CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

In 2025, the global equity market reached a record $157.8 trillion in market capitalization, up more than $25 trillion from 2024.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Gabriel Cohen, highlights the world’s major equity markets based on their 2025 market capitalization.

Data has been sourced from the World Federation of Exchanges via SIFMA.

The World’s Biggest Stock Market

With a total market capitalization of $68.9 trillion, the U.S. is by far the world’s largest equity market, accounting for roughly 44% of the global total.

The U.S. is home to the world’s two preeminent stock exchanges, the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq. Shares in the overwhelming majority of the country’s largest public companies are traded on these two exchanges.

The table below lists the world’s major equity markets as of the end of 2025.

The U.S. has seen its dominance in global equities strengthen over the past decade. Its share of global equity market capitalization has risen by more than 10 percentage points since 2012, when it accounted for roughly one-third of the total.

Part of this rise has been driven by the strong performance of U.S.-listed tech companies like Apple, Alphabet, and NVIDIA, each of which is part of the so-called Magnificent Seven.

China and the EU Are Nearly Tied

China ranks as the world’s second-largest equity market, narrowly ahead of the European Union. Both round to $15.5 trillion in market capitalization.

Even at that scale, each market is less than one-quarter the size of the $68.9 trillion U.S. market. Notably, many prominent Chinese companies are also listed in Hong Kong, which is itself a $6.1 trillion market.

Equities in both China and the EU have faced pressure as investors weighed geopolitical uncertainty. Nonetheless, EU-listed equities gained nearly 40% in year-over-year value as markets reacted positively to increased German spending and relative policy certainty compared with the United States.

Asia’s Other Stock Market Giants

Beyond China, Asia is home to several other major equity markets, including India ($10.6 trillion), Japan ($7.6 trillion), and Singapore ($824 billion).

Of the three, India had the most difficult 2025. Compared with nearly 19% average growth across global equities, Indian stocks gained just 2.5% on average.

A lack of domestic AI champions was a significant factor. As equities in South Korea, Taiwan, and the U.S. soared, investors redirected capital away from Indian companies.

To learn more about how the U.S. retail giants compare in annual sales, check out Which Are the Biggest Retailers in the U.S.? on Voronoi.

Via Middle East Eye

The Turkish government hired a lobbying firm with close ties to US President Donald Trump earlier this month under a year-long contract worth $2.4m, according to US Justice Department filings reviewed by Middle East Eye.

Ballard Partners, led by Brian Ballard, a prominent Florida Republican fundraiser who also worked on Trump’s presidential campaign, signed the agreement with Turkey’s Ministry of National Defense on August 8. The firm will receive $200,000 per month.

Under the contract, Ballard Partners pledged to provide “government relations services, strategic consulting and advocacy services” before the federal government, and keep its client informed about developments in Congress and US policy.

This is not the first time Ballard Partners has worked for Turkey.

In 2017, during Trump’s first term, Turkey hired the firm under a $1.5m contract. It was one of Ballard Partners’ first major deals in Washington after opening an office there.

At the time, the firm reportedly focused on the sanctions-evasion case against Turkish state-owned lender Halkbank. The Trump administration’s Justice Department dropped the charges against the bank earlier this year.

The new contract differs from the previous agreement because Turkey’s defense ministry is the principal client. Ankara is seeking to rejoin the F-35 fighter jet program after being removed in 2019 over its purchase of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system.

Middle East Eye reported last month that Ankara was considering selling the S-400 system to a third country, potentially the United Arab Emirates, in an effort to persuade Washington to lift sanctions against Turkey.

Ankara also hopes to take delivery of six F-35s that were manufactured for Turkey but have remained in storage in the US for years.

According to the Justice Department filings, the Ballard Partners team working for Turkey includes former Democratic congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, a prominent pro-Turkish voice who co-founded the Congressional Caucus on US-Turkey Relations and Turkish Americans in 2001.

Wexler is also president of the S Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington and is known for his connections to pro-Israel circles.

Another member of the team is Thomas Boodry, who served as a special assistant to Trump and senior director for legislative affairs at the National Security Council until April 2025. Boodry was dismissed amid the removal of former US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.

Reports at the time suggested that Trump fired Boodry and five other officials shortly after meeting far-right activist Laura Loomer, who presented opposition research on several staff members and argued that they were disloyal to the president.

REPORTER: "Prime Minister Netanyahu opposes sending the F-35s to Turkey..."

PRESIDENT TRUMP: "Nobody tells me what we should be selling or not. Turkey has been a tremendous ally." pic.twitter.com/F0sdwvIYfE

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 27, 2026

The team also includes Syl Lukis, a senior partner at Ballard Partners and one of Ballard’s closest associates.

Bloomberg reported earlier this year that Ballard Partners’ alums include White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The firm generated more than $30m in federal lobbying revenue during the first quarter of 2026, more than any other firm on Washington’s K Street.

Speculation has abounded over the nature of CIA Director John Ratcliffe's surprise Tuesday trip to Moscow and what was conveyed to top Kremlin intelligence officials.

The 'official' Washington narrative of what was behind the trip was issued on Wednesday in the pages of The Wall Street Journal, which laid out Ratcliffe delivered a "warning to Russia not to attack NATO countries, according to people briefed on the visit."

Since then, media reports and pundits have mused that nearby small 'eastern flank' countries like Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania could be prime targets for some kind of Russian military action, at a moment Europe's support to Kiev has steadily ramped up.

Surprisingly, on Thursday former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves (president: 2006 – 2016), who remains influential voice in the European security debate and has served on an EU task force, told a European outlet that the CIA director's meeting was more likely centered on the Iran conflict and not on warning against attacking Europe.

Ilves in a freshly published interview with EuroNews said he had "severe doubts" that concerns over aggression against the Baltic states were the reason for Ratcliffe's visit.

"What is the real problem for the United States right now? The real problem is Iran, the fact that the Russians are giving targeting information to the Iranians," he said.

"Those are real problems for the United States, and that would be sufficient to warrant the director of the CIA to go to Moscow to tell them to back off."

US intelligence and Trump officials for months have alleged that Russia is likely helping Iranian forces with identifying and locating US military assets in the region. At times throughout Operation Epic Fury, Tehran appears to have even targeted CIA stations.

The bulk of American military assets and bases in the Gulf countries have suffered severe damage earlier in the conflict, resulting in a Pentagon troop drawback to safer areas. This is indeed a big deal if it is the case that Russia or China (or both) have handed the Iranians intel to help push back American bases and forces.

Former Estonian leader Ilves further explained that in reality there had been "no change in the US’s threat assessment for the Baltic states."

Yesterday CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow. The visit was brief but quickly fueled widespread discussion and speculation.

Official statements from Russia and Washington remain silent on the reason for the trip. Details about his counterparts remain unavailable as… pic.twitter.com/0W7t0i72Pq

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) August 26, 2026

"If the purpose was to go and genuinely tell the Russians not to do anything in the Baltic states, as was claimed, then there would be some kind of activity here," he underscored. 

Also, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna announced Thursday that the country’s threat assessment had "not changed". Tsahkna said: "We remain vigilant, but Estonia’s threat assessment has not changed."

Ilves concluded in his comments that the official narrative is but cover for the real reason underlying Ratcliff's visit.

Skepticism has been widely voiced among independent journalists and pundits:

CIA chief urgently flew to Moscow in the middle of America’s losing war against Russia’s ally Iran, and the reason had nothing to do with a desperate attempt to turn Russia against Iran, but rather “Putin could try…limited assault on an allied country in the next few years”? ?? https://t.co/WmNYnGstfo

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) August 26, 2026

"I don’t think it’s a false flag, but rather just kind of make something up to divert attention from what is the real problem that the US faces right now," the Estonian ex-President said.

Authored by Jake Scott via FEE,

On a Sunday night in late July, Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and China's Xi Jinping spoke for more than an hour. It was cordial and faintly triumphant, with the two governments announcing their intention to accelerate a long-stalled China-Mercosur trade agreement. Alongside this, there are plans to deepen cooperation on satellites and critical-minerals processing, and waive short-stay visa requirements.

This marks a serious change for Brazil. For years, it was Brasília that had spearheaded all resistance to exactly this sort of deal within the Mercosur bloc. The reversal was as sudden as it was shocking, taking only a fortnight to emerge, following a new American tariff taking effect and the Brazilian president deciding that the cost of alignment with the United States had, at last, exceeded its benefits.

Confronted with a United States that has moved from partner to antagonist, Brazil sees itself as neither retaliating in kind nor capitulating; it is hedging, deliberately, on several fronts at once. For many observers, this is a rational reaction to the emergence of an increasingly multipolar world. But just under a century ago, this practice had a name: "pragmatic equidistance." It was the way Brazil described its international strategy of balancing relationships with competing powers without committing to either.

The ongoing and escalating international trade war fueled by retaliatory tariffs has been the main catalyst here. In late July, a 25% tariff covering a broad range of Brazilian goods came into effect; per the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry's reckoning, nearly half of all Brazilian exports to the United States are now subject to some form of additional duty. Alongside the general tariffs, a "forced-labor" levy of 12.5% was introduced by the US to enforce bans on importing goods made with forced labor abroad, which in many ways represents a globalization of America's existing ban on Chinese goods using forced labor.

It is estimated that the hardest-hit goods carry a combined tariff of 37.5%.

President Lula's response has been to reframe the introduction of these tariffs as Washington's error rather than Brazil's, calling the tariffs a "strategic mistake" in the Washington Post, and warning that the tariffs will drive Brazilian firms to replace their American suppliers with partners elsewhere.

The rhetoric is only part of it, though: Brazil has filed for consultations with the World Trade Organization to challenge both the broad tariffs and the forced-labor levy as breaches of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The effectiveness of these consultations is up for debate given the WTO's general paralysis, but what matters more is what this reveals for Brazil's international-relations strategy: it is pragmatic equidistance on display. Brazil has filed the complaint with the WTO, while continuing negotiations with the US.

Meanwhile, Brazil is attempting to hedge its bets by engaging with the wider global economy. This month, ApexBrasil (the Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency) has launched a R$105 million ($20.5 million) program to support just shy of 2,500 exporters across 57 industries in their search for new markets, including the EU, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia.

Simultaneously, the Mercosur bloc is actively pursuing parallel deals with India, Japan, and Canada, with Brazil at the heart of this strategy. Lula has enacted the Mercosur-Singapore agreement, the bloc's first with a Southeast Asian economy, under which Brazilian exports will progressively enter duty-free.

What is also interesting is what the imposition of these tariffs has meant for Lula at home. Many Brazilians read the tariff regime as a direct attempt to influence the Brazilian elections that are due to take place in October 2026, which in turn has allowed Lula to cast himself as a defender of Brazil's sovereignty against foreign interference. This strategy has borne fruit: Lula's polling has remained steady in the mid-40s, while Flávio Bolsonaro-the only other major contender-has seen his popularity steadily decline since April 2026, meaning Lula's lead has slowly widened.

It may not have helped Bolsonaro that his presidential bid launch saw him flanked by Javier Milei and Benjamin Netenyahu, with few Brazilian politicians in the room. International campaigning is increasingly common, but in a climate skeptical of foreign interference, that move may have been more than a little tone-deaf, especially given the increasingly strained relations between Argentina and Brazil.

Not only this, but when the US sent election officials to verify the integrity of Brazil's electoral system, their visas were simply denied. For a public that is heavily resistant to the sense of being managed from abroad, this was a message that landed exactly in the way it was needed to.

Most notable, however, is Brazil's attempt to sidestep all of this via improved trade relations between the Mercosur bloc and China. Of course, Mercosur is a customs union, and so all members must negotiate jointly-which is why a proposed China agreement has been formally proposed and "under study" since around 2017. In this, Brazil had been the brake, while Uruguay had spent years advocating for the trade agreement, and pursuing its own China talks whilst the other Mercosur members stalled.

In January 2023, Lula traveled to Montevideo to argue that Mercosur should secure an EU deal first, and only then negotiate with China. With this deal signed in Asunción in January 2026-after 26 years of negotiations-and coming into effect in Brazil in April, the roadblock had been cleared. At least, on Brasília's end: Argentina's President Javier Milei is ideologically opposed to China, and will likely veto any deal pursued by Mercosur. China is already Brazil's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade valued at $188 billion, and a deal could meet Brazil's other strategic interests, such as widening agricultural access.

Regardless, Brazil has been hedging its international trade relations with careful maneuvering, and in the long run, this may be the smart move.

Jury deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial started on Aug. 27 after five weeks of testimony.

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, is accused of killing her three young children while her now-ex-husband was running errands in January 2023.

The 36-year-old mother faces three counts of first-degree murder, one for each child: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan.

Judge William Sullivan gave the jury the option to instead consider second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Only a few hours of deliberations happened before Sullivan ordered a recess until 9 a.m. on Friday at the Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

No verdict was reached on Thursday.

In his closing argument on Aug. 27, Jacki Thrapp reports for The Epoch Times, that defense attorney Kevin Reddington urged jurors to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, alleging that “her mind was gone” during the killings and said she was in the throes of postpartum psychosis.

“This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect, as his honor instructed you,” Reddington told jurors in closing arguments.

“And they’re not going to be able to prove otherwise.”

Additionally, Reddington describved the accused murderer by saying: "This young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was… a darn good mother."

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney:

“This young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was… a darn good mother.” pic.twitter.com/mL03GAuHlg

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) August 27, 2026

Clancy admitted to strangling her kids with exercise bands in the basement of their home in a coastal Boston suburb, slicing her wrists and neck with a knife, and jumping out of a window in a failed suicide attempt, which left her paralyzed.

Her now-ex-husband, Patrick, said that months before the incident, the mother told him she was having thoughts of suicide and harming their kids.

Clancy was also prescribed medications and checked into a psychiatric hospital ahead of the incident.

Her then-husband testified that Clancy had a “normal” demeanor when he left to run errands that day.

When he returned, he found his injured wife, who informed him that the kids were in the basement.

Clancy detailed what happened in a call with him a week after the incident, he said.

“She heard a man’s voice telling her that if she didn’t do ?it now, she would lose her chance or something like that,” he testified.

Prosecutors acknowledged that Clancy suffered from mental health issues but said she carried out the killings while knowing it was wrong.

“This case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women,” Assistant ?District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told jurors.

“That’s a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that’s not on trial here.”

Clancy faces life in prison with no possibility of parole if she is convicted on any of the first-degree murder charges she faces.