website

The information contained on the website is accurate only as of the date of publication and does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. While certain tools available on the website may provide general investment or financial analyses based upon personalized input, such results are for information purposes only, and users should refer to the assumptions and limitations relevant to the use of such tools as set out on the website. Users are solely responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service is appropriate or suitable for them based on their investment objectives and personal and financial situation. Users should consult their independent professional advisers if they have any questions. Any person considering an investment should seek independent advice on the suitability or otherwise of the particular investment.

Disclaimer of Liability Heyokha makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, security, and confidentiality of information available through the website. Heyokha, its affiliates, directors, officers, or employees accept no liability for any errors or omissions relating to information available through the website or for any damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with the website, whether direct or indirect, arising from the use of the website or its contents. Heyokha also reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the website at any time without notice. Heyokha shall not be liable for any such modification, suspension, or discontinuance.

×

Data Privacy Terms and Conditions

Personal Information Collection Statement:

Pursuant to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (the ‘Ordinance’), Heyokha Brothers Limited is fully committed to safeguarding the privacy and security of personal information in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. This statement outlines how we collect, use, and protect personal information provided to us.

Collection of Personal Information:

We collect and maintain personal information, in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations. We take necessary measures to ensure that personal information is correct and up to date. Personal information will only be used for the purpose of utilization and will not be disclosed to third parties (except our related parties e.g.: Administrators) without consent from the individual, except for justifiable grounds as required by laws and regulations.

We may collect various types of personal data from or about you, including:

  • Your name
  • Your user names and passwords
  • Contact information, including address, email address and/or telephone number
  • Information relating to your engagement with material that we publish or otherwise provide to you
  • Records of our interactions with you, including any messages you send us, your comments and questions and any other information you choose to provide.

The Company may automatically collect information about you from computer or internet browser through the use of cookies, pixel tags, and other similar technologies to enhance the user experience on its websites. Third parties may be used to collect personal data and information indirectly through monitoring activities conducted by the Company or on its behalf.

Company does not knowingly collect personal data from anyone under the age of 18 and does not seek to collect or process sensitive information unless required or permitted by law and with express consent.

Uses of your Personal Data:

We may use your personal data for the purposes it was provided and in connection with our services as described below:

  • Provide products/services or info as requested or expected.
  • Fulfill agreements and facilitate business dealings.
  • Manage relationships, analyse websites and communications, and merge personal data for relevance.
  • Support and improve existing products/services, and plan/develop new ones.
  • Count/recognize website visitors and analyse usage.
  • To comply with and assess compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations and internal policies and procedures.
  • Use information for any other purpose with consent.

Protection of Personal Information:

We provide thorough training to our officers and employees to prevent the leakage or inappropriate use of personal information and provide information on a need-to-know basis. Managers in charge for controls and inspections are appointed, and appropriate control systems are established to ensure the privacy and security of personal information.

In the event that personal information is provided to an external contractor (e.g.: Administrator), we take responsibility for ensuring that the external contractor has proper systems in place to protect the privacy of personal information.

Third parties disclosure of Personal Information:

Personal information held by us relating to an individual will be kept confidential but may be provided to third parties the following purpose:

  • Comply with applicable laws or legal processes.
  • Investigate and prevent illegal activity, fraud, or violations of terms and conditions.
  • Protect and defend legal rights or defend against legal claims.
  • Facilitate business or asset transactions, such as financing, mergers, acquisitions, or bankruptcy.
  • With our related parties (e.g.: administrators) that are subject to appropriate data protection obligations
  • Representatives, agents or custodians appointed by the client (e.g.: Auditors, accountant)

Retention of Personal Information:

Disclosure, correction and termination of usage shall be carried out upon request of an individual in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.

Personal information collected will be retained for no longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of the purposes for which it was collected as per applicable laws and regulations.

Rights of the Individual:

Under relevant laws and regulations, any individual has the right to request access to any of the personal data that we hold by submitting a written request. Individuals are also entitled to request to correct, cancel or delete any of the personal data we hold if they believe such information is inaccurate, out of date or we no longer have a legitimate interest or lawful justification to retain or process.

×

Disclaimer

Heyokha Brothers Limited is the issuer of this website and holds Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management) licenses issued by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong.

The information provided on this website has been prepared solely for licensed intermediaries and qualified investors in Hong Kong, including professional investors, institutional investors, and accredited investors (as defined under the Securities and Futures Ordinance). The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, nor an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security, investment product, or service.

Investment involves risk and investors may lose their entire investment. Investors are advised to seek professional advice before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future performance and the value of investments may fluctuate. Please refer to the offering document(s) for
details, including the investment objectives, risk factors, and fees and charges.

Heyokha Brothers Limited reserves the right to amend, update, or remove any information on this website at any time without notice. By accessing and using this website, you agree to be bound by the above terms and conditions.

Heyokha Footer Logo

We drive our mission with an exceptional culture through applying a growth mindset where holistic and on the ground research is at our core.

About Heyokha
Publications
Impact
Help
×

Thank you for subscribing!

You will now gain access to our latest insights, updates, and carefully selected stories, designed to keep you informed and ahead of the curve.