India And Pakistan Agree To Immediate Ceasefire

Summary:

India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri holds a press briefing at Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi, India, May 10,

India And Pakistan Agree To Immediate Ceasefire_1

India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri holds a press briefing at Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi, India, May 10, 2025.

India and Pakistan have agreed to an "immediate ceasefire," President Donald Trump said Saturday, following days of rising tensions and fighting between the two nations.

"After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Pakistani and Indian leaders also confirmed the ceasefire agreement.

The ceasefire announcement comes hours after fighting continued to escalate on Saturday, with both nations launching continued military operations against each other.

"Pakistan and India have agreed to a ceasefire with immediate effect," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar wrote on X on Saturday.

"Pakistan has always strived for peace and security in the region, without compromising on its sovereignty and territorial integrity!" Dar added.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri also said that the ceasefire would begin at 5pm local time.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said Saturday that the two nations agreed "to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site."

Rubio said that Vice President JD Vance met with leaders of the two nations over the last two days.

The secretary of state lauded the two nations' prime ministers "on their wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace."

Source: CNBC

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Thomas

Economic

The European Union is pressing pause on some of its most ambitious sustainability regulations. Through the Omnibus Regulation, the European Commission is scaling back and delaying key provisions of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, along with adjustments to the EU Taxonomy and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

The official rationale is simplification. But the impact is more sweeping: the number of companies in scope for CSRD reporting will fall by approximately 85%, and many of CSDDD’s stricter requirements around value chain enforcement and civil liability have been removed or watered down. What was once a far-reaching architecture for embedding sustainability into corporate reporting and governance is now being reworked midstream.

So, what’s actually changed, what comes next and how should companies respond?

What’s changed?

The most immediate change is a two-year delay for CSRD implementation for companies that haven’t yet started reporting. This means many mid-sized firms will now begin disclosures from FY2026 instead of FY2024. In parallel, the CSDDD’s transposition deadline has been pushed back by one year, giving member states more time to integrate it into national law.

The European Commission has also tasked the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group with simplifying the European Sustainability Reporting Standards.

The revised ESRS are due from EFRAG by 31 October 2025 and will be implemented via delegated act within six months of the final Omnibus text. Companies will be allowed to use the revised ESRS for FY2026 and required to use them from FY2027 onward.

What’s next?

The ‘stop-the-clock’ provisions were approved by the European Council and endorsed by the Parliament under urgent procedure. A final vote is set for 3 April. If approved, trilogues between Parliament, Council and Commission will begin shortly thereafter to finalise the legal text.

Despite the rapid pace of change, key elements remain unsettled. The European Parliament’s initial vote on the proposal passed resoundingly, but divisions among parties remain. Some member states have pushed hard for fast adoption to provide legal clarity for businesses, but others remain wary of the broader implications of weakening EU leadership on sustainable finance.

What it means for business

In the short term, the Omnibus offers breathing room for many companies. For firms not yet in scope, the CSRD delay may provide much-needed time to prepare systems, gather data and align internal teams. The expected reduction in datapoints and clearer materiality guidance could also reduce compliance costs and make the reporting process more usable.

But the longer-term implications are more complex.

First, the delay risks setting back progress on sustainability data quality and comparability. This weakens not just regulatory oversight, but investor and market ability to assess and price sustainability risks. Second, businesses operating globally may still need to report to other frameworks such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, which remain in force and are quickly gaining traction.

Third, the underlying rationale for these regulations hasn’t changed. Climate and nature-related risks are accelerating. Regulatory alignment, forward-looking planning and robust disclosures remain essential. Weakening standards or delaying implementation may create short-term flexibility, but it also increases long-term uncertainty and the risk of fragmented compliance obligations down the line.

Ultimately, this is also a story of process failure. Had the EU initially launched these sustainability frameworks as a single, coherent package with clear sequencing, technical guidance and regulatory alignment progress might be further along today. Instead, the attempt to correct course mid-flight may leave both companies and regulators navigating greater complexity.

The Omnibus is more than a technical reversal – it reflects deeper questions about Europe’s strategy on sustainable finance. Whether this is a pause to build smarter or a backslide that undercuts ambition will depend on the final text and what follows. For businesses, the imperative remains clear: understand the rules, track what’s changing and prepare not just for compliance, but for resilience in a world that still expects, and requires, sustainability.

Source:David Carlin

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Owen Li

Cryptocurrency

Countries worldwide have an opportunity to strengthen their positions as financial centres by establishing themselves as hubs for stablecoin transactions. Two complementary strategies would bring substantial economic benefits: enabling domestic financial institutions (regulated banks and non-banks) to receive and convert foreign stablecoins; and promoting global acceptance of locally issued stablecoins.

These forward-looking policies would generate significant fee and foreign exchange revenue for financial institutions, ensure proper regulatory oversight of digital currency flows, create diversified demand for government debt and reinforce a nation’s role as an innovative financial centre in the global economy.

Inbound stablecoin conversion

A global stablecoin clearing system would enable a country’s financial institutions to receive stablecoins from foreign issuers and convert them to local currency at par value.

If financial institutions were able to capture just 5% of the hypothetical $1tn global stablecoin redemption flow, this could generate approximately $1.83bn in annual gross revenue for the domestic financial sector. This would create a new revenue stream for banks and regulated fintechs without requiring them to take principal risk. Processing occurs through existing regulatory frameworks similar to how foreign currency cheques are handled today through international cash letter arrangements.

There are several regulatory benefits to this strategy. It ensures all foreign stablecoin flows into the country are processed through regulated institutions with robust know-your-customer, anti-money laundering and sanctions controls. It prevents disintermediation of domestic financial institutions by unregulated offshore stablecoin platforms and unhosted wallets. And it provides regulators with visibility into digital currency flows entering the economy.

This strategy also creates a foundation for bilateral trade negotiations: ‘We’ll facilitate acceptance of your stablecoins on a national level if you’ll do the same for ours.’ It positions the country as a forward-thinking jurisdiction embracing digital currency innovation within regulatory guardrails, and strengthens its competitive position against other financial centres hesitant to engage with digital assets.

Outbound national stablecoins

Promoting global acceptance of locally denominated stablecoins creates international demand for digital national currency, with significant macroeconomic benefits. Locally issued stablecoins held overseas indirectly generate demand for domestic government debt (as backing assets). This creates a new channel for the national currency to act as a reserve currency in digital form and broadens the utility of the domestic currency in international trade and cross-border transactions.

Consider consumers purchasing from overseas merchants through global marketplaces. These substantial payment flows could be denominated in local stablecoins, which many overseas marketplace sellers would willingly hold as part of a diversified currency portfolio. This creates sustainable foreign demand for domestically denominated assets without requiring immediate settlement back to the seller’s local currency.

This strategy extends the country’s financial influence in the growing digital economy, reduces transaction costs for domestic businesses engaged in global trade and provides a complementary digital currency strategy alongside any potential future central bank digital currency initiatives.

Policy recommendations

To make the most of this opportunity, countries should clarify the regulatory treatment of financial institutions receiving foreign stablecoins on behalf of clients and engage with clearing systems like Ubyx to ensure national interests are represented in this emerging infrastructure.

They should establish a cross-sector working group with the finance ministry, central bank, financial regulators and industry participants to develop a coherent national stablecoin strategy. This group should consider targeted incentives to encourage domestic financial institutions to develop stablecoin acceptance capabilities.

Countries should include stablecoin interoperability in discussions with international financial centres and trade partners, while enabling regulated banks and non-banks to participate in public-permissionless blockchains with appropriate risk management frameworks.

Finally, it is important to distinguish between infrastructure and outsourcing in regulatory frameworks to allow financial institutions to operate on public blockchains, as well as support accounting recognition of stablecoins as cash equivalents under appropriate conditions.

Nations that have historically thrived by embracing financial innovation while ensuring appropriate safeguards stand to benefit significantly from stablecoins. A progressive policy approach represents a substantial opportunity to generate economic benefits, strengthen regulatory oversight and enhance a country’s position as a global financial leader in the digital age.

By enabling both inbound conversion and outbound usage of locally-issued stablecoins, nations can establish themselves as pivotal hubs in the global digital currency landscape.

Source:Tony McLaughlin

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Jason

Economic

In today’s environment, where most corporate and bank budgets are not allocated to innovation but rather to maintaining compliance with an expanding portfolio of regulatory requirements, market transformation often happens through regulatory disruption. One of the most significant developments in financial market infrastructure is the rise of distributed ledger technologies, with blockchain being the most prominent implementation.

By distributing copies of the ledger across a network of nodes, blockchain eliminates single points of failure, enhancing resilience. Consensus mechanisms ensure that each node maintains an identical, validated record of accepted transactions. As the Bank for International Settlements observed in 2022 in ‘The future monetary system’, this technology has the potential to create a ‘more adaptable and resilient’ future monetary system.

A wide-scale rollout of a global unified ledger or a network of ledgers existing in various linked areas such as industry consortiums, arbitration pools and markets has the potential to change how businesses operate. Even more intriguing is how contracts (whether business-to-business, business-to-consumer or person-to-person) could become more reliable and executable, where parties are bound to fulfil their obligations based on conditions with defined outcomes and subsequent actions.

A cross-industry adoption of a shared ledger infused with dedicated smart contracts presents a significant opportunity not only to save processing time but also to reduce risk, remove costs and increase overall trust throughout the entire contract life cycle.

Use cases

Let’s envision a reality where such a network of global cross-industry ledgers is operational and explore how businesses and private consumers might interact. Even a simple scenario demonstrates the potential value.

Consider a person leaving early for work whose car won’t start. They contact their mobility service provider, who triggers a tow company to collect the car, deliver it to the garage and potentially return it to its owner within hours or days. Throughout this process chain, various smart contracts could be triggered and executed, releasing instant partial payments of the total service cost until the process is completed.

Such scenarios could be secured with various conditions governing payment release, timing and outcomes. For instance, before returning the car to its owner, a third-party arbitrator from the insurer could play a crucial role in accepting the repair and confirming contractual execution, which would trigger instant payment for the completed work.

This straightforward example can be scaled up and applied to more complex contexts where dozens of smart contracts and network validations execute within seconds or at desired intervals. Global trade business could benefit immensely, where the provision of letters of credit (along with necessary know-your-customer and various checks) would become a straight-through process.

For instance, global trade of fast-moving consumer goods requiring stable cold-chain confirmation throughout shipping could be validated and, if necessary, automatically rerouted to the sender in case of interruption and goods become unusable. All that happens in an automated way based on the information from sensors and position trackers and stored in a replicated, permissioned ledger with clear consensus, immutability and finality.

Balancing regulation with innovation

Considering the potential use cases and their impact on the global economy, we must return to the fundamental role of regulators. Examining current technologies, solutions and new compliance requirements – from work on central bank digital currencies (both wholesale and retail) to the introduction of the Digital Operational Resilience Act and the research conducted by the BIS in its fascinating exploratory work – provides a potential blueprint for an interconnected multijurisdictional economy. While significant progress has been made, considerable work remains.

Although the G20 Financial Stability Board had already identified and begun addressing vulnerabilities in the global financial system, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have underscored the urgent need for more resilient financial infrastructures. Even if businesses would be ready to adopt ledger technology, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A universal, globally interconnected ledger could offer greater stability in times of crisis, but its feasibility faces complex challenges in international coordination, regulatory harmonisation and data privacy.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, emphasised in her 2025 special address at the World Economic Forum that Europe must adapt to a ‘new era of harsh geostrategic competition’. She stressed the need for deep and liquid capital markets and reduced bureaucracy, highlighting Europe’s capacity for technological leadership and strong governance. These principles naturally extend to the design of future financial ledgers, ensuring they serve both efficiency and stability goals.

The journey towards reimagined financial infrastructure represents a critical intersection of technological innovation, regulatory evolution and market transformation. Our observations of DLT experimentation within the banking industry suggest that years of conducting proofs of concept have yielded valuable insights, with many financial industry participants now awaiting clear regulatory frameworks and official endorsement.

The strong political messages delivered at WEF 2025 signal that the coming years may be transformative for the global economy. Success will depend on our ability to adopt these technological advances while maintaining the delicate balance between innovation and stability, ultimately creating a more resilient, efficient and inclusive financial system for the future.

Source:Piotr Romaniuk

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Devin

Economic

Research from Deutsche Bank has found that the average age of world leaders has jumped markedly in the past decade. The average age of G20 leaders is now 64 – five years higher than it was a decade ago. The leaders of the nine most populous countries in the world are older still, at an average of 76. One reason for this is that leaders are not stepping down.

Elderly leaders who are hanging on to power are contributing to a drift towards autocracy and, with it, an increased potential for political and economic dislocation when change eventually arrives. The bigger a political upheaval, the larger the potential for volatility across financial markets.

Democracies are backsliding

Three separate measures of global democracy have been sliding backwards in recent years. The Economist Intelligence Unit has calculated democracy scores for more than 160 nations since 2006. In 2024, 61% of 137 nations had a deteriorating score versus the previous year, and only 22% had an improving score.

The V-Dem Institute concluded in 2024 that the wave of rising autocracy ‘is not cresting or even slowing down’. It calculated that the world has fewer democracies (88) than autocracies (90) for the first time in more than two decades.

The Bertelsmann Transformation Index tells a similar story. Its measure of democracies versus autocracies has swung almost 10% towards autocracies in only four years, meaning that, by the index’s metrics, autocracies now outnumber democracies.

Part of this trend is due to the Covid-19-related restrictions imposed in 2020. The end of lockdowns has not led to a return to previous scores in many nations at the lower end of the league table of democracy.

This global trend also has an element of contagion built into it: autocratic nations are more likely to interfere in the electoral process of other nations. As Russia’s score has declined, it appears to have embarked upon electoral interference with increased regularity and in a wider range of countries. These actions impact the score of the nation that has been the victim of interference, contributing to the wider global slide in democracy scores.

Is there a connection and what are the implications?

There is evidence that some older leaders are taking their nations in the direction of autocracy to preserve their own tenure. China, Russia, Türkiye, India and Iran are all examples of nations where long-term incumbents are presiding over consistently deteriorating democracy scores. The lower the score, the easier it is for the leader to control the levers of power and shore up their incumbency.

In the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman observed that the longer a ‘strongman ruler’ is in power (and they are usually men), the harder it is for the nation to resist the creep towards autocracy. He specifically highlighted that such a ruler uses their extended tenure to attempt to control the media, tame the judiciary and bring the military to heel – in short, to cement their position.

We should ask what will happen when change finally comes. Autocratic leaders may have success in preventing change via the ballot box, but inevitably their reign will at some point end.

What happens then?

Succession planning is less likely in an autocratic country than in a democracy. History teaches us that strong leaders prefer an air of uncertainty around succession for fear of undermining their position of dominance. The consequence is that, when change comes, the greater the chance that it is a major rupture.

A change of leadership in nations such as Russia, China, Iran, Türkiye and (perhaps) India could precipitate internal struggles, a period of uncertainty and even involvement by third-party nations.

Should we have similar concerns on succession planning for countries that have worsening scores but currently do not sit in the autocratic category? Perhaps.

Countries that have slipped from democracy to flawed democracy in the EIU scoring system in the past decade include France and the US. Italy has been classified in that category for some time. In all three nations elections have become more fractious.

In France and Italy, new political parties and groupings are an indication of a less predictable electoral outcome, and the possibility of an exit from the euro currency, or even the European Union, are topics for discussion. Moreover, it can be argued that a worsening score in France or Italy may increase the likelihood of future Russian, Chinese or even US electoral interference. A vicious circle.

Declining democracy scores around the world reflect the potential for wrenching regime change when succession eventually occurs. Against this increasingly uncertain backdrop, the chance of future financial market dislocations will be higher.

We believe active management is the best way to navigate a bumpy investment landscape, with volatility and opportunities expected in yield levels, curve shapes, cross-market spreads, swap spreads and currencies. In a changing world, as investors we must be ready to adapt to it.

Source:Gary Smith

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Thomas

Economic

UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ spring statement showcased an adherence to existing fiscal rules, raising questions about the long-term strategic vision for the economy and public finances. While the chancellor’s measures focused on fixing the country’s tight public finances, the fiscal headroom remains unchanged.

The government’s non-negotiable commitment to its fiscal rules suggests a cautious approach, prioritising short-term compliance over transformative investments. The current fiscal rules state that the government’s day-to-day budget should be in a surplus and that the public sector net financial liabilities should be falling by the 2029/30 fiscal year.

The announcement of fiscal measures, such as an additional £13bn allocated for capital spending and a £2.2bn increase in defence funding, along with welfare and planning reforms, support the government’s desire to enhance public sector productivity and improve services for working citizens. However, the big announcements were the £4.8bn cuts to welfare payments and £3.6bn reductions to departmental spending, which aimed to maintain the fiscal headroom and secured the compliance with the fiscal targets. According to analysis by the Resolution Foundation, these cuts could result in lower-income households becoming £500 a year poorer over the parliament.

Fiscal challenges across Europe

An OMFIF event with the Office for Budget Responsibility on the UK economic outlook touched upon the challenging scenario that the UK is now facing. Although the economy should see recoveries by 2026, it is in a fragile state, and it would take very little change in the fiscal outlook to lose the headroom right now.

The most recent forecast for the UK economy was plagued by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs and disruption of the trading environment, increase in defence spending across Europe following Trump’s softening towards Russia and criticism of Nato, the modest growth in the UK economy and the business concerns around taxes and wage increases.

European governments are facing similar fiscal challenges. The looming fiscal crisis, characterised by slower productivity growth and growing expenditure pressures, necessitates re-evaluating public spending approaches. In Germany, for example, the government announced a massive fiscal package, with a €1tn spending plan for military and infrastructure, that includes easing the borrowing rules to allow higher spending on defence. But this has led to a surge in the euro area government borrowing costs, which can intensify debt pressures.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the US Department of Government Efficiency set a goal of $1tn in deficit reduction by financial year 2026. However, due to legal and procedural obstacles, what it can actually achieve in terms of cutting government spending is likely to be far less than that.

Most importantly, these goals miss a key focus on the outcome of spending plans. The long-term fiscal projections around the globe indicate escalating deficits and public debt levels, highlighting the urgency for reforms that prioritise sustainable and impactful investments. Without a clear framework on how spending can be done more effectively, economies will remain weak, public debt will remain under pressure and economic growth will stay stagnant.

Looking for fiscal alternatives

OMFIF and EY have previously emphasised the necessity for governments to rethink public spending frameworks. ‘The future of public money’ advocates for integrating long-term considerations into fiscal policy, adopting new fiscal frameworks and leveraging technology to enhance public finance management.

The intended and actual outcomes for the real economy should be at the centre of the spending allocation decision, rather than solely focusing on their impact on revenues, expenditures and debt. Addressing short-term thinking in budget decisions is key to ensuring valuable public investment and long-term economic growth. This would involve changing the fiscal objectives that traditionally focus on public debt and budget targets and incorporating other measures such as intertemporal public sector net worth into policy decisions. These recommendations are particularly relevant as governments worldwide grapple with constrained public finances and increasing demands on expenditure due to factors such as ageing populations, climate change and infrastructure needs.

While the UK’s spring statement introduces measures aimed at enhancing public sector productivity and services, the adherence to existing fiscal rules raises concerns about the government’s long-term strategic vision. The current economic landscape, marked by external trade pressures and tricky geopolitical movements, calls for a more ambitious and forward-thinking approach to public spending.

At a pivotal moment for governments around the world, the forthcoming OMFIF-EY ‘The future of public money: investing in public value’ roundtable presents an opportunity to explore innovative strategies for redirecting public funds towards investments that deliver substantial public value, ensuring fiscal sustainability and societal well-being in the years to come.

Source:Andrea Correa

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Damon

Central Bank

In my third six-year term as governor of the National Bank of Serbia, I’ve remained steadfast in my belief that true strength lies in the individual, regardless of whether they are a woman or a man. While it is wrong not to promote someone only because that person is a woman, I believe it is equally wrong to offer an opportunity only because that person is a woman.

Statistically speaking, central banking is still a man’s job. Yet, in Serbia, the situation is much better. I take pride in being recognised as an institution that has made equality a cornerstone of its success. At the NBS, equal rights, equal opportunity and mutual respect for everyone are not just values, they are the foundation of career advancement.

Having this commitment to gender equality has made the NBS a standout example of both a women-led and women-dominated central bank. This did not come as a consequence of gender quotas. It is the outcome of a merit-based system where women have proven themselves to be equally, if not more efficient than their male counterparts. But what are the numbers telling us?

The number of women at the NBS has been steadily on the rise since 2013. Today, women make up over 57% of our workforce. A great number of women hold senior positions, including that of governor and vice-governor, making up 60% of the executive board. Close to 59% of the total number of managers are women, up by 8 percentage points compared to end-2013.

In 2024, we saw an impressive rise in women actively pursuing professional development and training in order to broaden their expertise. Equality of opportunity is also evident in the average job coefficients for both genders, with employees and managing staff equally represented. In accordance with the Law on Gender Equality, we also introduced the Risk Management Plan for Violations of the Gender Equality Principle.

But equality goes far beyond that. When hiring and promoting, we assess candidates based on all aspects – including their qualifications and potential – not their gender. Whether you’re a woman or a man, the work is the same. At NBS, we have cultivated a healthy, inclusive working environment, where everyone is encouraged to share their ideas and know that their word matters.

Our policies are crucial in nurturing this positive work culture. For instance, the bank provides a one-time financial assistance in case of a childbirth or child adoption. We also offer options such as remote work and flexible hours, which have proven vital in helping women achieve a better balance between their work and family obligations.

After 13 years at the helm of the NBS, I have some advice on achieving gender balance in financial institutions. First, gender is only one of the many dimensions of diversity that we must all value. Second, society should not make a simple choice between men and women – we should be supporting the best in each other, regardless of gender. Third, while the world should do more to empower women, opportunities must be granted to those who have the right knowledge and skills. And lastly, society can reach its full potential when we fully leverage the talent and diversity around us. Institutions cannot thrive if hard-working and talented people cannot imagine themselves in senior leadership positions.

At the NBS, as well as in Serbia, our regulations are gender-supportive. There are many opportunities available, but we must recognise and use them. The system cannot do that on our behalf – we must take the initiative and create the opportunities ourselves. Each of us has the power to motivate and inspire others with our own experiences – and for that, we do not need regulations.

As for central banks, the best contribution we can make is delivering stability and predictability. At the NBS, the dominance of women in key roles is a reflection of their capability and performance. Through generations, much has been done to raise social awareness about the importance of basic human rights, not just special women’s rights. It is the collective responsibility of society, and each individual, to uphold these principles.