100 Days of Chaos
My View
In his second term, President Trump has moved rapidly in his first 100 days, issuing large numbers of executive orders, cutting foreign aid, firing many federal workers, and undermining scientific and research funding. Despite inheriting a relatively strong economy, many of his actions are creating new crises— disrupting institutions, sparking legal pushback, and raising concerns over erratic governance and risks to US and global stability..
“The real battle for American democracy may be only beginning ”
– FT
Trump’s early months show a strategy of government by disruption, which may play well with his base but carries real costs. On a macro level, it increases uncertainty: markets dislike unpredictability, global partners may be put off, and long-term investment could fall. Micro-level, businesses face regulatory whiplash, funding uncertainty (especially in research), and risk in planning. From a management perspective, leaders will need to build in flexibility, scenario planning, legal risk monitoring, and guardrails — knowing some executive actions may be challenged or reversed in court. Stability is taking a hit.
Tariffs to Sales ?
My View
Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Saatva (a luxury mattress maker), and others are using new or impending tariffs under Donald Trump as a marketing tool. They are urging customers to buy now before prices rise. Examples: Tesla in Canada shows a banner saying “Explore pre-tariff priced inventory while supplies last”; Mercedes-Benz says it will absorb 2025 tariffs to keep prices stable; Saatva tells visitors “Don’t wait: Beat tariff increases.” Companies selling children’s lunch boxes and clothing are doing similar “act now” campaigns.
“ “It’s a simple scarcity play — the oldest trick in the book. The difference here, I think, is that the appeal rests on a very real, rational and borderline certain concern: that prices will rise dramatically and very soon. ”
– Adam Alter
This is a textbook use of urgency and scarcity in marketing, turned up by real economic risk. On the micro level, it can boost short-term sales and shift demand forward. But firms risk backlash if promises (like “no tariff increase”) aren’t kept, or if consumers feel manipulated. Macro wise, this shows how fear of inflation and cost shocks is feeding consumer behaviour now — people are buying ahead, which might temporarily raise consumption, but could lead to volatility later. For management, this means focusing on inventory planning, pricing strategy, customer communication, and balancing short-term gains with brand trust long-term.emand.
China Changing AI
My View
China is shifting how AI companies are valued by emphasising integration, cost-efficiency and scale over hype. Unlike U.S. ventures that rely on splashy funding rounds and vertical expansion, Chinese firms like Tencent are embedding AI models like DeepSeek directly into massive existing platforms (e.g. WeChat). Investors are cautiously revising down overly ambitious valuations in the U.S., while placing a premium on firms that can deploy AI at scale cheaply and efficiently.
“ This signals a global shift towards cost-efficiency and fast integration over costly vertical integration as the key to profitability in the increasingly commoditised AI sector ”
– FT
China’s approach forces a rebalancing in AI valuations globally: profitability and deployment speed matter more than raw potential. For investors, that means valuation multiples should adjust to reflect actual cost structure, reach, and integration possibilities—not just promises of future breakthroughs. At the firm level, management should emphasise lean operations and embedding AI into existing products rather than building costly standalone platforms. This trend may pressure U.S. AI companies to show more proof of earnings soon, or risk overvaluation
Elons Unhappy Shareholders
My View
Elon Musk is facing a lawsuit from shareholders who say he misled the market during his 2022 acquisition of Twitter (now X). The claim is that Musk tweeted about concerns over fake accounts and suggested the deal might collapse, causing Twitter’s share price to fall — even though the deal later closed under the original terms
“ Two separate attempts by the billionaire’s lawyer to seek a dismissal of the case … have already failed, setting the stage for a high-profile trial ”
– FT
Musk’s public comments show how risky it is for major figures to communicate loosely in moments of deal-tension: markets respond fast. Micro-wise, investors who bought or sold based on those tweets believe they lost out. Macro-wise, such behaviour adds to uncertainty in acquisition deals and could raise the cost of capital for buyers who need to reassure both shareholders and regulators. From a management perspective, this calls for tighter control over external communications during deal negotiations — legal exposure from off-hand comments is growing, and companies must anticipate how even informal signals can shift valuations or provoke litigation
Money Talks 