The Week in Breakingviews: Industry’s new captains

UBS AG

25/09/2026 17:39

The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
By Peter Thal Larsen
LONDON, Sept 26 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Welcome back! This is a very special edition of The Week in Breakingviews. It’s exactly a year since our first weekly recap. Today’s update will reach more than 90,000 subscribers. Thank you for reading, and for all your comments, suggestions and questions. Please keep them coming. And if you know anyone who might want to receive this newsletter, please encourage them to sign up here.
OPENING LINE
“Artificial intelligence requires two essential ingredients: electricity and silicon. Yet they are not equally valuable.”
Read more: Bitcoin miners reveal the real AI scarcity trade
FIVE THINGS I LEARNED FROM BREAKINGVIEWS THIS WEEK
The last US diesel refinery was built 50 years ago. (Winter is coming)
More than 2.5 million people have downloaded Meta Platforms’ META.O new AI assistant. (Network effects live on)
Chinese shipyards captured 74% of new global orders this year. (Good time for an IPO)
Returns on infrastructure funds lagged only venture capital last year. (The future looks tougher)
The average Pole took 45% more flights in 2025 than in 2019. (Airlines are clipping their wings)
EMPIRE OF THE SONS
The closest thing to a consensus in global business these days is that industrial policy is both unavoidable and necessary. Until a few years ago you could still hear captains of industry declare that governments should simply get out of their way. The supply shocks wrought by tariffs, Covid and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have quashed that outdated notion. These days, bureaucrats actively try to steer entire industries in their desired direction, while companies offer advice on how best to do it.
Still, the reality of official meddling falls far short of the ideal of far-sighted state planning. For a case study in unintended consequences, consider the boardroom battle that has erupted at Tata Sons. India’s central bank ruled that the private holding company which sits atop the 158-year-old group should list on the stock market. A scion of the founding Tata family disagreed, triggering a showdown with chairman N. Chandrasekaran. To complicate matters further, state regulators have barred trustees of one of Tata Sons’ main shareholders from holding meetings. As Shritama Bose writes, the result is a messy stalemate at the $260 billion cars-to-consultancy group. (For a lucid primer on the saga, check out this week’s Viewsroom podcast.)
Tata is far from an isolated case. Swiss lawmakers this week endorsed tough new regulations on UBS UBSG.S that may lead the country’s largest bank to move its head office elsewhere. The Italian government has wielded its “golden power” law, designed to see off unwanted foreign bidders, against domestic banks. China is flexing competition rules as negotiating leverage with merging miners. Then there’s the United States, where the Trump administration has effectively erased the line between state intervention and self-dealing. The direction of the artificial intelligence boom, meanwhile, depends in large part on official decisions about chip exports, data centre approvals, and how governments respond to being hacked by rogue AI agents.
This new world has far-reaching consequences for providers of capital. When faced with a choice between security and efficiency, companies no longer reflexively opt for the latter. Chief executives may prioritise controlling supply chains over conquering distant territories – and pursue different acquisitions as a result. Globe-trotting multinationals might give way to national or regional conglomerates with closer links to local administrators.
The switch will not be smooth. As Tata shows, conflicting priorities will clash in boardrooms, courts, and shareholder meetings. Swings in the political cycle will periodically upend the landscape – remember President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act? Industrial policy may be inevitable. It will also be unavoidably messy.
CHART OF THE WEEK
Big pharmaceutical companies are under pressure from all sides. Shareholders are increasingly sceptical of large acquisitions. But developing new remedies in-house also has a patchy record. Returns on the industry’s hefty spending on research and development are falling. Aimee Donnellan argues that drug giants have little choice but to double down on M&A.
THE WEEK IN PODCASTS
With US debt surpassing $40 trillion and yields near two-decade highs, it’s little surprise that government bonds are causing economic jitters. Yet the long history of the bond market offers a more upbeat story about economic development and political evolution. On The Big View this week, the financial journalist Robin Wigglesworth and I debated the reasons for concern and celebration.
The trouble at Tata was the focus of this week’s Viewsroom. Shritama Bose and Una Galani joined Aimee Donnellan to explain the origins of the extraordinary battle over the future of the Indian conglomerate.
PARTING SHOT
Five years ago Richard Bernstein, the investment strategist turned portfolio manager, published a note listing five factors which pointed to the existence of a stock market bubble. Within months, US equities had peaked and later entered a bear market. Now, though, the so-called “Everything Bubble” has returned with a vengeance, writes Edward Chancellor. The next correction could be more dramatic.
Want to receive The Week in Breakingviews in your inbox every Saturday? Sign up for the newsletter here.
Follow Peter Thal Larsen on Bluesky and LinkedIn.

(Editing by George Hay; Production by Oliver Taslic)
((For previous columns by the author, Reuters customers can click on LARSEN/peter.thal.larsen@thomsonreuters.com))