PSX benchmark index down 1.3%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) trended downward for most of the week, shedding 2,038 points, down 1.3%WoW to close at 159,592.9 points. Average daily traded volumes also declined by 30%WoW to 1,093 million shares.

On the macro front, the trade deficit widened by 56%YoY to US$3.2 billion.

NCPI rose by 6.2%YoY during October 2025, which also weighed on sentiment during the week. However, sentiment was upturned by positive data, with remittances rising to US$3.4 billion, up 12%YoY and 7%MoM.

Noticeably, 1QFY26 fiscal accounts posted a record quarterly surplus of PKR2.1 trillion (1.6% of GDP).

At PIB auction, State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) raised PKR489 billion (target: PKR400 billion), with yields stable between 11.33% to 12.34% for the 2 and 15-year tenors.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP inched up by US$31 million to US$14.5 billion, as of October 31, 2025. PKR appreciated by 0.03%WoW against greenback.

According to AKD Securities, the momentum at PSX is expected to continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are anticipated to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities, offering attractive dividend yields.

Top picks of the brokerage house include: MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, SYS and INDU.

 

Fall of Three US Indexes: A Clear Warning

I do not claim to possess a “crystal ball,” yet only yesterday I cautioned that the “Tariff Fassad initiated by Trump may trigger a global meltdown.” Unfortunately, the first signs are already emerging. On Thursday, all three major US stock indices closed in negative territory, extending the tech-led selloff that began earlier in the week. Investor sentiment has turned fragile, weighed down by economic uncertainty and overstretched valuations, particularly in artificial intelligence-driven stocks.

Global supply chains are distorted, input costs are rising, and export-oriented economies are under strain. From Chinese manufacturing hubs to European automakers and Asian electronics exporters, uncertainty is eroding confidence. Trade volumes are shrinking, and markets across continents are responding with anxiety.

While technology giants continue to post record earnings and soaring valuations, this momentum rests on a precariously thin foundation. Analysts are increasingly calling it a “tech bubble.”

When one segment of the market inflates disproportionately, it distorts the entire financial ecosystem. Banks, small businesses, and industrial shares begin to absorb the pressure. This is not sustainable growth—it is imbalance. Traditional sectors are losing ground, consumer demand is softening, yet Big Tech is being priced as though the global economy is booming. This is speculation dressed as optimism.

Banks—the backbone of every financial system—are also showing early signs of stress. Rising interest rates, tightening liquidity, and increasing defaults in trade-exposed industries are beginning to surface in their balance sheets. Loan growth has slowed, non-performing assets are rising, and confidence among lenders is gradually eroding. Smaller financial institutions appear particularly vulnerable as their exposure to fragile industries grows unchecked. This may not resemble the sudden collapse of Lehman Brothers; rather, it could be a slow suffocation, where trust quietly seeps out of the system.

For investors in Pakistan—many of whom still carry the scars of 2008—caution is imperative. This is not the time for adventurism. Those holding fundamentally strong stocks should not be swayed by daily market volatility. Day traders must operate strictly within their risk tolerance. Those trading with borrowed money should consider stepping aside until the situation stabilizes.

Nancy Pelosi — A Woman Who Stayed When Others Stepped Back

For more than four decades, Nancy Pelosi has been more than a political figure to me — she has been a quiet lesson in resilience. In a world where power often wore a man’s face, she stepped into Congress not with noise, but with purpose. She didn’t just become the first female Speaker of the House — she became proof that patience, discipline, and conviction can move even the heaviest walls.

Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to serve as the powerful speaker of the US House of Representatives, said on Thursday that she will not run for reelection to Congress in 2026, ending the four-decade career of a progressive Democratic icon often vilified by the right. The 85 year old congresswoman, first elected in 1987, made her announcement two days after voters in California overwhelmingly approved "Proposition 50," a state redistricting effort aimed at flipping five House seats to Democrats in next year's midterm elections.

 What I admire most is this, when moments demanded courage, she did not step back. Whether it was passing the Affordable Care Act or defending democratic institutions in deeply divided times, Pelosi stood steady. She was not flawless — no leader is — but she held her ground when others hesitated, and sometimes that is the rarest form of strength.

Yet, her story is not without its shadows. In her commitment to stability and institutional respect, she sometimes slowed the push for bold reform. Younger voices wanted disruption; she chose caution. Was it restraint, or wisdom? Perhaps it was both — the burden of someone who knows just how fragile power can be.

At her side, though rarely in the spotlight, has stood Paul Pelosi — her husband, her confidant. Their partnership reminds us that even the strongest public figures are still human hearts, seeking comfort after the cameras are gone.

And that is why she matters to me. Nancy Pelosi did not simply make history — she endured it. She stayed when many would have walked away. And in doing so, she taught us that true leadership is not about applause — but about staying long enough to make a difference.

 

“Tariff Fassad” Initiated by Trump May Trigger Global Meltdown

The global economy today resembles a pressure cooker — silently building steam, waiting for the smallest policy misstep to explode. The “Tariff Fassad” initiated by US president, Donald Trump during is not an isolated episode but the beginning of a dangerous shift toward economic nationalism. Its aftershocks are now resurfacing as governments across continents flirt with protectionism, weaponized trade, and retaliatory tariffs. If not checked, this confrontation could unleash consequences far worse than “Subprime Loan Crisis of 2008”.

Unlike 2008 — which was rooted in irresponsible lending and Wall Street malpractice — this crisis is being fueled by deliberate political choices. Tariffs have distorted supply chains, raised input costs, and crippled export-oriented economies. From Chinese manufacturers to European automakers and Asian electronics exporters, uncertainty is eroding confidence. Global trade volumes are shrinking, and markets are reacting nervously.

The irony is striking, while tech giants continue to report record profits and soaring valuations, this growth stands on a very fragile foundation. Analysts are calling it a “Tech Bubble”, and not without reason. When one segment of the market inflates disproportionately banks, small businesses, and industrial shares come under pressure, it is not growth — it is imbalance. Traditional sectors are bleeding, consumer demand is weakening, and yet Big Tech is being priced as if the world economy is booming. This is speculation masquerading as optimism.

Banks, the backbone of any financial system, are showing worrying signs. Rising interest rates, tightening liquidity, and increasing defaults in trade-dependent industries have started to appear on their balance sheets. Loan growth has slowed, non-performing assets are rising, and confidence among lenders is eroding. Smaller financial institutions are especially at risk as their exposure to fragile sectors grows unchecked. This may not be a sudden collapse like Lehman Brothers — it could be a gradual suffocation, where trust quietly disappears from the system.

Emerging economies are caught in a chokehold. Currencies are under pressure, foreign exchange reserves are being depleted to manage imports, and inflation is creeping upward. For countries dependent on exports or imported raw materials, Trump-style tariff aggression has become an economic nightmare. Meanwhile, global institutions like the WTO and IMF remain spectators — issuing statements rather than solutions.

Markets do not collapse only due to bad economics; they collapse when confidence dies. Tariff wars, geopolitical brinkmanship, and speculative bubbles are collectively eroding that confidence. The threat today is not of a market crash alone — it is of a systemic disintegration of trust, credit, and cooperation.

The world must realize that economic wars have no winners. If this tariff-driven arrogance continues, the global economy will not fall off a cliff — it will slide slowly into chaos. Policymakers still have time to act, but the clock is ticking fast.

 

Mamdani Victory Signals Political Shift

The election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City represents more than a personal milestone—it signals a broader shift in civic and political sensibility. In choosing a candidate who openly challenged entrenched alliances tied to Wall Street, the oil-and-gas industry and the military-industrial complex, New Yorkers have sent a message: we want governance that prioritizes people over power, communities over cronies.

Mamdani’s victory is historic. He becomes the city’s first Muslim and first South-Asian mayor, and one of its youngest. Yet the significance goes deeper: his campaign was grounded in grassroots mobilization, small-donor financing, and an agenda built on affordability, public transit, housing justice and social inclusion. In doing so, it rejected the status quo of big money and big influence.

For those of us who hope to see the next generation of senators and congress-members break from the usual patronage of oil companies, Wall Street and military contractors, this election offers a template. It confirms that voters are not powerless; they can elect leaders who owe their mandate to citizens, not to corporate-political machines. The challenge now is to extend that mindset beyond city hall to state houses and Capitol Hill.

Yet caveats abound. Victory in a campaign is one thing; governing effectively is another. New York is mired in debt, facing infrastructure decay, deep inequality and institutional inertia. Mamdani must now translate bold rhetoric into concrete delivery. Housing affordability, free or cheap transit, meaningful reforms—all these will test whether the electoral surge becomes sustainable policy.

Equally important is governing for the whole city. If a leader emerges as a polarizer, the mandate risks fracturing. To hold together a diverse coalition, Mamdani will need to build bridges across boroughs, racial and economic divides, ethnic and religious communities. A commitment to social justice does not exempt one from the need for pragmatic consensus-building.

In short, congratulations, Mayor-elect Mamdani. Your win matters. It matters because it signals a possible turning point—a moment when voters said yes to different leadership, yes to accountability, yes to a politics less beholden to big-money interests. For those watching across the country, prepare for the next phase: not simply new names in the Senate or House, but new models of representation. Replace the old cronies with leaders purely accountable to the public. That is the promise. Now comes the work to fulfil it.

 

Trump to cut funds for NYC if Mamdani wins

US President Donald Trump endorsed former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for mayor of New York City on Monday and threatened to hold back federal funds to the city if Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the mayoral election on Tuesday.

Trump, a Republican who has offered frequent commentary on the New York mayoral election, injected himself further into the race by crossing party lines to support Cuomo over Mamdani and the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, who trails badly in public opinion polls in the heavily Democratic city.

Cuomo, a longtime stalwart in the Democratic Party, is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary.

Tuesday's New York City election has been closely watched nationally as one that could help shape the image of the Democratic Party as it seeks its identity in opposition to Trump. Mamdani, 34, a self-described democratic socialist who is leading Cuomo in the polls, has energized younger and more progressive voters, but he has also alarmed more moderate Democrats who fear a shift too far to the left may backfire.

Republicans have attacked Mamdani's candidacy throughout the campaign, with Trump casting him as a communist.

"Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Trump said a vote for Sliwa would only help Mamdani.

"If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home," said Trump, a native New Yorker.

The US federal government is providing US$7.4 billion to New York City in fiscal year 2026, or about 6.4% of the city's total spending, according to a report from the New York State Comptroller.

 

World Has Become Partner in Killing of Gazans

This writeup examines how global inaction, diplomatic protection, and delayed humanitarian mechanisms have contributed to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. It questions whether the world, intentionally or by default, has become a passive partner in the tragedy.

The war in Gaza is not unfolding in isolation. It is taking place within a global system where major powers supply weapons, veto ceasefire resolutions, and delay the creation of any independent administrative or security mechanism for Gaza.

This does not mean every nation is actively supporting the killings, but the combination of strategic silence, diplomatic protection, and ineffective humanitarian enforcement creates the impression that the world, by action or inaction, has become a partner in allowing the destruction to continue.

The United States and several European governments remain Israel’s principal military and diplomatic supporters. Arms transfers, intelligence sharing, and repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council have blocked ceasefire initiatives or international investigations.

Although discussions were held about a transitional authority or peacekeeping force for post-conflict Gaza, no structure has been implemented. As a result, Israel continues to control borders, airspace, and aid oversight.

Humanitarian aid pledges from international donors rarely translate into consistent delivery. Bureaucratic inspections, restricted crossings, and lack of secure corridors delay supplies.

Arab and Muslim governments issue statements but refrain from economic sanctions, diplomatic withdrawal, or coordinated action through the OIC or Arab League. Their responses remain political, not operational.

However, describing the entire world as a partner overlooks visible resistance. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, Spain, and Norway have openly condemned Israeli actions. South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges. Humanitarian agencies — UNRWA, WHO, Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières — continue to work despite operational hazards and loss of staff.

Public resistance is also significant, with widespread protests across Europe, the U.S., and Muslim-majority countries, including from Jewish and academic groups. Some regional states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan provide aid or mediate negotiations, although within limited parameters.

Therefore, global behavior reflects neither full complicity nor decisive opposition. It is a landscape of selective engagement, geopolitical caution, and lack of enforcement. The failure is not of words, but of action.