OCBC Bank    Last:24.0    -0.53

oil shock 2026

The IPO price of DBS Land specifically isn't available in current search results ? that's deep archival history from 1985 that isn't indexed online. But here's the full corporate lineage reconstructed from what's confirmed:
The Full CapitaLand Corporate Tree ? From DBS Land to CLI
Phase 1 ? Origins (1985?2000)
DBS Land was the property arm of DBS Bank, listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. The exact 1985 IPO price isn't readily available in digitised records ? that predates most online financial archives. Pidemco Land was separately a government-linked property company under ST Property Investments (the Singapore Technologies group).
The trigger for merger was a regulatory change: MAS introduced a new policy stating that banks could no longer engage in non-financial activities including real estate investment, requiring DBS to divest within three years ? a follow-up response to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis where lax real estate lending caused banking and currency contagion across Southeast Asia. (The Edge Singapore)
Phase 2 ? Birth of CapitaLand (2000)
87% of DBS Land shareholders voted in favour of the merger at the EGM, and Liew Mun Leong was appointed President and CEO-designate of CapitaLand. (Beansprout) CapitaLand debuted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore on 21 November 2000, becoming one of the largest listed property companies in Asia. (Investing.com) At formation, initial AUM was approximately S$18 billion, focusing on retail, residential, office, and hospitality sectors. (SGinvestors)
Phase 3 ? REIT Ecosystem Build-Out (2002?2019)
This is where Temasek's asset-light strategy really took shape ? spawning an entire listed REIT universe:
CapitaMall Trust launched in 2002, Asia's first mall-focused REIT, drawing on over 20 shopping centres managed post-merger. (SGinvestors) This was the template for everything that followed.
CapitaCommercial Trust (CCT) ? office buildings
CapitaLand China Trust (CLCT) ? retail malls in China
Ascendas India Trust ? business parks in India
Ascott Residence Trust ? serviced residences globally
CapitaMalls Asia (the retail mall developer/manager) was separately listed in 2009, then privatised in 2014 when CapitaLand crossed the 90% threshold at S2.22 per share, a 4.72% premium over its IPO price of S2.12. (Dr Wealth)
In 2019, CapitaLand acquired Ascendas-Singbridge from Temasek Holdings in an S$11 billion deal (The Smart Investor) , adding industrial, logistics and business park capabilities ? which brought in Ascendas REIT (now CapitaLand Ascendas REIT).
Phase 4 ? REIT Rationalisation (2020)
CapitaLand Mall Trust and CapitaLand Commercial Trust merged to form CapitaLand Integrated Commercial Trust (CICT), becoming the largest Singapore REIT with an asset base of S$22.4 billion. (The Smart Investor) This collapsed the two separate retail + office REITs into one integrated vehicle.
Phase 5 ? The 2021 Restructuring into CLI
This was the most radical transformation. CapitaLand announced a demerger splitting the development arm (privatised) from the investment management arm (listed as CLI). The going-asset-light theme was described as the third Temasek restructuring after Sembcorp's demerger of SembMarine and Keppel's O&M split. (Growthinvesting)
Deal terms: shareholders received S4.102 per share in total consideration ? 24% above the last traded price of S3.31 ? comprising S0.951 cash, one CLI share at implied S2.823, plus CICT units in specie. (Growthinvesting)
CLI debuted on SGX on 20 September 2021 under the trading name CapitaLandInvest, stock code 9CI. (TheFinance.sg)
The six listed REITs/trusts under CLI at restructuring: CICT, Ascendas REIT, CapitaLand China Trust, Ascott Residence Trust, Ascendas India Trust, and CapitaLand Malaysia Malls Trust ? combined market cap of S$34.1 billion, about one-third of total S-REIT market cap at the time. (Growthinvesting)
Where CLI stands today
CLI's NAV as at December 2024 was S2.72, but its share price has languished at S2.53 ? the drag being China, which still accounts for 36% of AUM and 26% of FUM. CLI's target is to bring China FUM down to 15?20% by 2028 as other geographies expand. (thefinance)
So the entire journey is: DBS Bank property arm → forced regulatory divestment → merged with Pidemco → CapitaLand the developer-cum-REIT factory → REIT consolidation → stripped of development arm → pure REIT/fund manager CLI. A 40-year transformation from bank subsidiary to one of Asia's largest real estate investment managers.

 

This is the "million-dollar question" (quite literally for some) in the Singapore market. Your frustration is shared by many long-term retail investors who have watched the "Temasek Playbook" unfold over the last few years.
When you say they are "returning at the expense of other shareholders," you're likely feeling the sting of massive dilutions, low-ball privatizations, or complex "asset-shuffling" that seems to benefit the "big boss" (Temasek) or the national interest more than the average uncle or auntie with 10,000 shares in their CDP.
Here is the "candid peer" breakdown of why it feels like the game is rigged:
1. The "Asset-Light" Transformation (The CapitaLand & Keppel Model)
Temasek has been pushing its companies to become "Asset-Light." On paper, this is a "Value-Investing" move (higher ROE, less debt). But for you, it often looks like this:
The CapitaLand Split (2021): They took the "sexy" asset management arm (CLI) public and privatized the "heavy" development arm. While shareholders got a premium on the market price, many felt they were being forced out of the development upside just as the cycle was turning, with Temasek?s private entity keeping the long-term gains.
The Keppel Overhaul: Keppel essentially became an asset manager. To do this, they "cleansed" the balance sheet by dumping the offshore & marine business into Sembcorp Marine (Seatrium). Keppel shareholders got "free" Seatrium shares?but those shares were immediately sold off by thousands of investors who didn't want them, crushing the price for anyone left holding the bag.
2. The "Rights Issue" Trap (The Sembcorp Marine/Seatrium Saga)
This is the most painful example. When a government-linked company (GLC) is in trouble, Temasek has the "infinite ammo" to back a rights issue.
The Mechanism: To save SembMarine, they did multiple massive rights issues at huge discounts.
The Result: If you were a retail investor and didn't have the cash to "follow" the rights, your ownership was obliterated (diluted). Temasek, by subscribing to the leftovers, increased its control while the retail share of the "future recovery" shrank to almost nothing. In this scenario, the company is "saved," but the original minority shareholders are effectively "wiped out" in slow motion.
3. The "Two-Speed" Investment Horizon
Temasek?s mandate is to deliver returns over 20 to 30 years and maintain "national pillars" (energy security, transport, etc.).
Their Goal: Strategic resilience and long-term T2030 targets.
Your Goal: Dividend income and capital growth within this decade.
The Conflict: If a company needs to stop paying dividends for three years to "pivot to green energy" (like Sembcorp Industries did), Temasek is fine with that because they see the 2040 payoff. For a retail investor relying on that payout for retirement, it feels like an "expense."
4. The "Temasek 2026" Restructuring (The Next Wave)
As you noticed in the news, Temasek is currently splitting its internal structure into three bodies (TGI, TSG, TPS) starting April 1, 2026.
The "Singapore" entity (TSG) is being tasked with "enhancing the value" of its local portfolio.
The Warning: In Temasek-speak, "enhancing value" usually means more restructuring. Expect more mergers, more privatizations of undervalued arms, and more spin-offs. If a company isn't hitting its ROE targets, Temasek will likely "fix" it?and as history shows, the "fix" often involves a capital exercise that requires you to either put in more money or get diluted.
The "Buffett" Reality Check
If Warren Buffett were looking at the Singapore GLCs, he?d probably point out the "Type 2 Agency Problem": the conflict between a powerful majority shareholder and the small minorities. In Singapore, the majority shareholder isn't just an investor they are the sovereign.
The Bottom Line: You are essentially "co-investing" with a giant who has a different set of rules, a different timeline, and the power to change the board whenever they like.
Would you like me to look at the "Free Float" and "Net Asset Value (NAV)" of your specific holdings to see which ones look most "at risk" of a Temasek-led privatization or restructuring in 2026?

 

haw par better and safer bet then Temasek link st eng kepcorpp and sembcorp Good enough data to work with. Here's a structured take on the comparison:
The short answer: it's not a straightforward "Haw Par is better" ? it depends on what you're optimising for.
Haw Par ? what you're getting today
At current prices around S15?S17, Haw Par trades at roughly P/E 13x and P/B 0.82x, with dividend yield running near 3.7?8.8% depending on the period measured ? though the payout ratio is above 100%, which raises sustainability questions. (Meyka)
The bull case for Haw Par has always been its hidden NAV ? it's essentially a passive holding vehicle sitting on a massive UOB stake, plus Tiger Balm cashflows. As Singapore bank stocks hit all-time highs, Haw Par as the investment holding company behind them is a direct beneficiary. (TradingView) The stock is up ~56% over the past year. That's not a sleepy value trap anymore ? part of the discount has been recognised.
The bear case: management has shown zero appetite for capital recycling or unlocking NAV. No buybacks of scale, no special dividends commensurate with NAV, no strategic asset sales. You're paying for optionality that may never materialise.
Keppel, Sembcorp, STE ? post-restructuring thesis
These three have genuinely transformed their business models over the past 3?5 years:
Keppel has pivoted hard from O&M conglomerate to asset manager. It has another ~S2.6 billion of assets to monetise in 2026 to hit the upper range of its S10?12 billion target, and new earnings drivers include a power plant starting mid-year and a submarine cable with recurring O&M income. (The Edge Singapore) Analysts are largely bullish ? 11 of 12 analysts rate it a Buy with a consensus target of S13.08 vs current price ~S12.13. (Investing.com) The model is evolving toward fee-based recurring income, which deserves a higher multiple over time.
Sembcorp has arguably been the strongest performer of the three. Net profit grew from S301 million in 2020 to S1.019 billion in 2024, a 36% CAGR, while renewable capacity reached 17GW with a 25GW target by 2028. (Beansprout) The current P/E is around 10x, slightly above historical average but below previous peaks. (Beansprout) However, after a ~90% gain in 2025, the valuation has reached roughly 30x earnings, and at least one analyst has moved to neutral ? though the structural defence spending uplift remains a positive watch. (The Edge Singapore) Wait ? that 30x comment refers to ST Engineering, not Sembcorp. Worth separating:
ST Engineering: 2024 revenue hit S11.3 billion, beating its original 2026 target early, with ROE improving to 26.3% and an order book of S28.5 billion. (Beansprout) The defence tailwind (global rearmament) is real and durable. However, a ~90% 2025 gain has stretched valuation to ~30x earnings, leading some analysts to go neutral near-term. (The Edge Singapore)
The honest comparison

Haw Par
Keppel
Sembcorp
ST Eng
Business quality
Passive/brand
Transitioning
High-growth utility
Consistent compounder
Earnings growth
Low
Recovering
Strong
Strong
Valuation
P/B <1, cheap vs NAV
Fair-reasonable
~10x P/E
Stretched at ~30x
Catalyst risk
No catalyst
Asset monetisation
Renewables execution
Defence cycle
Capital allocation
Poor
Improving
Active
Good
Where Haw Par wins: if you believe the UOB stake eventually gets monetised (special dividend, buyback, privatisation pressure), Haw Par is the purest play on that. It's also the lowest-beta, lowest-drama option.
Where the Temasek trio wins: all three have genuine earnings growth engines, management with explicit capital recycling mandates, and external growth catalysts (defence, renewables, asset management fees). Keppel in particular looks reasonably priced with identifiable 2026 earnings drivers. Sembcorp after its 2025 run needs to be watched for valuation drift.
Bottom line: Haw Par is a value play contingent on NAV unlock ? without that, it's dead money relative to total return. The Temasek trio are growth-at-reasonable-price plays with stronger earnings visibility post-restructuring. If you had to pick one for the next 2?3 years on risk-adjusted basis, Keppel at current prices has the clearest earnings catalyst roadmap. Haw Par is better if you're playing for a corporate event or want zero earnings risk.
Not investment advice ? always do your own due diligence.

I do not liked to be manipulated by big shareholders after 1998

 

your safe haven bet in sgx
Based on the financial data as of the end of FY2025 (December 31, 2025), here is a breakdown of Haw Par's key assets and financial metrics that paint the picture of a classic cash cow.

Here is a summary table of the key figures before we dive deeper:

Metric Value Details / Source
Net Asset Value (NAV) per share S$19.38 As at end-FY2025
Cash & Cash Equivalents S$791 million As at end-FY2025, up S$45 million from FY2024
UOB Stake (Shares) ~67.5 million shares 4.09% stake, Haw Par is the 4th largest shareholder
UOL Stake (Approx.) ~27 million shares Acquired via share swap in 2025 exact % not specified
Total Liabilities S$126.8 million Minimal debt relative to assets

---

🏦 Breakdown of Key Assets and Liabilities

1. Net Asset Value (NAV) and Net Tangible Assets (NTA)

· NAV per share: S$19.38. This is a key figure for value investors, as it represents the company's book value per share .
· Total Assets: S$4.42 billion against total liabilities of just S$126.8 million, resulting in a massive net asset position .
· Net Cash: Haw Par holds S$791 million in cash and has minimal debt. It enjoys a net cash position (cash minus debt) of over S$665 million, indicating a pristine, debt-free balance sheet .

2. Strategic Stake in UOB (United Overseas Bank)

· Number of Shares: Haw Par holds 67,539,947 shares in UOB .
· Percentage Stake: This represents a 4.09% stake in UOB, making Haw Par the fourth-largest institutional shareholder .
· Value: This stake is a massive source of dividend income. For FY2025, Haw Par's total dividend income leaped 27% to S$189 million, driven primarily by its UOB holdings .

3. Strategic Stake in UOL

· Background: In 2025, Haw Par entered into a share swap deal with UOL, exchanging its shares in United Industrial Corporation (UIC) for approximately 27 million new UOL shares .
· Value: While the exact percentage is not specified in the results, this stake makes Haw Par a significant shareholder in UOL, a major Singapore property group .

4. Other Businesses: The "Cash Cow"

· Healthcare (Tiger Balm): This is the core operational business. It is described as a "highly profitable and cash-generative business" with a strong global brand sold in nearly 100 countries . Although FY2025 revenue declined slightly due to softer consumer sentiment, the segment's operating profit actually grew by 7.2% due to cost management .
· Property & Leisure: Haw Par owns investment properties in Singapore and Malaysia and operates the "Underwater World Pattaya" oceanarium in Thailand, which saw improved visitor numbers .

---

💰 Is Haw Par a Cash Cow?

Yes, by almost every definition, Haw Par fits the profile of a cash cow.

The term "cash cow" refers to a business with several key characteristics: consistent cash generation, low capital expenditure requirements, and a strong, defensible market position.

Here is how Haw Par stacks up:

1. Predictable and Growing Cash Generation: The Tiger Balm business provides a steady stream of cash flow. More importantly, the company's massive stake in UOB acts like a dividend "annuity," providing predictable and growing cash income (up 27% in FY2025) without requiring any operational effort from Haw Par .
2. Minimal Capital Expenditure: Haw Par does not need to spend heavily to maintain its competitive advantage. The Tiger Balm brand is already a century-old market leader, and its investment portfolio requires no maintenance CapEx. The company's free cash flow remains strong .
3. Moat (Defensibility): The company has a dual moat:
· Intangible Asset Moat: The "Tiger Balm" brand is a globally recognized consumer healthcare product with immense pricing power and customer loyalty.
· Investment Moat: Its stakes in UOB and UOL are strategic assets that are difficult for competitors to replicate.
4. Disciplined Capital Allocation: Haw Par operates with a fortress balance sheet (S$791 million cash, nearly zero debt) . The management (controlled by the Wee family) runs the company conservatively, focusing on long-term stability rather than high-risk growth.
5. Dividend Payout: The company pays a consistent and growing ordinary dividend (40 cents per share for FY2025), which is well-covered by the cash flowing into the business .

In summary, Haw Par is essentially a holding company that owns a blue-chip stock portfolio and a profitable consumer goods business. The Tiger Balm business and the UOB dividends generate more cash than the company needs to operate, allowing it to build a massive cash pile, pay consistent dividends, and maintain a debt-free balance sheet?the hallmarks of a classic cash cow.

 

Erp toll fee in straits of Hormuz

The current situation in the Strait of Hormuz has essentially turned one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints into what analysts are calling the "Tehran Toll Booth." Following the military escalations in early 2026, the geopolitical "plumbing" of global energy is indeed shifting toward the Renminbi (RMB) as a survival mechanism.
​ Here is the breakdown of how this "Yuan-for-Passage" scheme is operating and its impact on the Asian financial landscape:
​ 1. The "Tehran Toll Booth" & The $2 Million Fee
​ Iran has established a de facto "safe corridor" within its territorial waters (running between Larak and Qeshm islands). While international law typically guarantees free transit, the current conflict has allowed Tehran to assert a "sovereign regime" over the passage.
​ The Price of Safety: Reports from March 2026 indicate that Iran is charging select commercial vessels up to $2 million per voyage for guaranteed safe passage.
​ The RMB Factor: To bypass the US-led sanctions architecture, Iran is reportedly conditioning these agreements on two fronts: settling the transit fees in RMB and, more significantly, requiring that the oil cargo itself be traded in Chinese Yuan.
​ 2. Regional Responses: Pragmation vs. Politics
​ The "Yuan Ultimatum" has created a split in how Asian powers are navigating the crisis:
​ China: As the primary beneficiary, China has already seen its cargo ships successfully navigate the corridor. This is effectively a real-time stress test for the "Petroyuan," accelerating a de-dollarization trend that was previously more theoretical than practical.
​ India: While Indian LPG tankers have been granted passage, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has been quick to label reports of RMB payments as "fake news," likely to avoid diplomatic friction with Washington. However, the reality on the water suggests "ad hoc" arrangements are being made to keep energy flowing.
​ Japan: Negotiations are reportedly ongoing to allow Japanese-linked vessels through the strait, though Tokyo remains in a difficult position between its energy needs and its alliance commitments.
​ 3. Impact on the Singapore "Safe Haven"
​ For a major financial hub like Singapore, the Hormuz crisis is a double-edged sword. While the closure is being described by officials as an "Asian Crisis" due to the disruption of 20% of global LNG and oil flows, the financial sector is reacting with characteristic resilience:
​ Banking Volatility: Local lenders like DBS, OCBC, and UOB are facing increased volatility. While there are concerns over asset quality if the conflict drags on, there is a notable upside: a quiet, accelerating wave of ultra-high-net-worth capital is exiting the Middle East and seeking refuge in Singapore's "certainty premium."
​ Energy Security: With Brent crude hovering around $119, Singapore has maintained secure supplies, though the petrochemical sector is feeling the squeeze. The government has already signaled its readiness to roll out additional support measures beyond the 2026 Budget if the blockade persists.
​ 4. The "Buffett" View on the Risk
​ From a value-investing perspective, the "moat" here is geographic, and Iran is charging a "monopoly rent." The long-term risk isn't just the $2 million fee?it?s the structural bifurcation of the oil market. If RMB-denominated barrels become the only ones flowing through Hormuz, the "Petrodollar" loses its most significant anchor, potentially re-rating the valuation of every USD-denominated asset globally.
​ The situation is fluid, with a "48-hour ultimatum" from the US currently hanging over Tehran's energy infrastructure.
​ Would you like me to pull the latest stress-test data on how a prolonged $120+ oil price might impact the dividend sustainability of the "Big Three" Singapore banks?

 

This exchange encapsulates the current diplomatic stalemate between the United States and Iran, with both sides articulating positions that are fundamentally irreconcilable under the current framework.

Iran's Position:

· Reparations: Full compensation from the U.S. for damages?a figure that would likely run into the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars when accounting for sanctions impacts, the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, and historical interventions.
· Strategic Expulsion: A complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the Persian Gulf. This would entail dismantling the Fifth Fleet's presence in Bahrain, evacuating Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar (the largest U.S. military facility in the region), and ending naval patrols through the Strait of Hormuz.
· Unified Messaging: The alignment between Mohsen Rezaee (a hardline figure) and President Masoud Pezeshkian (a relative moderate) indicates that these terms represent a rare consensus across Iran's political spectrum, likely with the endorsement of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The Impasse:
The Trump administration?s stated goal of regime change is in direct opposition to Iran?s demand for a permanent U.S. military exit. For Washington, the Persian Gulf presence is considered essential for protecting oil transit, containing Iranian naval power, and ensuring the security of allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Accepting Iran?s terms would be perceived domestically and regionally as a strategic surrender.

Context:
This reflects a broader historical pattern. Rezaee?s reference to ?50 years of insecurity? dates U.S. culpability to the early 1970s, encompassing the Nixon Doctrine?s empowerment of the Shah, the 1979 hostage crisis, the Iran-Iraq War (during which the U.S. tilted toward Iraq), and subsequent sanctions and military confrontations.

Given that neither side has shown willingness to compromise?Iran framing its demands as non-negotiable ?rights? and the U.S. pursuing maximalist pressure?the current trajectory suggests continued escalation rather than a negotiated resolution in the near term.

 

Assessing the &ldquo worst&rdquo U.S. president depends on the criteria used: crisis leadership, policy results, damage to institutions, long‑ term consequences, and historical reputation. Historians typically avoid a single definitive answer and instead identify several presidents who rank poorly under common standards. Below is a clear, neutral summary of the presidents most often placed at the bottom in academic rankings, why they are criticized, and how historians treat recent presidencies.
Key cases often ranked among the worst

1. James Buchanan (1857&ndash 1861)
2. Main criticism: Failed to prevent the sectional crisis that led to the Civil War offered weak leadership on slavery and state secession.
3. Historical view: Many historians fault his inaction and political choices for worsening the national divide.
4. Sources: Britannica biography Miller Center essay on Buchanan.
   • https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Buchanan
   • https://millercenter.org/president/buchanan
5. Andrew Johnson (1865&ndash 1869)
6. Main criticism: Clashed with Congress over Reconstruction, vetoed legislation extending rights to freedpeople, impeached (acquitted by one Senate vote).
7. Impact: Policies and conflict with Radical Republicans hindered effective Reconstruction and increased political polarization.
8. Sources: National Archives on impeachment Britannica on Reconstruction.
   • https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/impeachment
   • https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andrew-Johnson
9. Herbert Hoover (1929&ndash 1933)
10. Main criticism: Presidency began as the Great Depression hit critics say his response was too limited and too late.
11. Historical nuance: Many scholars note structural global/economic forces, but Hoover&rsquo s policies and political approach are widely judged inadequate for the crisis scale.
12. Sources: Britannica Herbert Hoover Presidential Library FDR/Great Depression overviews.
    • https://www.britannica.com/biography/Herbert-Hoover
    • https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/librarylocator
13. Richard Nixon (1969&ndash 1974)
14. Mixed legacy: Significant achievements (opening relations with China, dé tente with the Soviet Union, some domestic policy), but Watergate&mdash criminal coverup and abuse of power&mdash led to resignation.
15. Impact: Watergate damaged public trust and presidential norms.
16. Sources: Nixon Presidential Library Britannica National Archives on Watergate materials.
    • https://www.nixonlibrary.gov
    • https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-M-Nixon
17. George W. Bush (2001&ndash 2009)
18. Criticisms: Decisions to invade Iraq (2003) based on flawed intelligence, long counterinsurgency wars, and the 2007&ndash 2008 financial crisis&rsquo policy aftermath. Supporters emphasize 9/11 response and counterterrorism.
19. Sources: Britannica on Bush administration Congressional and academic analyses of Iraq and the financial crisis.
    • https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-W-Bush
    • https://www.federalreservehistory.org
20. Donald Trump (2017&ndash 2021)
21. Controversies: Deep political polarization, two impeachments, contentious relationships with allies, tariff/trade disputes, and criticized pandemic response. Supporters cite economic performance before COVID‑ 19 and deregulation/tax policy.
22. Historical status: Modern and contested&mdash rankings vary and many historians caution that evaluations may change with time.
23. Sources: Britannica summary major reporting and scholarly analysis of Trump-era policy and controversies.
    • https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump

Why recent presidents are harder to judge

• Historical reputations evolve. Presidents once unpopular (e.g., Lincoln, Truman, Reagan) were later reappraised more favorably. For recent presidencies&mdash especially those within living memory&mdash historians and the public often differ, and immediate rankings reflect political polarization as much as historical assessment.
• Source on historical reassessment and methodology: Miller Center and C-SPAN presidential historian surveys.
  • https://millercenter.org
  • https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/

Common criteria historians use

• Crisis leadership (war, civil unrest)
• Economic management (depressions, recessions)
• Respect for constitutional norms and institutions (scandals, abuses)
• Long‑ term policy consequences (domestic and foreign) Different weighting of these factors produces different &ldquo worst&rdquo lists.

Conclusion There is no single agreed &ldquo worst&rdquo U.S. president. James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Herbert Hoover are most often placed at the bottom in long‑ term scholarly rankings. Nixon, Bush, and Trump are frequently criticized for serious errors and controversies, but their mixed legacies and more recent terms leave room for debate and reappraisal. For decisive historical judgments, many scholars prefer to wait decades so long‑ term effects and archival evidence can be assessed.
Selected sources and further reading

• Britannica presidential biographies:  https://www.britannica.com/biographies
• Miller Center presidential essays:  https://millercenter.org
• National Archives (impeachment, Watergate):  https://www.archives.gov
• C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey (2021):  https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/
• Nixon Presidential Library:  https://www.nixonlibrary.gov
• Federal Reserve historical resources:  https://www.federalreservehistory.org

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 10:15) Posted: explain COVID-19 + Iran-US war using Demand & Supply disruption theory, and why this combination is very dangerous for the world economy, especially the U.S. economy. This is exactly why analysts compare today to the 1970s stagflation. We explain step-by-step. 1. Demand shock vs Supply shock (basic idea) Shock type Meaning Example Demand shock people stop buying recession Supply shock goods cannot be produced inflation Both together worst case stagflation   COVID = demand + supply shock Iran war = supply shock (energy) Together &rarr very dangerous. Research on COVID shows both supply and demand were hit at the same time, affecting jobs, production, and consumption across many industries. 2. COVID-19 &rarr Demand + Supply disruption During COVID: Supply problems: factories closed shipping stopped workers cannot work Demand problems: people stay home travel stops spending falls Result: recession risk government prints money This created: ✔ high debt ✔ high liquidity ✔ fragile supply chain So world economy became weak after COVID. 3. Iran-US war &rarr Energy supply shock Now war causes supply shock. Key reason: Strait of Hormuz carries ~20% of oil. If disrupted: oil price rises transport cost rises production cost rises inflation rises Economists warn oil shock can raise inflation and slow growth at the same time. Higher oil &rarr higher prices &rarr less consumption &rarr slower economy. If oil stays high, recession risk increases. 4. COVID weakened supply chain &rarr war breaks it again After COVID, supply chain already fragile. Now war causes: Sector Problem Oil expensive Shipping risk Insurance expensive Food cost up Manufacturing slow   Business surveys already show war is slowing global growth and raising inflation. This is classic supply shock. 5. Why this is dangerous for the U.S. economy The U.S. economy depends on: Factor Why important cheap oil transport strong consumer growth low inflation stable strong dollar global trade   War + oil shock hurts all four. Effects in US: gasoline price &uarr food price &uarr interest rate stays high spending falls growth slows Higher energy costs reduce consumption after a few months. This is exactly what happened in 1970s. 6. Why supply shock is worse than demand shock Demand shock &rarr central bank can cut rates Supply shock &rarr cannot fix easily If oil shortage: printing money doesn' t create oil cutting rates doesn' t create oil So Fed stuck. Problem Fed action Result inflation raise rates recession recession cut rates inflation   This is stagflation. 7. Why COVID + Iran war together = stagflation risk Timeline: Year Event Effect 2020 COVID demand + supply shock 2020-2022 money printing inflation risk 2023-2025 high rates slow growth 2026 Iran war oil supply shock   So now we have: ✔ high debt ✔ high inflation ✔ supply shock ✔ geopolitical risk This is exactly 1970s pattern. 8. Why US economy is vulnerable now Even though US is strong, it still has risk: Weakness Why high debt limits policy high rates slow economy global role affected by world election pressure cannot tighten too much   Oil shock can push inflation higher and reduce GDP growth at the same time. That is worst scenario for US. 9. Who suffers most in world Country Impact Europe very bad (energy import) Japan bad China mixed US medium Oil exporters good   War hurts importers more than producers. 10. Why investors think like Buffett now When supply shock + war + inflation happen: Investors move to: oil gold banks insurance asset companies Avoid: REIT high debt speculative stocks This is why your portfolio discussion matches crisis thinking. 11. Simple summary COVID &rarr broke demand + supply Iran war &rarr breaks supply again Oil shock &rarr inflation Inflation + slow growth &rarr stagflation Stagflation &rarr hardest for US economy So world becomes: 不 和 气 &rarr 不 生 财 &rarr 守 财 时 代 chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 10:11) Posted: *&ldquo 合 气 生 财 / 和 气 生 财 &rdquo **可 以 用 来 解 释 现 在 的 伊 朗 vs 美 国 战 争 + 投 资 策 略 + stagflation（ 滞 涨 ） ， 其 实 非 常 贴 切 。 先 解 释 成 语 ， 再 解 释 战 争 ， 再 解 释 你 之 前 的 投 资 组 合 为 什 么 符 合 这 个 逻 辑 。 一 、 什 么 是 「 和 气 生 财 / 合 气 生 财 」 成 语 ： 和 气 生 财 意 思 ： 待 人 和 气 、 关 系 稳 定 ， 才 能 长 期 赚 钱 。 如 果 一 直 冲 突 ， 最 后 双 方 都 损 失 。   中 国 传 统 商 业 智 慧 ： 情 况 结 果 和 气 生 财 冲 突 破 财 战 争 两 败 俱 伤   所 以 很 多 华 人 老 板 最 怕 ： 不 是 亏 钱 ， 是 局 势 乱 这 和 现 在 的 Iran-US 冲 突 很 像 。 二 、 用 「 和 气 生 财 」 看 伊 朗 vs 美 国 战 争 现 在 世 界 结 构 ： 玩 家 状 态 美 国 军 事 强 伊 朗 地 缘 强 中 国 等 机 会 欧 洲 怕 油 价 市 场 怕 通 胀   如 果 大 家 和 气 &rarr 全 球 赚 钱 如 果 冲 突 &rarr 全 球 破 财 现 在 情 况 是 ： ❌ 不 和 气 ❌ 不 稳 定 ❌ 油 价 高 ❌ 利 率 高 ❌ 美 元 压 力 这 就 是 ： 不 和 气 &rarr 不 生 财 &rarr 滞 涨 很 像 1970年 代 。 三 、 为 什 么 战 争 会 破 坏 「 生 财 结 构 」 现 代 经 济 靠 ： 条 件 必 须 稳 定 贸 易 yes 低 油 价 yes 低 利 率 yes 美 元 信 用 yes 全 球 合 作 yes   战 争 破 坏 ： 石 油 供 应 货 币 信 任 贸 易 投 资 信 心 所 以 ： 战 争 = 破 气 = 破 财 这 就 是 为 什 么 市 场 怕 Hormuz 油 价 美 元 信 用 四 、 为 什 么 你 的 投 资 策 略 像 「 和 气 生 财 防 御 模 式 」 你 现 在 想 配 置 ： ✔ Haw Par ✔ Tencent ✔ Ping An ✔ CK Hutchison ✔ 银 行 ❌ 减 REIT ❌ 减 地 产 这 个 组 合 其 实 就 是 ： 不 赌 繁 荣 赌 能 活 下 来 这 是 华 人 商 人 思 维 。 五 、 用 「 features / touchpoints / gain / pain / solution」 解 释 1️ ⃣ FEATURES（ 特 征 ） 股 票 特 征 Haw Par 现 金 多 Tencent 定 价 权 Ping An 利 率 受 益 CK Hutchison 实 物 资 产 银 行 利 差 收 入 REIT 高 负 债   滞 涨 需 要 ： ✔ 现 金 ✔ 实 物 资 产 ✔ 定 价 权 ✔ 利 率 受 益 不 是 ： ❌ 高 杠 杆 ❌ 高 分 红 但 高 债 2️ ⃣ TOUCHPOINTS（ 危 机 触 点 ） 战 争 影 响 ： 触 点 影 响 油 价 &uarr 利 率 &uarr 通 胀 &uarr 美 元 信 任 &darr 贸 易 &darr   谁 受 影 响 最 大 ？ 资 产 影 响 REIT 很 大 地 产 很 大 银 行 中 保 险 好 实 物 资 产 好 平 台 公 司 好   3️ ⃣ GAIN POINT（ 收 益 点 ） 资 产 gain Haw Par 安 全 Tencent 长 期 Ping An 利 率 CKH 通 胀 银 行 NIM 少 REIT 少 风 险   这 就 是 ： 不 求 快 赚 求 活 下 来 很 Buffett。 4️ ⃣ PAIN POINT（ 痛 点 ） 即 使 这 样 也 会 痛 ： 股 票 痛 点 腾 讯 中 国 风 险 平 安 市 场 波 动 银 行 坏 账 CKH 全 球 衰 退 Haw Par 慢 没 REIT 少 现 金 流   滞 涨 时 代 ： 没 有 完 美 组 合 只 有 ： 输 少 的 组 合 5️ ⃣ CHALLENGES（ 挑 战 ） 现 在 像 1970s因 为 ： 战 争 油 价 通 胀 高 债 务 美 元 压 力 类 似 ： 1973 oil shock 1970s stagflation 这 就 是 为 什 么 市 场 紧 张 。 6️ ⃣ SOLUTION（ 解 决 方 案 ） 华 人 智 慧 ： 和 气 生 财 不 和 &rarr 守 财 所 以 策 略 变 成 ： 问 题 解 法 战 争 实 物 资 产 通 胀 保 险 利 率 高 银 行 美 元 压 力 亚 洲 股 不 稳 定 现 金 多 债 务 风 险 减 REIT   这 就 是 你 现 在 的 组 合 逻 辑 。 六 、 总 结 一 句 话 现 在 世 界 不 是 ： 生 财 时 代 而 是 守 财 时 代 所 以 用 「 和 气 生 财 」 解 释 ： 世 界 不 和 &rarr 不 生 财 投 资 要 保 守 &rarr 才 能 生 财 Buffett风 格 &rarr 最 适 合 乱 世

 

explain COVID-19 + Iran-US war using Demand & Supply disruption theory, and why this combination is very dangerous for the world economy, especially the U.S. economy.
This is exactly why analysts compare today to the 1970s stagflation.
We explain step-by-step.

---

1. Demand shock vs Supply shock (basic idea)

COVID = demand + supply shock
Iran war = supply shock (energy)
Together &rarr very dangerous.
Research on COVID shows both supply and demand were hit at the same time, affecting jobs, production, and consumption across many industries.

---

2. COVID-19 &rarr Demand + Supply disruption

During COVID:
Supply problems:

• factories closed
• shipping stopped
• workers cannot work

Demand problems:

• people stay home
• travel stops
• spending falls

Result:

• recession risk
• government prints money

This created:
✔ high debt
✔ high liquidity
✔ fragile supply chain
So world economy became weak after COVID.

---

3. Iran-US war &rarr Energy supply shock

Now war causes supply shock.
Key reason:

• Strait of Hormuz carries ~20% of oil.

If disrupted:

• oil price rises
• transport cost rises
• production cost rises
• inflation rises

Economists warn oil shock can raise inflation and slow growth at the same time.
Higher oil &rarr higher prices &rarr less consumption &rarr slower economy.
If oil stays high, recession risk increases.

---

4. COVID weakened supply chain &rarr war breaks it again

After COVID, supply chain already fragile.
Now war causes: Business surveys already show war is slowing global growth and raising inflation.
This is classic supply shock.

---

5. Why this is dangerous for the U.S. economy

The U.S. economy depends on: War + oil shock hurts all four.
Effects in US:

• gasoline price &uarr
• food price &uarr
• interest rate stays high
• spending falls
• growth slows

Higher energy costs reduce consumption after a few months.
This is exactly what happened in 1970s.

---

6. Why supply shock is worse than demand shock

Demand shock &rarr central bank can cut rates
Supply shock &rarr cannot fix easily
If oil shortage:

• printing money doesn' t create oil
• cutting rates doesn' t create oil

So Fed stuck. This is stagflation.

---

7. Why COVID + Iran war together = stagflation risk

Timeline: So now we have:
✔ high debt
✔ high inflation
✔ supply shock
✔ geopolitical risk
This is exactly 1970s pattern.

---

8. Why US economy is vulnerable now

Even though US is strong, it still has risk: Oil shock can push inflation higher and reduce GDP growth at the same time.
That is worst scenario for US.

---

9. Who suffers most in world

War hurts importers more than producers.

---

10. Why investors think like Buffett now

When supply shock + war + inflation happen:
Investors move to:

• oil
• gold
• banks
• insurance
• asset companies

Avoid:

• REIT
• high debt
• speculative stocks

This is why your portfolio discussion matches crisis thinking.

---

11. Simple summary

COVID &rarr broke demand + supply
Iran war &rarr breaks supply again
Oil shock &rarr inflation
Inflation + slow growth &rarr stagflation
Stagflation &rarr hardest for US economy
So world becomes:

不 和 气 &rarr 不 生 财 &rarr 守 财 时 代

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 10:11) Posted: *&ldquo 合 气 生 财 / 和 气 生 财 &rdquo **可 以 用 来 解 释 现 在 的 伊 朗 vs 美 国 战 争 + 投 资 策 略 + stagflation（ 滞 涨 ） ， 其 实 非 常 贴 切 。 先 解 释 成 语 ， 再 解 释 战 争 ， 再 解 释 你 之 前 的 投 资 组 合 为 什 么 符 合 这 个 逻 辑 。 一 、 什 么 是 「 和 气 生 财 / 合 气 生 财 」 成 语 ： 和 气 生 财 意 思 ： 待 人 和 气 、 关 系 稳 定 ， 才 能 长 期 赚 钱 。 如 果 一 直 冲 突 ， 最 后 双 方 都 损 失 。   中 国 传 统 商 业 智 慧 ： 情 况 结 果 和 气 生 财 冲 突 破 财 战 争 两 败 俱 伤   所 以 很 多 华 人 老 板 最 怕 ： 不 是 亏 钱 ， 是 局 势 乱 这 和 现 在 的 Iran-US 冲 突 很 像 。 二 、 用 「 和 气 生 财 」 看 伊 朗 vs 美 国 战 争 现 在 世 界 结 构 ： 玩 家 状 态 美 国 军 事 强 伊 朗 地 缘 强 中 国 等 机 会 欧 洲 怕 油 价 市 场 怕 通 胀   如 果 大 家 和 气 &rarr 全 球 赚 钱 如 果 冲 突 &rarr 全 球 破 财 现 在 情 况 是 ： ❌ 不 和 气 ❌ 不 稳 定 ❌ 油 价 高 ❌ 利 率 高 ❌ 美 元 压 力 这 就 是 ： 不 和 气 &rarr 不 生 财 &rarr 滞 涨 很 像 1970年 代 。 三 、 为 什 么 战 争 会 破 坏 「 生 财 结 构 」 现 代 经 济 靠 ： 条 件 必 须 稳 定 贸 易 yes 低 油 价 yes 低 利 率 yes 美 元 信 用 yes 全 球 合 作 yes   战 争 破 坏 ： 石 油 供 应 货 币 信 任 贸 易 投 资 信 心 所 以 ： 战 争 = 破 气 = 破 财 这 就 是 为 什 么 市 场 怕 Hormuz 油 价 美 元 信 用 四 、 为 什 么 你 的 投 资 策 略 像 「 和 气 生 财 防 御 模 式 」 你 现 在 想 配 置 ： ✔ Haw Par ✔ Tencent ✔ Ping An ✔ CK Hutchison ✔ 银 行 ❌ 减 REIT ❌ 减 地 产 这 个 组 合 其 实 就 是 ： 不 赌 繁 荣 赌 能 活 下 来 这 是 华 人 商 人 思 维 。 五 、 用 「 features / touchpoints / gain / pain / solution」 解 释 1️ ⃣ FEATURES（ 特 征 ） 股 票 特 征 Haw Par 现 金 多 Tencent 定 价 权 Ping An 利 率 受 益 CK Hutchison 实 物 资 产 银 行 利 差 收 入 REIT 高 负 债   滞 涨 需 要 ： ✔ 现 金 ✔ 实 物 资 产 ✔ 定 价 权 ✔ 利 率 受 益 不 是 ： ❌ 高 杠 杆 ❌ 高 分 红 但 高 债 2️ ⃣ TOUCHPOINTS（ 危 机 触 点 ） 战 争 影 响 ： 触 点 影 响 油 价 &uarr 利 率 &uarr 通 胀 &uarr 美 元 信 任 &darr 贸 易 &darr   谁 受 影 响 最 大 ？ 资 产 影 响 REIT 很 大 地 产 很 大 银 行 中 保 险 好 实 物 资 产 好 平 台 公 司 好   3️ ⃣ GAIN POINT（ 收 益 点 ） 资 产 gain Haw Par 安 全 Tencent 长 期 Ping An 利 率 CKH 通 胀 银 行 NIM 少 REIT 少 风 险   这 就 是 ： 不 求 快 赚 求 活 下 来 很 Buffett。 4️ ⃣ PAIN POINT（ 痛 点 ） 即 使 这 样 也 会 痛 ： 股 票 痛 点 腾 讯 中 国 风 险 平 安 市 场 波 动 银 行 坏 账 CKH 全 球 衰 退 Haw Par 慢 没 REIT 少 现 金 流   滞 涨 时 代 ： 没 有 完 美 组 合 只 有 ： 输 少 的 组 合 5️ ⃣ CHALLENGES（ 挑 战 ） 现 在 像 1970s因 为 ： 战 争 油 价 通 胀 高 债 务 美 元 压 力 类 似 ： 1973 oil shock 1970s stagflation 这 就 是 为 什 么 市 场 紧 张 。 6️ ⃣ SOLUTION（ 解 决 方 案 ） 华 人 智 慧 ： 和 气 生 财 不 和 &rarr 守 财 所 以 策 略 变 成 ： 问 题 解 法 战 争 实 物 资 产 通 胀 保 险 利 率 高 银 行 美 元 压 力 亚 洲 股 不 稳 定 现 金 多 债 务 风 险 减 REIT   这 就 是 你 现 在 的 组 合 逻 辑 。 六 、 总 结 一 句 话 现 在 世 界 不 是 ： 生 财 时 代 而 是 守 财 时 代 所 以 用 「 和 气 生 财 」 解 释 ： 世 界 不 和 &rarr 不 生 财 投 资 要 保 守 &rarr 才 能 生 财 Buffett风 格 &rarr 最 适 合 乱 世 chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 09:57) Posted: This will show why this portfolio structure fits a Buffett-style crisis strategy for oil shock + stagflation + USD stress (1970s type cycle) We analyze these assets: Haw Par Corporation Tencent Ping An Insurance CK Hutchison Holdings OCBC Bank / DBS Group / HSBC REITs / property (reduce) 1. FEATURES (Why this portfolio fits crisis cycle) Asset Feature Why good in stagflation Haw Par cash + investments survives inflation Tencent pricing power tech can raise prices Ping An insurance float high rates help CK Hutchison real assets inflation hedge Banks high interest income NIM increases REITs high debt hurt by high rates   Key crisis features needed: ✔ low debt ✔ strong cash flow ✔ real assets ✔ pricing power ✔ interest-rate benefit This is exactly Buffett style. 2. TOUCHPOINTS (Where crisis affects portfolio) Crisis touchpoints in stagflation: Touchpoint Effect Oil price &uarr inflation &uarr Interest rate &uarr debt cost &uarr USD stress Asia assets &uarr recession weak companies fail war risk commodities &uarr   How each stock touches crisis: Asset Touchpoint Haw Par safe cash asset Tencent digital pricing power Ping An rate-sensitive CK Hutchison infrastructure Banks rate cycle REITs debt cycle   This is why rebalance needed. 3. GAIN POINTS (What you gain in crisis) Asset Gain point Haw Par stability Tencent long-term growth Ping An benefit from rates CK Hutchison asset value rise Banks higher interest margin Less REIT less debt risk   In 1970s-style cycle, winners are: ✔ insurance ✔ banks ✔ commodities / assets ✔ strong companies Your new structure matches this. 4. PAIN POINTS (Risks even with this strategy) Even Buffett strategy has pain. Asset Pain point Haw Par slow growth Tencent China risk Ping An market volatility CK Hutchison global slowdown Banks recession loans No REIT less dividend yield   In stagflation: nothing is perfect, only less bad Buffett strategy = survive first, grow later. 5. CHALLENGES (Why this crisis is difficult) This cycle is hard because it has: Challenge Why serious Oil shock inflation stays High debt world rates cannot stay high USD credibility stress markets unstable war risk supply shocks slow growth earnings weak   Similar to: 1973 oil crisis 1970s stagflation So portfolio must handle: ✔ inflation ✔ high rates ✔ recession ✔ currency stress Few assets can do this. 6. SOLUTIONS (Why Buffett-style mix works) Solution logic: Problem Solution asset Inflation real assets (CKH, Haw Par) High rates banks, insurance USD stress Asia / HK stocks Recession cash-rich firms Debt risk reduce REITs   So the strategy becomes: ✔ Haw Par &rarr balance sheet safety ✔ Tencent &rarr pricing power ✔ Ping An &rarr rate benefit ✔ CK Hutchison &rarr hard assets ✔ Banks &rarr interest income ❌ reduce REIT &rarr avoid debt trap This is exactly how investors prepared in past inflation cycles. 7. Why this is called &ldquo Buffett crisis strategy&rdquo Because Warren Buffett always prefers: strong balance sheet real earnings pricing power insurance / banks asset companies Not: high leverage yield traps speculative growth Your rebalance matches this pattern. 8. Big conclusion This structure prepares for: Scenario Ready? oil shock yes stagflation yes high rates yes USD stress yes recession mostly property crash safer   So this is a defensive but intelligent crisis portfolio.

 

*&ldquo 合 气 生 财 / 和 气 生 财 &rdquo **可 以 用 来 解 释 现 在 的 伊 朗 vs 美 国 战 争 + 投 资 策 略 + stagflation（ 滞 涨 ） ， 其 实 非 常 贴 切 。
先 解 释 成 语 ， 再 解 释 战 争 ， 再 解 释 你 之 前 的 投 资 组 合 为 什 么 符 合 这 个 逻 辑 。

---

一 、 什 么 是 「 和 气 生 财 / 合 气 生 财 」

成 语 ： 和 气 生 财
意 思 ：

待 人 和 气 、 关 系 稳 定 ， 才 能 长 期 赚 钱 。
如 果 一 直 冲 突 ， 最 后 双 方 都 损 失 。
 

中 国 传 统 商 业 智 慧 ： 所 以 很 多 华 人 老 板 最 怕 ：

不 是 亏 钱 ， 是 局 势 乱

这 和 现 在 的 Iran-US 冲 突 很 像 。

---

二 、 用 「 和 气 生 财 」 看 伊 朗 vs 美 国 战 争

现 在 世 界 结 构 ： 如 果 大 家 和 气 &rarr 全 球 赚 钱
如 果 冲 突 &rarr 全 球 破 财
现 在 情 况 是 ：
❌ 不 和 气
❌ 不 稳 定
❌ 油 价 高
❌ 利 率 高
❌ 美 元 压 力
这 就 是 ：

不 和 气 &rarr 不 生 财 &rarr 滞 涨

很 像 1970年 代 。

---

三 、 为 什 么 战 争 会 破 坏 「 生 财 结 构 」

现 代 经 济 靠 ： 战 争 破 坏 ：

• 石 油 供 应
• 货 币 信 任
• 贸 易
• 投 资 信 心

所 以 ：

战 争 = 破 气 = 破 财

这 就 是 为 什 么 市 场 怕
Hormuz
油 价
美 元 信 用

---

四 、 为 什 么 你 的 投 资 策 略 像 「 和 气 生 财 防 御 模 式 」

你 现 在 想 配 置 ：
✔ Haw Par
✔ Tencent
✔ Ping An
✔ CK Hutchison
✔ 银 行
❌ 减 REIT
❌ 减 地 产
这 个 组 合 其 实 就 是 ：

不 赌 繁 荣
赌 能 活 下 来

这 是 华 人 商 人 思 维 。

---

五 、 用 「 features / touchpoints / gain / pain / solution」 解 释

1️ ⃣ FEATURES（ 特 征 ）

滞 涨 需 要 ：
✔ 现 金
✔ 实 物 资 产
✔ 定 价 权
✔ 利 率 受 益
不 是 ：
❌ 高 杠 杆
❌ 高 分 红 但 高 债

---

2️ ⃣ TOUCHPOINTS（ 危 机 触 点 ）

战 争 影 响 ： 谁 受 影 响 最 大 ？

---

3️ ⃣ GAIN POINT（ 收 益 点 ）

这 就 是 ：

不 求 快 赚
求 活 下 来

很 Buffett。

---

4️ ⃣ PAIN POINT（ 痛 点 ）

即 使 这 样 也 会 痛 ： 滞 涨 时 代 ：

没 有 完 美 组 合

只 有 ：

输 少 的 组 合

---

5️ ⃣ CHALLENGES（ 挑 战 ）

现 在 像 1970s因 为 ：

• 战 争
• 油 价
• 通 胀
• 高 债 务
• 美 元 压 力

类 似 ：
1973 oil shock
1970s stagflation
这 就 是 为 什 么 市 场 紧 张 。

---

6️ ⃣ SOLUTION（ 解 决 方 案 ）

华 人 智 慧 ：

和 气 生 财
不 和 &rarr 守 财

所 以 策 略 变 成 ： 这 就 是 你 现 在 的 组 合 逻 辑 。

---

六 、 总 结 一 句 话

现 在 世 界 不 是 ：

生 财 时 代

而 是

守 财 时 代

所 以 用 「 和 气 生 财 」 解 释 ：

• 世 界 不 和 &rarr 不 生 财
• 投 资 要 保 守 &rarr 才 能 生 财
• Buffett风 格 &rarr 最 适 合 乱 世

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 09:57) Posted: This will show why this portfolio structure fits a Buffett-style crisis strategy for oil shock + stagflation + USD stress (1970s type cycle) We analyze these assets: Haw Par Corporation Tencent Ping An Insurance CK Hutchison Holdings OCBC Bank / DBS Group / HSBC REITs / property (reduce) 1. FEATURES (Why this portfolio fits crisis cycle) Asset Feature Why good in stagflation Haw Par cash + investments survives inflation Tencent pricing power tech can raise prices Ping An insurance float high rates help CK Hutchison real assets inflation hedge Banks high interest income NIM increases REITs high debt hurt by high rates   Key crisis features needed: ✔ low debt ✔ strong cash flow ✔ real assets ✔ pricing power ✔ interest-rate benefit This is exactly Buffett style. 2. TOUCHPOINTS (Where crisis affects portfolio) Crisis touchpoints in stagflation: Touchpoint Effect Oil price &uarr inflation &uarr Interest rate &uarr debt cost &uarr USD stress Asia assets &uarr recession weak companies fail war risk commodities &uarr   How each stock touches crisis: Asset Touchpoint Haw Par safe cash asset Tencent digital pricing power Ping An rate-sensitive CK Hutchison infrastructure Banks rate cycle REITs debt cycle   This is why rebalance needed. 3. GAIN POINTS (What you gain in crisis) Asset Gain point Haw Par stability Tencent long-term growth Ping An benefit from rates CK Hutchison asset value rise Banks higher interest margin Less REIT less debt risk   In 1970s-style cycle, winners are: ✔ insurance ✔ banks ✔ commodities / assets ✔ strong companies Your new structure matches this. 4. PAIN POINTS (Risks even with this strategy) Even Buffett strategy has pain. Asset Pain point Haw Par slow growth Tencent China risk Ping An market volatility CK Hutchison global slowdown Banks recession loans No REIT less dividend yield   In stagflation: nothing is perfect, only less bad Buffett strategy = survive first, grow later. 5. CHALLENGES (Why this crisis is difficult) This cycle is hard because it has: Challenge Why serious Oil shock inflation stays High debt world rates cannot stay high USD credibility stress markets unstable war risk supply shocks slow growth earnings weak   Similar to: 1973 oil crisis 1970s stagflation So portfolio must handle: ✔ inflation ✔ high rates ✔ recession ✔ currency stress Few assets can do this. 6. SOLUTIONS (Why Buffett-style mix works) Solution logic: Problem Solution asset Inflation real assets (CKH, Haw Par) High rates banks, insurance USD stress Asia / HK stocks Recession cash-rich firms Debt risk reduce REITs   So the strategy becomes: ✔ Haw Par &rarr balance sheet safety ✔ Tencent &rarr pricing power ✔ Ping An &rarr rate benefit ✔ CK Hutchison &rarr hard assets ✔ Banks &rarr interest income ❌ reduce REIT &rarr avoid debt trap This is exactly how investors prepared in past inflation cycles. 7. Why this is called &ldquo Buffett crisis strategy&rdquo Because Warren Buffett always prefers: strong balance sheet real earnings pricing power insurance / banks asset companies Not: high leverage yield traps speculative growth Your rebalance matches this pattern. 8. Big conclusion This structure prepares for: Scenario Ready? oil shock yes stagflation yes high rates yes USD stress yes recession mostly property crash safer   So this is a defensive but intelligent crisis portfolio.   chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 09:52) Posted: If a 1970s-style stagflation really returns, the way Warren Buffett would rebalance your portfolio is not random. He usually shifts toward: businesses with pricing power low debt real assets / cash flow companies that survive inflation + recession Your idea of adding Haw Par, Tencent, Ping An, CK Hutchison actually fits many Buffett-style rules. Let&rsquo s go step-by-step why these make sense in a stagflation scenario. 1. Buffett logic in stagflation (1970s style) In the 1970s: inflation high oil shock rates high growth slow Buffett preferred: ✔ insurance ✔ strong banks ✔ consumer brands ✔ asset-rich companies ✔ companies with cash, not debt Avoid: ❌ high leverage ❌ speculative growth ❌ property with heavy borrowing ❌ yield traps Your current portfolio has too many: REITs property yield plays So rebalance toward quality + assets + Asia value stocks. 2. Why buy Haw Par &mdash classic Buffett type Entity: Haw Par Corporation Reasons: very low debt lots of cash / investments owns Tiger Balm brand owns UOB / UOL / other assets conservative management In stagflation: cash-rich companies survive best. Buffett likes: companies that don' t need debt to survive. ✔ fits Buffett style ✔ fits inflation hedge ✔ fits crisis Good move. 3. Why buy Tencent &mdash pricing power tech Entity: Tencent Why Tencent works in stagflation: strong cash flow monopoly-like platforms gaming / social / cloud little need for debt can raise prices slowly Buffett normally avoids tech, but modern Buffett style allows: dominant platform with durable moat Tencent similar to: Apple style moat In crisis: strong tech survives, weak tech dies. ✔ pricing power ✔ cash flow ✔ China may benefit if US weakens 4. Why buy Ping An &mdash insurance loves high rates Entity: Ping An Insurance Insurance is very Buffett-like. Buffett owns insurance because: float grows high rates help inflation helps premiums In stagflation: Insurance often does better than banks. Ping An: huge assets cheap valuation benefits if rates stay high Risk: China economy But structurally good. ✔ Buffett style asset 5. Why buy CK Hutchison &mdash textbook stagflation stock Entity: CK Hutchison Holdings This is very 1970s-style company: ports telecom energy infrastructure global assets Stagflation winners often are: conglomerates with real assets. Why good: owns hard assets global cash flow inflation-linked businesses Buffett likes companies like this. ✔ asset heavy ✔ cash flow ✔ undervalued Very logical pick. 6. Why Hong Kong / China stocks make sense now If US credibility weakens: Asia gains importance commodities trade shifts dollar dominance questioned Entities: China Hong Kong In past cycles: When US weak &rarr emerging / Asia stronger. 1970s: Japan rose. Possible now: China / Asia rise. So adding HK / China stocks = logical diversification. 7. How Buffett would rebalance YOUR portfolio Current problem: Too much Need more REITs cash flow stocks property insurance yield pricing power leverage asset heavy   Possible rebalance idea (Buffett style): Keep strong: OCBC DBS HSBC Haw ParAdd: Tencent Ping An CK Hutchison maybe oil / commodity later 8. Why this matches 1970s winners 1970s winners: Type Winner oil yes insurance yes banks mixed property weak REIT weak cash rich companies yes conglomerates yes   Your new picks match this pattern. 9. Conclusion Your idea is actually very close to a Buffett crisis strategy: ✔ Haw Par &rarr cash + assets ✔ Tencent &rarr pricing power ✔ Ping An &rarr insurance + rates ✔ CK Hutchison &rarr real assets ✔ keep banks &rarr benefit from rates ❌ reduce REITs / heavy property This is exactly how someone prepares for oil shock + stagflation + dollar stress

 

This will show why this portfolio structure fits a Buffett-style crisis strategy for

oil shock + stagflation + USD stress (1970s type cycle)

We analyze these assets:

• Haw Par Corporation
• Tencent
• Ping An Insurance
• CK Hutchison Holdings
• OCBC Bank / DBS Group / HSBC
• REITs / property (reduce)

---

1. FEATURES (Why this portfolio fits crisis cycle)

Key crisis features needed:
✔ low debt
✔ strong cash flow
✔ real assets
✔ pricing power
✔ interest-rate benefit
This is exactly Buffett style.

---

2. TOUCHPOINTS (Where crisis affects portfolio)

Crisis touchpoints in stagflation: How each stock touches crisis: This is why rebalance needed.

---

3. GAIN POINTS (What you gain in crisis)

In 1970s-style cycle, winners are:
✔ insurance
✔ banks
✔ commodities / assets
✔ strong companies
Your new structure matches this.

---

4. PAIN POINTS (Risks even with this strategy)

Even Buffett strategy has pain. In stagflation:

nothing is perfect, only less bad

Buffett strategy = survive first, grow later.

---

5. CHALLENGES (Why this crisis is difficult)

This cycle is hard because it has: Similar to:

• 1973 oil crisis
• 1970s stagflation

So portfolio must handle:
✔ inflation
✔ high rates
✔ recession
✔ currency stress
Few assets can do this.

---

6. SOLUTIONS (Why Buffett-style mix works)

Solution logic: So the strategy becomes:
✔ Haw Par &rarr balance sheet safety
✔ Tencent &rarr pricing power
✔ Ping An &rarr rate benefit
✔ CK Hutchison &rarr hard assets
✔ Banks &rarr interest income
❌ reduce REIT &rarr avoid debt trap
This is exactly how investors prepared in past inflation cycles.

---

7. Why this is called &ldquo Buffett crisis strategy&rdquo

Because
Warren Buffett
always prefers:

• strong balance sheet
• real earnings
• pricing power
• insurance / banks
• asset companies

Not:

• high leverage
• yield traps
• speculative growth

Your rebalance matches this pattern.

---

8. Big conclusion

This structure prepares for: So this is a defensive but intelligent crisis portfolio.
 

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 09:52) Posted: If a 1970s-style stagflation really returns, the way Warren Buffett would rebalance your portfolio is not random. He usually shifts toward: businesses with pricing power low debt real assets / cash flow companies that survive inflation + recession Your idea of adding Haw Par, Tencent, Ping An, CK Hutchison actually fits many Buffett-style rules. Let&rsquo s go step-by-step why these make sense in a stagflation scenario. 1. Buffett logic in stagflation (1970s style) In the 1970s: inflation high oil shock rates high growth slow Buffett preferred: ✔ insurance ✔ strong banks ✔ consumer brands ✔ asset-rich companies ✔ companies with cash, not debt Avoid: ❌ high leverage ❌ speculative growth ❌ property with heavy borrowing ❌ yield traps Your current portfolio has too many: REITs property yield plays So rebalance toward quality + assets + Asia value stocks. 2. Why buy Haw Par &mdash classic Buffett type Entity: Haw Par Corporation Reasons: very low debt lots of cash / investments owns Tiger Balm brand owns UOB / UOL / other assets conservative management In stagflation: cash-rich companies survive best. Buffett likes: companies that don' t need debt to survive. ✔ fits Buffett style ✔ fits inflation hedge ✔ fits crisis Good move. 3. Why buy Tencent &mdash pricing power tech Entity: Tencent Why Tencent works in stagflation: strong cash flow monopoly-like platforms gaming / social / cloud little need for debt can raise prices slowly Buffett normally avoids tech, but modern Buffett style allows: dominant platform with durable moat Tencent similar to: Apple style moat In crisis: strong tech survives, weak tech dies. ✔ pricing power ✔ cash flow ✔ China may benefit if US weakens 4. Why buy Ping An &mdash insurance loves high rates Entity: Ping An Insurance Insurance is very Buffett-like. Buffett owns insurance because: float grows high rates help inflation helps premiums In stagflation: Insurance often does better than banks. Ping An: huge assets cheap valuation benefits if rates stay high Risk: China economy But structurally good. ✔ Buffett style asset 5. Why buy CK Hutchison &mdash textbook stagflation stock Entity: CK Hutchison Holdings This is very 1970s-style company: ports telecom energy infrastructure global assets Stagflation winners often are: conglomerates with real assets. Why good: owns hard assets global cash flow inflation-linked businesses Buffett likes companies like this. ✔ asset heavy ✔ cash flow ✔ undervalued Very logical pick. 6. Why Hong Kong / China stocks make sense now If US credibility weakens: Asia gains importance commodities trade shifts dollar dominance questioned Entities: China Hong Kong In past cycles: When US weak &rarr emerging / Asia stronger. 1970s: Japan rose. Possible now: China / Asia rise. So adding HK / China stocks = logical diversification. 7. How Buffett would rebalance YOUR portfolio Current problem: Too much Need more REITs cash flow stocks property insurance yield pricing power leverage asset heavy   Possible rebalance idea (Buffett style): Keep strong: OCBC DBS HSBC Haw ParAdd: Tencent Ping An CK Hutchison maybe oil / commodity later 8. Why this matches 1970s winners 1970s winners: Type Winner oil yes insurance yes banks mixed property weak REIT weak cash rich companies yes conglomerates yes   Your new picks match this pattern. 9. Conclusion Your idea is actually very close to a Buffett crisis strategy: ✔ Haw Par &rarr cash + assets ✔ Tencent &rarr pricing power ✔ Ping An &rarr insurance + rates ✔ CK Hutchison &rarr real assets ✔ keep banks &rarr benefit from rates ❌ reduce REITs / heavy property This is exactly how someone prepares for oil shock + stagflation + dollar stress chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:37) Posted: build a portfolio that ✔ good for high interest rates ✔ good for inflation ✔ weak for recession ✔ weak for long oil shock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUziaLN7xDc& list=RDeUziaLN7xDc& start_radio=1

 

If a 1970s-style stagflation really returns, the way
Warren Buffett
would rebalance your portfolio is not random. He usually shifts toward:

• businesses with pricing power
• low debt
• real assets / cash flow
• companies that survive inflation + recession

Your idea of adding Haw Par, Tencent, Ping An, CK Hutchison actually fits many Buffett-style rules.
Let&rsquo s go step-by-step why these make sense in a stagflation scenario.

---

1. Buffett logic in stagflation (1970s style)

In the 1970s:

• inflation high
• oil shock
• rates high
• growth slow

Buffett preferred:
✔ insurance
✔ strong banks
✔ consumer brands
✔ asset-rich companies
✔ companies with cash, not debt
Avoid:
❌ high leverage
❌ speculative growth
❌ property with heavy borrowing
❌ yield traps
Your current portfolio has too many:

• REITs
• property
• yield plays

So rebalance toward quality + assets + Asia value stocks.

---

2. Why buy Haw Par &mdash classic Buffett type

Entity:
Haw Par Corporation
Reasons:

• very low debt
• lots of cash / investments
• owns Tiger Balm brand
• owns UOB / UOL / other assets
• conservative management

In stagflation:
cash-rich companies survive best.
Buffett likes:

companies that don' t need debt to survive.

✔ fits Buffett style
✔ fits inflation hedge
✔ fits crisis
Good move.

---

3. Why buy Tencent &mdash pricing power tech

Entity:
Tencent
Why Tencent works in stagflation:

• strong cash flow
• monopoly-like platforms
• gaming / social / cloud
• little need for debt
• can raise prices slowly

Buffett normally avoids tech, but modern Buffett style allows:

dominant platform with durable moat

Tencent similar to:

• Apple style moat

In crisis:
strong tech survives, weak tech dies.
✔ pricing power
✔ cash flow
✔ China may benefit if US weakens

---

4. Why buy Ping An &mdash insurance loves high rates

Entity:
Ping An Insurance
Insurance is very Buffett-like.
Buffett owns insurance because:

• float grows
• high rates help
• inflation helps premiums

In stagflation:
Insurance often does better than banks.
Ping An:

• huge assets
• cheap valuation
• benefits if rates stay high

Risk:
China economy
But structurally good.
✔ Buffett style asset

---

5. Why buy CK Hutchison &mdash textbook stagflation stock

Entity:
CK Hutchison Holdings
This is very 1970s-style company:

• ports
• telecom
• energy
• infrastructure
• global assets

Stagflation winners often are:
conglomerates with real assets.
Why good:

• owns hard assets
• global cash flow
• inflation-linked businesses

Buffett likes companies like this.
✔ asset heavy
✔ cash flow
✔ undervalued
Very logical pick.

---

6. Why Hong Kong / China stocks make sense now

If US credibility weakens:

• Asia gains importance
• commodities trade shifts
• dollar dominance questioned

Entities:

• China
• Hong Kong

In past cycles:
When US weak &rarr emerging / Asia stronger.
1970s:
Japan rose.
Possible now:
China / Asia rise.
So adding HK / China stocks = logical diversification.

---

7. How Buffett would rebalance YOUR portfolio

Current problem: Possible rebalance idea (Buffett style):
Keep strong:

• OCBC
• DBS
• HSBC
• Haw ParAdd:
• Tencent
• Ping An
• CK Hutchison
• maybe oil / commodity later

---

8. Why this matches 1970s winners

1970s winners: Your new picks match this pattern.

---

9. Conclusion

Your idea is actually very close to a Buffett crisis strategy:
✔ Haw Par &rarr cash + assets
✔ Tencent &rarr pricing power
✔ Ping An &rarr insurance + rates
✔ CK Hutchison &rarr real assets
✔ keep banks &rarr benefit from rates
❌ reduce REITs / heavy property
This is exactly how someone prepares for

oil shock + stagflation + dollar stress

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:37) Posted: build a portfolio that ✔ good for high interest rates ✔ good for inflation ✔ weak for recession ✔ weak for long oil shock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUziaLN7xDc& list=RDeUziaLN7xDc& start_radio=1 chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:32) Posted: If the US&ndash Iran stalemate continues + oil stays high + dollar credibility slowly weakens, the situation becomes very similar to the 1970s stagflation cycle. In that type of environment, some assets win and some lose badly. Let&rsquo s compare: USD, Gold, Oil, SG banks, REITs, China stocks using history + current structure. 1. Gold &mdash usually biggest winner in credibility crisis Entity: Gold Why gold wins: No government risk No currency risk Safe when inflation + war + debt In the 1970s: Gold &uarr ~20x after Nixon Shock Today similar conditions: Oil shock War risk High debt Central banks buying gold ✔ Likely winner if stalemate continues ✔ Best hedge vs USD credibility loss 2. Oil &mdash wins if Hormuz risk stays Entity: Crude oil Key factor: Strait of Hormuz If conflict continues: Supply risk stays Prices stay high Energy stocks benefit 1970s: Oil shock &rarr inflation &rarr stagflation Winners: Oil producers Energy exporters Commodity countries ✔ Likely winner in stalemate ❗ But volatile 3. USD &mdash strong short term, weak long term Entity: United States dollar Dollar pattern in crisis: Phase USD War panic &uarr safe haven Inflation &darr Debt worry &darr Long stagflation weak   1970s: USD strong early USD weak later Gold replaced trust Today risk factors: Huge debt Sanctions overuse BRICS trade Oil shock ✔ Short-term strong ❌ Long-term risk 4. Singapore banks &mdash mixed, but usually resilient Entities: DBS Group OCBC Bank UOB Why banks can survive stagflation: ✔ Higher interest rates &rarr more NIM ✔ SG strong currency system ✔ Asia growth continues ✔ Property collateral strong But risks: Global recession Property slowdown Market crash 1970s style outcome: Phase Banks High rates good recession bad inflation mixed   Best type: OCBC (insurance buffer) DBS (strong capital) UOB (ASEAN exposure) ✔ Not biggest winner ✔ But not worst 5. REITs &mdash usually lose in stagflation Entity: Real Estate Investment Trust Why REITs suffer: High interest rates High debt cost Property weak in recession Yield less attractive vs bonds 1970s pattern: Real estate struggled when rates high. Today risk: Oil shock &rarr inflation &rarr rates stay high SG REIT risk: Office weak Retail weak Logistics ok but debt heavy ❌ Likely loser if stalemate long 6. China stocks &mdash possible silent winner Entity: CSI 300 Why China may benefit: Buys cheap oil US distracted Dollar system weakens Asia trade grows If this scenario true: US vs Iran drains US China stockpiles resources China won in past crisis cycles: 1998 Asia crisis &rarr China stable 2008 crisis &rarr China stimulus But risk: Property crisis Politics Trade war ✔ Possible winner ✔ But not safe 7. Summary &mdash ranking if stalemate continues Asset Outlook Reason Gold ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ credibility crisis hedge Oil ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ supply risk China stocks ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ strategic gain SG banks ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ survive but volatile USD ⭐ ⭐ strong short, weak later REITs ⭐ high rate damage   8. What Warren Buffett / Graham style would prefer During stagflation: Real assets Strong balance sheet Low debt Cash flow businesses Not: High leverage Long duration assets Yield traps So likely choices: Oil Gold Banks (selectively) Some China Less REIT

 

build a portfolio that ✔ good for high interest rates
✔ good for inflation
✔ weak for recession

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:32) Posted: If the US&ndash Iran stalemate continues + oil stays high + dollar credibility slowly weakens, the situation becomes very similar to the 1970s stagflation cycle. In that type of environment, some assets win and some lose badly. Let&rsquo s compare: USD, Gold, Oil, SG banks, REITs, China stocks using history + current structure. 1. Gold &mdash usually biggest winner in credibility crisis Entity: Gold Why gold wins: No government risk No currency risk Safe when inflation + war + debt In the 1970s: Gold &uarr ~20x after Nixon Shock Today similar conditions: Oil shock War risk High debt Central banks buying gold ✔ Likely winner if stalemate continues ✔ Best hedge vs USD credibility loss 2. Oil &mdash wins if Hormuz risk stays Entity: Crude oil Key factor: Strait of Hormuz If conflict continues: Supply risk stays Prices stay high Energy stocks benefit 1970s: Oil shock &rarr inflation &rarr stagflation Winners: Oil producers Energy exporters Commodity countries ✔ Likely winner in stalemate ❗ But volatile 3. USD &mdash strong short term, weak long term Entity: United States dollar Dollar pattern in crisis: Phase USD War panic &uarr safe haven Inflation &darr Debt worry &darr Long stagflation weak   1970s: USD strong early USD weak later Gold replaced trust Today risk factors: Huge debt Sanctions overuse BRICS trade Oil shock ✔ Short-term strong ❌ Long-term risk 4. Singapore banks &mdash mixed, but usually resilient Entities: DBS Group OCBC Bank UOB Why banks can survive stagflation: ✔ Higher interest rates &rarr more NIM ✔ SG strong currency system ✔ Asia growth continues ✔ Property collateral strong But risks: Global recession Property slowdown Market crash 1970s style outcome: Phase Banks High rates good recession bad inflation mixed   Best type: OCBC (insurance buffer) DBS (strong capital) UOB (ASEAN exposure) ✔ Not biggest winner ✔ But not worst 5. REITs &mdash usually lose in stagflation Entity: Real Estate Investment Trust Why REITs suffer: High interest rates High debt cost Property weak in recession Yield less attractive vs bonds 1970s pattern: Real estate struggled when rates high. Today risk: Oil shock &rarr inflation &rarr rates stay high SG REIT risk: Office weak Retail weak Logistics ok but debt heavy ❌ Likely loser if stalemate long 6. China stocks &mdash possible silent winner Entity: CSI 300 Why China may benefit: Buys cheap oil US distracted Dollar system weakens Asia trade grows If this scenario true: US vs Iran drains US China stockpiles resources China won in past crisis cycles: 1998 Asia crisis &rarr China stable 2008 crisis &rarr China stimulus But risk: Property crisis Politics Trade war ✔ Possible winner ✔ But not safe 7. Summary &mdash ranking if stalemate continues Asset Outlook Reason Gold ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ credibility crisis hedge Oil ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ supply risk China stocks ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ strategic gain SG banks ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ survive but volatile USD ⭐ ⭐ strong short, weak later REITs ⭐ high rate damage   8. What Warren Buffett / Graham style would prefer During stagflation: Real assets Strong balance sheet Low debt Cash flow businesses Not: High leverage Long duration assets Yield traps So likely choices: Oil Gold Banks (selectively) Some China Less REIT chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:30) Posted: Yes &mdash the logic in that briefing is mostly sound, especially if we analyze it using Deterrence Theory Game Theory Nash Equilibrium But some parts are correct in theory but uncertain in real life. Let&rsquo s check each claim one by one. 1. &ldquo US credibility destroyed after 2018 JCPOA withdrawal&rdquo &mdash LOGICALLY SOUND The U.S. left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 under Donald Trump. From a game theory view: Iran made concessions US later changed policy So Iran updates belief: Future agreements may not be trusted In deterrence theory: If promises are not credible, deterrence fails. This makes Iran&rsquo s refusal to surrender rational, not emotional. ✔ Logic sound ✔ Common view among strategic analysts 2. &ldquo Use-it-or-lose-it spiral&rdquo &mdash VERY SOUND MILITARY LOGIC This is classic pre-emption theory. If Iran keeps missiles &rarr US may strike If US waits &rarr Iran may launch first So both sides forced into early attack. This fits Cold War nuclear logic. Example concept: Mutually Assured Destruction Even without nukes, same structure applies. ✔ Very strong logic ✔ Used in real military planning 3. &ldquo Iran winning economic war via Hormuz&rdquo &mdash PLAUSIBLE but depends on duration Key chokepoint: Strait of Hormuz About 20% of world oil passes there. If disrupted: Oil price rises Inflation rises US allies suffer Global economy weakens This already happened in: 1973 oil crisis So theory is correct: Small country can hurt big system by attacking supply chain, not army. ✔ Logic sound ❗ But Iran also suffers economically So not pure victory &mdash more like mutual damage 4. &ldquo Nash equilibrium stalemate&rdquo &mdash VERY GOOD GAME THEORY ANALYSIS Definition: Nash Equilibrium = neither side can improve outcome by changing strategy alone. Current situation fits: US Iran Cannot invade easily Cannot defeat US Cannot ignore Hormuz Cannot surrender Cannot escalate too much Cannot stop fighting   So result: ➡ Long stalemate ➡ Limited strikes ➡ Economic pressure ➡ No clear win This is exactly how many real wars end. ✔ Very strong logic 5. &ldquo China benefits quietly&rdquo &mdash STRATEGICALLY VERY PLAUSIBLE China advantage if: Oil still flows to China US spends money Middle East unstable Dollar credibility weakens China strategy often described as: Let rivals exhaust themselves Relevant player: China China buying oil reserves fits past behavior. During past crises China often: buys commodities increases reserves signs long contracts ✔ Logic plausible ❗ But stockpile numbers (1.2B barrels) uncertain 6. The most important claim &mdash &ldquo Iran losing militarily but winning structurally&rdquo This is actually the most realistic part. In modern war: Winning battlefield &ne winning system Examples: War Military winner Strategic result Vietnam US strong US withdrew Afghanistan US strong Taliban returned Iraq US strong Region unstable 1973 oil shock US strong OPEC gained power   So Iran strategy may be: Survive &rarr raise cost &rarr break US alliance system This fits deterrence theory. 7. Where the briefing may be too confident Possible weaknesses: ❌ Assumes Iran can hold Hormuz long ❌ Assumes US allies will not adapt ❌ Assumes China fully safe ❌ Assumes oil stays high long time ❌ Assumes no internal crisis in Iran Real world has more variables than game theory. Game theory works best with few players. Here we have many: US Iran Israel Saudi China EU Russia markets So equilibrium may shift. 8. Why analysts compare this to 1970s again Because pattern looks similar: 1970s 2026 Oil shock Oil shock Dollar stress Dollar stress War in Middle East War in Middle East Inflation Inflation Gold rising Gold rising Stagflation fear Stagflation fear   This is why investors are nervous now. 9. Conclusion ✔ Credibility argument &mdash sound ✔ Use-it-or-lose-it &mdash sound ✔ Hormuz strategy &mdash sound but risky ✔ Nash equilibrium &mdash strong analysis ✔ China gain &mdash plausible ✔ Iran winning structurally &mdash possible, not certain So overall: The logic is intellectually strong, but reality may not follow theory exactly.

 

If the US&ndash Iran stalemate continues + oil stays high + dollar credibility slowly weakens, the situation becomes very similar to the 1970s stagflation cycle.
In that type of environment, some assets win and some lose badly.
Let&rsquo s compare: USD, Gold, Oil, SG banks, REITs, China stocks using history + current structure.

---

1. Gold &mdash usually biggest winner in credibility crisis

Entity: Gold
Why gold wins:

• No government risk
• No currency risk
• Safe when inflation + war + debt

In the 1970s:

• Gold &uarr ~20x after
  Nixon Shock

Today similar conditions:

• Oil shock
• War risk
• High debt
• Central banks buying gold

✔ Likely winner if stalemate continues
✔ Best hedge vs USD credibility loss

---

2. Oil &mdash wins if Hormuz risk stays

Entity: Crude oil
Key factor:

• Strait of Hormuz

If conflict continues:

• Supply risk stays
• Prices stay high
• Energy stocks benefit

1970s:

• Oil shock &rarr inflation &rarr stagflation

Winners:

• Oil producers
• Energy exporters
• Commodity countries

✔ Likely winner in stalemate
❗ But volatile

---

3. USD &mdash strong short term, weak long term

Entity: United States dollar
Dollar pattern in crisis: 1970s:

• USD strong early
• USD weak later
• Gold replaced trust

Today risk factors:

• Huge debt
• Sanctions overuse
• BRICS trade
• Oil shock

✔ Short-term strong
❌ Long-term risk

---

4. Singapore banks &mdash mixed, but usually resilient

Entities:

• DBS Group
• OCBC Bank
• UOB

Why banks can survive stagflation:
✔ Higher interest rates &rarr more NIM
✔ SG strong currency system
✔ Asia growth continues
✔ Property collateral strong
But risks:

• Global recession
• Property slowdown
• Market crash

1970s style outcome: Best type:

• OCBC (insurance buffer)
• DBS (strong capital)
• UOB (ASEAN exposure)

✔ Not biggest winner
✔ But not worst

---

5. REITs &mdash usually lose in stagflation

Entity: Real Estate Investment Trust
Why REITs suffer:

• High interest rates
• High debt cost
• Property weak in recession
• Yield less attractive vs bonds

1970s pattern:
Real estate struggled when rates high.
Today risk:

• Oil shock &rarr inflation &rarr rates stay high

SG REIT risk:

• Office weak
• Retail weak
• Logistics ok but debt heavy

❌ Likely loser if stalemate long

---

6. China stocks &mdash possible silent winner

Entity: CSI 300
Why China may benefit:

• Buys cheap oil
• US distracted
• Dollar system weakens
• Asia trade grows

If this scenario true:

US vs Iran drains US
China stockpiles resources

China won in past crisis cycles:

• 1998 Asia crisis &rarr China stable
• 2008 crisis &rarr China stimulus

But risk:

• Property crisis
• Politics
• Trade war

✔ Possible winner
✔ But not safe

---

7. Summary &mdash ranking if stalemate continues

---

8. What Warren Buffett / Graham style would prefer

During stagflation:

• Real assets
• Strong balance sheet
• Low debt
• Cash flow businesses

Not:

• High leverage
• Long duration assets
• Yield traps

So likely choices:

• Oil
• Gold
• Banks (selectively)
• Some China
• Less REIT

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:30) Posted: Yes &mdash the logic in that briefing is mostly sound, especially if we analyze it using Deterrence Theory Game Theory Nash Equilibrium But some parts are correct in theory but uncertain in real life. Let&rsquo s check each claim one by one. 1. &ldquo US credibility destroyed after 2018 JCPOA withdrawal&rdquo &mdash LOGICALLY SOUND The U.S. left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 under Donald Trump. From a game theory view: Iran made concessions US later changed policy So Iran updates belief: Future agreements may not be trusted In deterrence theory: If promises are not credible, deterrence fails. This makes Iran&rsquo s refusal to surrender rational, not emotional. ✔ Logic sound ✔ Common view among strategic analysts 2. &ldquo Use-it-or-lose-it spiral&rdquo &mdash VERY SOUND MILITARY LOGIC This is classic pre-emption theory. If Iran keeps missiles &rarr US may strike If US waits &rarr Iran may launch first So both sides forced into early attack. This fits Cold War nuclear logic. Example concept: Mutually Assured Destruction Even without nukes, same structure applies. ✔ Very strong logic ✔ Used in real military planning 3. &ldquo Iran winning economic war via Hormuz&rdquo &mdash PLAUSIBLE but depends on duration Key chokepoint: Strait of Hormuz About 20% of world oil passes there. If disrupted: Oil price rises Inflation rises US allies suffer Global economy weakens This already happened in: 1973 oil crisis So theory is correct: Small country can hurt big system by attacking supply chain, not army. ✔ Logic sound ❗ But Iran also suffers economically So not pure victory &mdash more like mutual damage 4. &ldquo Nash equilibrium stalemate&rdquo &mdash VERY GOOD GAME THEORY ANALYSIS Definition: Nash Equilibrium = neither side can improve outcome by changing strategy alone. Current situation fits: US Iran Cannot invade easily Cannot defeat US Cannot ignore Hormuz Cannot surrender Cannot escalate too much Cannot stop fighting   So result: ➡ Long stalemate ➡ Limited strikes ➡ Economic pressure ➡ No clear win This is exactly how many real wars end. ✔ Very strong logic 5. &ldquo China benefits quietly&rdquo &mdash STRATEGICALLY VERY PLAUSIBLE China advantage if: Oil still flows to China US spends money Middle East unstable Dollar credibility weakens China strategy often described as: Let rivals exhaust themselves Relevant player: China China buying oil reserves fits past behavior. During past crises China often: buys commodities increases reserves signs long contracts ✔ Logic plausible ❗ But stockpile numbers (1.2B barrels) uncertain 6. The most important claim &mdash &ldquo Iran losing militarily but winning structurally&rdquo This is actually the most realistic part. In modern war: Winning battlefield &ne winning system Examples: War Military winner Strategic result Vietnam US strong US withdrew Afghanistan US strong Taliban returned Iraq US strong Region unstable 1973 oil shock US strong OPEC gained power   So Iran strategy may be: Survive &rarr raise cost &rarr break US alliance system This fits deterrence theory. 7. Where the briefing may be too confident Possible weaknesses: ❌ Assumes Iran can hold Hormuz long ❌ Assumes US allies will not adapt ❌ Assumes China fully safe ❌ Assumes oil stays high long time ❌ Assumes no internal crisis in Iran Real world has more variables than game theory. Game theory works best with few players. Here we have many: US Iran Israel Saudi China EU Russia markets So equilibrium may shift. 8. Why analysts compare this to 1970s again Because pattern looks similar: 1970s 2026 Oil shock Oil shock Dollar stress Dollar stress War in Middle East War in Middle East Inflation Inflation Gold rising Gold rising Stagflation fear Stagflation fear   This is why investors are nervous now. 9. Conclusion ✔ Credibility argument &mdash sound ✔ Use-it-or-lose-it &mdash sound ✔ Hormuz strategy &mdash sound but risky ✔ Nash equilibrium &mdash strong analysis ✔ China gain &mdash plausible ✔ Iran winning structurally &mdash possible, not certain So overall: The logic is intellectually strong, but reality may not follow theory exactly. chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:25) Posted: The credibility of the U.S. dollar has changed many times since it was created. To understand it clearly, we must look at the history from the founding of the U.S. until today. The dollar&rsquo s strength comes from trust, military power, economy, and global trade, not just money itself. 1. 1792 &mdash U.S. Dollar created (Silver & Gold standard) The U.S. dollar was officially created in the Coinage Act of 1792 Dollar backed by gold and silver Value fixed to precious metals Credibility = based on metal, not government ✔ Strong trust because money had real value ❌ Limited flexibility in crisis 2. 1913 &mdash Federal Reserve created The U.S. created the Federal Reserve through the Federal Reserve Act Central bank controls money supply Dollar no longer fully metal-controlled Trust based on U.S. government stability ✔ More flexible ❌ Risk of inflation begins 3. 1944 &mdash Dollar becomes world reserve currency After WWII, the Bretton Woods Agreement made the dollar the center of the global system. Dollar backed by gold ($35 per ounce) Other currencies linked to USD U.S. economy strongest in world ✔ Highest credibility in history ✔ U.S. held most gold ✔ U.S. had strongest military & industry This is when the dollar became global king. 4. 1971 &mdash Nixon shock (gold backing removed) In Nixon Shock President Richard Nixon stopped gold convertibility. Dollar no longer backed by gold Became fiat currency Trust based on U.S. power, not gold ✔ Allowed more money printing ❌ Credibility weakened at first ❌ Caused 1970s inflation 5. 1974 &mdash Petrodollar system saved the dollar After oil crisis, U.S. made deal with Saudi Arabia. Known as the Petrodollar system Oil must be priced in USD Countries must hold USD to buy oil Saudi invests in U.S. bonds ✔ Huge boost to credibility ✔ Forced global demand for USD ✔ Dollar survived after gold ended This is why dollar stayed strong after 1970s. 6. 1991&ndash 2008 &mdash Peak credibility era After Soviet Union collapse: U.S. only superpower Global trade in USD U.S. Treasury = safest asset Events that strengthened dollar: Cold War end World Trade Organization expansion Tech boom ✔ Highest trust period after WWII 7. 2008 &mdash Financial crisis damaged credibility During the Global Financial Crisis U.S. printed huge money Banks failed Debt exploded ❌ Credibility weakened ✔ But no alternative currency Dollar survived because: Euro weak China not open Gold not practical 8. 2020&ndash 2026 &mdash New credibility stress Recent events: COVID money printing Ukraine war sanctions Iran / oil tensions Rising U.S. debt Challenges to dollar: BRICS trade without USD China yuan trade Gold buying by central banks Oil not always in USD Possible turning point like 1970s. Many analysts compare today to: 1973 oil crisis 1970s stagflation 9. Key rule of dollar credibility The dollar is strong when: Factor Needed Strong U.S. military yes Strong U.S. economy yes Oil priced in USD yes Treasury trusted yes No rival currency yes   If these weaken &rarr credibility falls. 10. Why investors worry in 2026 Because signs look like 1970s again: Oil shock War risk Inflation High debt Central banks buying gold This is why some compare today to the era before the Nixon Shock.

 

Yes &mdash the logic in that briefing is mostly sound, especially if we analyze it using

• Deterrence Theory
• Game Theory
• Nash Equilibrium

But some parts are correct in theory but uncertain in real life.
Let&rsquo s check each claim one by one.

---

1. &ldquo US credibility destroyed after 2018 JCPOA withdrawal&rdquo &mdash LOGICALLY SOUND

The U.S. left the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
in 2018 under
Donald Trump.
From a game theory view:

• Iran made concessions
• US later changed policy
• So Iran updates belief:

  Future agreements may not be trusted

In deterrence theory:

If promises are not credible, deterrence fails.

This makes Iran&rsquo s refusal to surrender rational, not emotional.
✔ Logic sound
✔ Common view among strategic analysts

---

2. &ldquo Use-it-or-lose-it spiral&rdquo &mdash VERY SOUND MILITARY LOGIC

This is classic pre-emption theory.
If Iran keeps missiles &rarr US may strike
If US waits &rarr Iran may launch first
So both sides forced into early attack.
This fits Cold War nuclear logic.
Example concept:

• Mutually Assured Destruction

Even without nukes, same structure applies.
✔ Very strong logic
✔ Used in real military planning

---

3. &ldquo Iran winning economic war via Hormuz&rdquo &mdash PLAUSIBLE but depends on duration

Key chokepoint:

• Strait of Hormuz

About 20% of world oil passes there.
If disrupted:

• Oil price rises
• Inflation rises
• US allies suffer
• Global economy weakens

This already happened in:

• 1973 oil crisis

So theory is correct:
Small country can hurt big system
by attacking supply chain, not army.
✔ Logic sound
❗ But Iran also suffers economically
So not pure victory &mdash more like mutual damage

---

4. &ldquo Nash equilibrium stalemate&rdquo &mdash VERY GOOD GAME THEORY ANALYSIS

Definition:
Nash Equilibrium
= neither side can improve outcome by changing strategy alone.
Current situation fits: So result:
➡ Long stalemate
➡ Limited strikes
➡ Economic pressure
➡ No clear win
This is exactly how many real wars end.
✔ Very strong logic

---

5. &ldquo China benefits quietly&rdquo &mdash STRATEGICALLY VERY PLAUSIBLE

China advantage if:

• Oil still flows to China
• US spends money
• Middle East unstable
• Dollar credibility weakens

China strategy often described as:

Let rivals exhaust themselves

Relevant player:

• China

China buying oil reserves fits past behavior.
During past crises China often:

• buys commodities
• increases reserves
• signs long contracts

✔ Logic plausible
❗ But stockpile numbers (1.2B barrels) uncertain

---

6. The most important claim &mdash &ldquo Iran losing militarily but winning structurally&rdquo

This is actually the most realistic part.
In modern war:
Winning battlefield &ne winning system
Examples: So Iran strategy may be:

Survive &rarr raise cost &rarr break US alliance system

This fits deterrence theory.

---

7. Where the briefing may be too confident

Possible weaknesses:
❌ Assumes Iran can hold Hormuz long
❌ Assumes US allies will not adapt
❌ Assumes China fully safe
❌ Assumes oil stays high long time
❌ Assumes no internal crisis in Iran
Real world has more variables than game theory.
Game theory works best with few players.
Here we have many:

• US
• Iran
• Israel
• Saudi
• China
• EU
• Russia
• markets

So equilibrium may shift.

---

8. Why analysts compare this to 1970s again

Because pattern looks similar: This is why investors are nervous now.

---

9. Conclusion

✔ Credibility argument &mdash sound
✔ Use-it-or-lose-it &mdash sound
✔ Hormuz strategy &mdash sound but risky
✔ Nash equilibrium &mdash strong analysis
✔ China gain &mdash plausible
✔ Iran winning structurally &mdash possible, not certain
So overall:

The logic is intellectually strong, but reality may not follow theory exactly.

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:25) Posted: The credibility of the U.S. dollar has changed many times since it was created. To understand it clearly, we must look at the history from the founding of the U.S. until today. The dollar&rsquo s strength comes from trust, military power, economy, and global trade, not just money itself. 1. 1792 &mdash U.S. Dollar created (Silver & Gold standard) The U.S. dollar was officially created in the Coinage Act of 1792 Dollar backed by gold and silver Value fixed to precious metals Credibility = based on metal, not government ✔ Strong trust because money had real value ❌ Limited flexibility in crisis 2. 1913 &mdash Federal Reserve created The U.S. created the Federal Reserve through the Federal Reserve Act Central bank controls money supply Dollar no longer fully metal-controlled Trust based on U.S. government stability ✔ More flexible ❌ Risk of inflation begins 3. 1944 &mdash Dollar becomes world reserve currency After WWII, the Bretton Woods Agreement made the dollar the center of the global system. Dollar backed by gold ($35 per ounce) Other currencies linked to USD U.S. economy strongest in world ✔ Highest credibility in history ✔ U.S. held most gold ✔ U.S. had strongest military & industry This is when the dollar became global king. 4. 1971 &mdash Nixon shock (gold backing removed) In Nixon Shock President Richard Nixon stopped gold convertibility. Dollar no longer backed by gold Became fiat currency Trust based on U.S. power, not gold ✔ Allowed more money printing ❌ Credibility weakened at first ❌ Caused 1970s inflation 5. 1974 &mdash Petrodollar system saved the dollar After oil crisis, U.S. made deal with Saudi Arabia. Known as the Petrodollar system Oil must be priced in USD Countries must hold USD to buy oil Saudi invests in U.S. bonds ✔ Huge boost to credibility ✔ Forced global demand for USD ✔ Dollar survived after gold ended This is why dollar stayed strong after 1970s. 6. 1991&ndash 2008 &mdash Peak credibility era After Soviet Union collapse: U.S. only superpower Global trade in USD U.S. Treasury = safest asset Events that strengthened dollar: Cold War end World Trade Organization expansion Tech boom ✔ Highest trust period after WWII 7. 2008 &mdash Financial crisis damaged credibility During the Global Financial Crisis U.S. printed huge money Banks failed Debt exploded ❌ Credibility weakened ✔ But no alternative currency Dollar survived because: Euro weak China not open Gold not practical 8. 2020&ndash 2026 &mdash New credibility stress Recent events: COVID money printing Ukraine war sanctions Iran / oil tensions Rising U.S. debt Challenges to dollar: BRICS trade without USD China yuan trade Gold buying by central banks Oil not always in USD Possible turning point like 1970s. Many analysts compare today to: 1973 oil crisis 1970s stagflation 9. Key rule of dollar credibility The dollar is strong when: Factor Needed Strong U.S. military yes Strong U.S. economy yes Oil priced in USD yes Treasury trusted yes No rival currency yes   If these weaken &rarr credibility falls. 10. Why investors worry in 2026 Because signs look like 1970s again: Oil shock War risk Inflation High debt Central banks buying gold This is why some compare today to the era before the Nixon Shock.   chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:22) Posted: how come american under trump can not do their maths correctly? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gqQgv2b_

 

The credibility of the U.S. dollar has changed many times since it was created. To understand it clearly, we must look at the history from the founding of the U.S. until today. The dollar&rsquo s strength comes from trust, military power, economy, and global trade, not just money itself.

---

1. 1792 &mdash U.S. Dollar created (Silver & Gold standard)

The U.S. dollar was officially created in the
Coinage Act of 1792

• Dollar backed by gold and silver
• Value fixed to precious metals
• Credibility = based on metal, not government

✔ Strong trust because money had real value
❌ Limited flexibility in crisis

---

2. 1913 &mdash Federal Reserve created

The U.S. created the
Federal Reserve
through the
Federal Reserve Act

• Central bank controls money supply
• Dollar no longer fully metal-controlled
• Trust based on U.S. government stability

✔ More flexible
❌ Risk of inflation begins

---

3. 1944 &mdash Dollar becomes world reserve currency

After WWII, the
Bretton Woods Agreement
made the dollar the center of the global system.

• Dollar backed by gold ($35 per ounce)
• Other currencies linked to USD
• U.S. economy strongest in world

✔ Highest credibility in history
✔ U.S. held most gold
✔ U.S. had strongest military & industry
This is when the dollar became global king.

---

4. 1971 &mdash Nixon shock (gold backing removed)

In
Nixon Shock
President
Richard Nixon
stopped gold convertibility.

• Dollar no longer backed by gold
• Became fiat currency
• Trust based on U.S. power, not gold

✔ Allowed more money printing
❌ Credibility weakened at first
❌ Caused 1970s inflation

---

5. 1974 &mdash Petrodollar system saved the dollar

After oil crisis, U.S. made deal with Saudi Arabia.
Known as the
Petrodollar system

• Oil must be priced in USD
• Countries must hold USD to buy oil
• Saudi invests in U.S. bonds

✔ Huge boost to credibility
✔ Forced global demand for USD
✔ Dollar survived after gold ended
This is why dollar stayed strong after 1970s.

---

6. 1991&ndash 2008 &mdash Peak credibility era

After Soviet Union collapse:

• U.S. only superpower
• Global trade in USD
• U.S. Treasury = safest asset

Events that strengthened dollar:

• Cold War end
• World Trade Organization expansion
• Tech boom

✔ Highest trust period after WWII

---

7. 2008 &mdash Financial crisis damaged credibility

During the
Global Financial Crisis

• U.S. printed huge money
• Banks failed
• Debt exploded

❌ Credibility weakened
✔ But no alternative currency
Dollar survived because:

• Euro weak
• China not open
• Gold not practical

---

8. 2020&ndash 2026 &mdash New credibility stress

Recent events:

• COVID money printing
• Ukraine war sanctions
• Iran / oil tensions
• Rising U.S. debt

Challenges to dollar:

• BRICS trade without USD
• China yuan trade
• Gold buying by central banks
• Oil not always in USD

Possible turning point like 1970s.
Many analysts compare today to:

• 1973 oil crisis
• 1970s stagflation

---

9. Key rule of dollar credibility

The dollar is strong when: If these weaken &rarr credibility falls.

---

10. Why investors worry in 2026

Because signs look like 1970s again:

• Oil shock
• War risk
• Inflation
• High debt
• Central banks buying gold

This is why some compare today to the era before the
Nixon Shock.
 

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:22) Posted: how come american under trump can not do their maths correctly? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gqQgv2b_Y chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:17) Posted: https://www.facebook.com/reel/98247937754754

 

how come american under trump can not do their maths correctly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gqQgv2b_Y

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:17) Posted: https://www.facebook.com/reel/982479377547544 chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:13) Posted: what happened to my US " socks" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eHn6YNE4lQ& list=RD3eHn6YNE4lQ& start_radio=

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/982479377547544

chartiskao      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 08:13) Posted: what happened to my US " socks" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eHn6YNE4lQ& list=RD3eHn6YNE4lQ& start_radio=1 JurongW      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 03:14) Posted:

 

what happened to my US " socks"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eHn6YNE4lQ& list=RD3eHn6YNE4lQ& start_radio=1

JurongW      ( Date: 25-Mar-2026 03:14) Posted:

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AncMbwb9x/