Global venture funding to fintech startups totalled USD 12 billion across 751 deals in 2026 as of April 6, registering a 5% increase, compared to the USD 11.4 billion raised across 1,097 (or 31.5% fewer) deals during the same time period in 2025. Deal sizes, on the other hand, have been bigger this time around, with late-stage or growth funding in the Q1 totalling USD 6.9 billion, up 8% compared to USD 6.4 billion raised at those stages in the same period in 2025.

“However, sequentially, the USD 12 billion raised is down 33% compared to the fourth quarter of 2025, when fintech startups raised USD 17.8 billion globally. The USD 6.9 billion raised in late-stage or growth funding is also down markedly — by 43% — compared to the USD 12.1 billion raised by fintech startups in Q4 2025. The trend in the first quarter also mirrors what we saw in 2025 as a whole, with global venture funding to fintech startups climbing to its highest level in several quarters, boosted by later-stage deals,” Crunchbase reported.

Total global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totalled USD 53.8 billion in 2025, a 29.3% increase from 2024’s total of USD 41.6 billion raised. American startups, when it comes to beating their peers in the other parts of the world, in terms of raising more funding, continued the trend in the Q1 2026 as well, as out of the USD 12 billion raised globally, just over half (or USD 6.3 billion) flowed to the fintech sector based in the world’s largest economy.

It was a spectacular 47% increase compared to the USD 4.3 billion raised by US fintech startups in Q1 2025. However, it was down 50% from the USD 12.6 billion that the sector raised in Q4 2025.

The United Kingdom was the second-largest recipient of venture capital, with startups in the European country raising a total of USD 1.2 billion. With USD 900 million, India took the third position.

“Several fintech startups raised nine-figure rounds in the first quarter, with some doubling their valuations since their last venture financings. Predictions marketplace Kalshi was the largest recipient of capital in the first quarter. In March, the company doubled its valuation to USD 22 billion in just three months with a $1 billion raise led by Coatue. The New York-based startup had just raised USD 1 billion in Series E funding at an USD 11 billion valuation in December,” the Crunchbase report remarked.

In February, digital savings platform Vestwell raised USD 385 million in a Series E funding round co-led by Blue Owl Capital and Sixth Street Growth. This took the New York-based startup’s valuation to USD 2 billion, double the USD 1 billion valuation it achieved in December 2023. Rain, which is building infrastructure for payments with stablecoins, raised USD 250 million in a Series C funding round led by Iconiq Capital. Its post-money valuation was USD 1.95 billion, up by 17 times from March 2025.

The post Fintech sector sees 5% funding spike in 2026: Report appeared first on International Finance.

The immediate impact: travellers waiting in long lines at some of the United States’ busiest airports, which in turn affected the facilities’ overall operations. The Donald Trump administration had to deploy federal agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for airport security-related duties, despite the individuals lacking relevant training for the task.

Call-out rates (the ratio that deals with the absence of TSA staff from their airport duties), by the middle of March, reportedly increased to 10%, as the employees just couldn’t deal with the fact that they were working without salaries for the second time in six months.

The first crisis hit them during October-November 2025, due to the political flashpoint between Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress over budget negotiations.

The situation reminded Americans of a similar crisis in 2018-19, when over 50,000 TSA officers had to work without pay, leading to high absenteeism (near 10%), long airport security lines, and over 300 employee resignations. However, this time the problem has been much larger in nature.

Talking about TSA call-outs, major airports like New York, Atlanta, and Houston have seen staff absence of nearly 30% or higher. The visuals of travellers standing in long queues across the airports went viral, with many of them taking the social media route to allege that even after reaching airports well in advance to catch their flights, they ended up missing their journeys.

Trump Intervenes To Ensure Paycheques For TSA Employees

Just how bad was the situation? In the last week of March, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that some 74 small American airports faced a shutdown scenario due to factors like staff shortages and TSA mass call-outs. The regional network of the US aviation sector faced a catastrophic situation. Also came out another shocking stat: assaults on these unpaid TSA workers (by frustrated flyers) increased by around 500%, since the start of the partial government shutdown on February 14.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), tasked with overseeing the TSA, has been unfunded since February 2026, after Congress failed to reach a budget agreement. Democrats have reportedly refused to agree on a funding deal without reforms to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, triggering the partial shutdown.

Under the established protocols, TSA agents, considered essential workers, must work without immediate pay during a federal shutdown, as their salaries depend on congressional appropriations, which are, in turn, tied to a funding agreement in the DHS budget.

On March 27, Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum, instructing Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought to pay TSA agents using existing funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to TSA operations. Since then, things have improved, as TSA staff have started receiving their salaries.

Latest details (as of April 6) show that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and New York’s LaGuardia Airport have security wait times of 10 minutes or less. John F. Kennedy International Airport was reporting wait times of roughly 30 minutes at four of its terminals. However, the TSA staff call-out ratio is still hovering above 20% in some places.

White House Proposal

Now comes the big news. The Trump administration is proposing to slash over 9,400 TSA workers and a little over $1.5 billion from the agency. It is already in the federal budget document. In April, Congress will likely conduct hearings on the White House budget request, in an attempt to ensure that the new budget deal gets concluded before ⁠September 30.

White House’s solution is radical: privatise airport security screenings by 2027. Some airports use a TSA partner screening programme, which helps manage lines at smaller airports while ensuring employees are paid on time. The proposal will also reduce the organisation’s nearly $8 billion budget by roughly 20% amid the agency losing over 1,600 workers during the federal government ⁠funding disruptions in 2025 and 2026.

Stalemate In Congress

However, the political duel continues. The stalemate in Congress will continue, as Democrats want a government restraint on immigration agencies. The high-profile deaths of American citizens like Renee Good and Alex Pretti during a Minnesota crackdown by federal agents raised questions about alleged high-handedness by the Trump administration during anti-immigration drives.

In November 2025, both Republicans and Democrats agreed to negotiate DHS funding ’at a later date’ to ward off the government shutdown. However, things haven’t progressed at all since then, and with TSA funding lapsing on February 14, all hell broke loose. Several bills put forward by Democrats to fund TSA while a larger deal on DHS is worked out have failed to pass. However, neither Republicans nor Democrats are ready to take the blame.

Post Trump’s executive order, TSA workers are finally getting paid. The hours-long passenger queues at security lines are easing up as well. However, there is no guarantee that something similar won’t be repeated.

According to Chris Edwards, Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies, Cato Institute and Editor of DownsizingGovernment.org, security screening at American airports needs to be privatised. Screening operations need to be contracted out to private security agencies while shrinking the government’s role to regulatory oversight and intelligence.

The Arguments For Privatisation

While Edwards’ solution aligns with White House’s proposals and sounds radical, he cited the Canadian example, where the federal aviation authority provides contracts to security firms for five years, apart from periodically reviewing their performances. The system ensures that 95% of travellers get screened within 15 minutes. A similar method has been implemented in Europe as well, where about four-fifths of airports use private screening.

“In the United States, the TSA took over screening at 430 commercial airports over the past two-and-a-half decades since 9/11. It hasn’t been a glorious run. TSA has misallocated resources, delivered mediocre (at best) security evaluations, and wasted vast amounts of traveller time in queues. And it has long scored near the bottom of all federal agencies in annual rankings of best places to work. Thankfully, the 2001 bill creating the TSA allowed for some private airport screening in the Screening Partnership Programme (SPP). As part of SPP, San Francisco International and 19 smaller airports have been using private screening firms for years, and with good results,” Edwards said.

While claiming that an ’undercover test’ conducted in 2015 found a 95% failure rate for TSA, in terms of identifying banned items, Edwards said that another similar experiment found a failure rate of 80%. He also said that TSA has a conflict of interest, as it both performs screening and sets the standards, in terms of conducting screening and judging its own performance.

“By contrast, in the Canadian and European systems, the government authority sets the standards and can objectively judge the performance of private screeners at the various airports. Also, as a near monopoly, TSA has little incentive to improve efficiency or to innovate. But under a privatised system, companies would compete on their records to win contracts at airports, and they could draw on their broad international experience to continuously improve their operations,” Edwards commented.

On the other hand, the US Travel Association wants Congress to provide three years of funding for the TSA to help avoid an impact on paycheques. For the association, the onus is on both Republicans and Democrats to put their differences aside and fix the overall mess through reconciliation.

So, we have two schools of thought: one advocating privatisation, axing workers in the process, while the other wants further investment in the human resources. Which side will win? The answer can be expected after September 30, when the new budget deal is concluded.

The post IF Insights: Unpaid TSA employees make air travel in US painful appeared first on International Finance.

The company, which operates as a compliance-first, local-first model with regulated coverage across Europe, Latin America, Nigeria, and the United States, provides fintech platforms (including payroll, cross-border payments, digital banking, and spend management solutions) with the ability to issue globally accepted payment cards, funded directly from stablecoins, bridging the gap between on-chain settlement and real-world payments.

With this latest round, Kulipa’s total funding reaches USD 9.2 million. The company wants to use the capital to create solutions that will make stablecoin spending seamless and widely accepted, just like traditional card payments, helping the fintech industry to operate as a fully integrated model, where industry players will act like on-chain-enabled financial institutions.

Kulipa’s successful fundraising also comes amid stablecoins becoming the new normal in the virtual payment space, settling more than USD 300 billion daily. However, the cryptocurrency still has a drawback: a lack of efficient infrastructure connecting on-chain settlement systems with regulated card networks.

“Existing solutions are often fragmented, capital-intensive, and dependent on prefunded structures and region-specific licenses. As regulatory clarity improves worldwide, fintech companies increasingly require compliant, scalable issuing infrastructure to convert stablecoin balances into usable financial products,” reported Africa Business.

To resolve this problem, Kulipa’s stablecoin-native issuing platform has been tailored to address challenges such as capital efficiency, regulatory compliance and global scalability. Fintech partners using the company’s solution are now launching payment programmes funded directly from stablecoin balances, supporting rapid prefunded deployments and deep wallet-native integrations.

“Stablecoins have proven their value as a settlement layer, but using them in everyday financial products is still early. Card issuance is the bridge between on-chain balances and real-world payments. We built Kulipa to give regulated fintech platforms the compliant, capital-efficient infrastructure they need to operate at a global scale,” said Axel Cateland, Founder and CEO of Kulipa, while interacting with Africa Business.

By verifying balances and settling transactions on-chain, Kulipa has reduced the fintech industry’s reliance on collateral-heavy prefunding models and enabled more sustainable scaling. Stablecoin cards issued via Kulipa can be used everywhere, including retail payments and ATM withdrawals. Kulipa also assumes the role of performing fraud liability, removing a massive operational burden for fintech partners.

The post Stablecoin card issuer Kulipa raises fresh funding appeared first on International Finance.

Dr. Connie Lehman’s entry into the prestigious list is not surprising at all, given her proactive involvement with leading US health systems to launch “Clairity Breast,” the world’s first AI technology to assess a woman’s five-year risk of developing breast cancer directly from the suspected patient’s routine screening mammogram.

As a first-of-its-kind innovation in the breast cancer domain, Clairity Breast identifies subtle patterns in breast tissue invisible to the human eye that often act as warning signs of cancer’s arrival, enabling clinicians to identify a woman’s risk much earlier.

Dr. Connie Lehman has been a veteran name in the medical fraternity’s response against breast cancer. Apart from serving as Clairity’s Founder and CEO, she has spent decades at Harvard Medical School as a Professor of Radiology, advancing breast cancer detection and prevention.

The medtech company remains focused on advancing cancer risk assessment through artificial intelligence and computer vision, with the ultimate goal of shifting the standard of care from late-stage treatment to proactive, risk-informed prevention.

A Name Redefining The Healthcare Sector

After starting out at Duke University, Connie Lehman proceeded to Yale University, where she completed both her MD and PhD. That combination of clinical medicine and deep research training shaped the direction of her career, giving her the ability to move between patient care and scientific innovation with ease.

Since then, she has become an exemplary name in the field of breast imaging. As a Professor of Radiology at Harvard Medical School and a specialist at Mass General Brigham, she spent years focused on improving how breast cancer is detected. She has also published more than 300 peer-reviewed papers, apart from becoming a leading voice in areas like breast density research, computer-aided diagnosis, and the game-changing usage of AI in medical imaging.

Her focus area has changed. Knowing the shortfalls of traditional screening methods, which, despite being valuable, mainly detect cancer after it has already formed, Dr. Connie Lehman started asking a different question: what if imaging could actually predict risk before disease develops?

Her research began leaning more heavily into deep learning and AI, exploring patterns in mammograms that human eyes simply can’t detect. That curiosity led her to come up with Clairity, a Boston-based health technology company built around that exact idea. Since its foundation in 2020, the company has placed AI at the core of functions like analysing routine mammograms and estimating a woman’s five-year risk of developing breast cancer.

In November 2025, Clairity raised USD 43 million in Series B funding to commercialise its FDA-authorised AI platform. The round was led by ACE Global Equity and Sante Ventures, with participation from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and new investors. The funding was raised keeping in mind goals like the platform’s commercialisation in the world’s largest economy, forming partnerships with imaging centres and health systems, and the development of “Clairity Breast 3D” and “Clairity Heart” for predicting cardiovascular risk from imaging exams.

Clairity Breast’s task is simple: use routine mammogram images to predict who may be at risk of getting breast cancer over the next five years, followed by earlier intervention, which will ensure fewer late-stage diagnoses.

Since 2025, the company has been rolling out its technology to existing health systems, apart from expanding its pipeline to include AI-based predictive offerings for other diseases using the same deep learning framework. The funding round was also held keeping in mind reimbursement initiatives and partnerships to make Clairity Breast accessible across community imaging centres.

The post Business Leader of the Week: Dr. Connie Lehman-led Clairity advances breast cancer treatment through AI appeared first on International Finance.

While net income increased to USD 282.4 million in 2025 (compared to USD 265.7 million in 2024), the year-on-year growth percentage stood at 18% from a normalised base of USD 239.6 million in 2024. Total assets grew by 23% to a record USD 13.4 billion (up from USD 10.9 billion in 2024), reflecting strong asset build-up momentum across Corporate Banking, Investments, and Treasury.

The Arab Energy Fund CEO Khalid Al-Ruwaigh said, “Our financial results reflect the strength and resilience of The Arab Energy Fund’s diversified business model. Achieving our fourth consecutive year of record net income, supported by a strong balance sheet, underscores our disciplined execution, prudent risk management, and continued ability to mobilise capital across the region.”

In terms of raising funds, the entity, during 2025, got USD 3.8 billion, reinforcing its diversified funding base and strong access to international capital markets. Asset quality remained robust, with a non-performing loan (NPL) ratio of 0.2%.

The Arab Energy Fund CFO Vicky Bhatia said, “TAEF has delivered, yet another strong performance, achieving its highest Net Income level of USD 282.4 million. We also raised record levels of funding in 2025, achieving effective pricing outcomes. We maintained strong operating efficiency, with a cost-to-income ratio of 19.5% and Capital adequacy of 30.45%, positioning us very well to fuel our future growth.”

Across The Arab Energy Fund’s business verticals, corporate banking expanded its portfolio to USD 6 billion, with net operating income reaching USD 140.1 million, supported by financing activity across the energy value chain, portfolio expansion and funding optimisation.

Investments and partnerships expanded the asset portfolio to USD 1.6 billion, generating USD 67.0 million in gross operating income. This growth was primarily driven by dividend income and ongoing portfolio diversification. Treasury and Capital Markets effectively managed the balance sheet, with assets totalling USD 5.5 billion and net operating income of USD 132.6 million. This success was supported by sound liquidity management, optimisation of investments in a declining interest rate environment, and disciplined funding execution.

And the positive momentum will continue in 2026, as the entity received regulatory approval to issue Panda bonds in China. This makes it the first multilateral financial institution from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region to secure such approval, granting it direct access to the domestic bond market of the world’s second-largest economy.

Under the programme, approved by China’s National Association of Financial Market Institutional Investors, TAEF can issue up to 10 billion Chinese yuan (USD 1.4 billion) in Renminbi-denominated bonds in multiple tranches over two years, providing flexible, long-term capital for the fund’s strategic investments.

The post The Arab Energy Fund delivers record net income in 2025, to issue Panda bonds in China appeared first on International Finance.

“Historically, regional DCM issuances have typically rebounded swiftly once tensions eased following previous geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East. However, the ultimate effect will depend on the scope and duration of the Iran war. While some yield widening is visible in GCC bonds and sukuk since the war began, there have not been market-wide selloffs,” the agency stated.

Before the conflict’s beginning, issuance activities in the Middle East were displaying strong investor appetite. While about 84% of Fitch-rated sukuk in the GCC countries were rated investment grade, 63.2% was in the ‘A’ category, while 90% of issuers were on Stable Outlooks. Most importantly, there were no defaults by the end of 2025.

“GCC issuances were strong at the start of 2026, with many entities aiming to benefit from favourable conditions ahead of the typical Ramadan slowdown. GCC debt capital market (DCM) outstanding reached USD1.2 trillion as of March 9, 2026, up 14% year on year, with 63% of issuance denominated in US dollars. Sukuk issuance rose to a record 41% share of GCC DCM volumes, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE making up the majority of GCC DCM outstanding, followed by Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman. Sukuk in EMs rose to 16% of all dollar DCM issuance in 2025 (excluding China; 2024: 12%). Local-currency GCC sukuk and bonds continue to be issued, mainly by sovereigns,” Fitch remarked.

While funding needs and diversification priorities remain key focus areas for Gulf countries, governments and issuers are now seeking broader liquidity channels.

Fitch sees issuers planning their funding activities well in advance, particularly for large maturities, which will help limit immediate refinancing pressure.

“Despite heightened geopolitical challenges in recent years, GCC issuer activity has rebounded quickly once tensions eased, with market access broadly maintained for many issuers. However, the duration and scale of the conflict in the Middle East have already surpassed the 2025 Twelve-Day War, testing new levels of market uncertainty,” the agency noted.

MENA (Middle East and North Africa) sukuk continues to trade tighter than bonds originating in the region, reflecting sustained and broader demand, including from Islamic banks, with yield widening more pronounced among non-investment grade issuers. The yield-to-maturity (YTM) on the S&P Global High Yield Sukuk Index rose to 6.61% on 10th March 2026, up from 5.82% on 27th February (a 79bp increase).

“Similar periods of yield widening have occurred, particularly in times of heightened geopolitical or Sharia-related uncertainty. However, the current YTM movement remains below the peak levels recorded in earlier episodes,” Fitch concluded.

The post Middle East tensions: Fitch issues outlook for sukuk issuances appeared first on International Finance.

“We estimate about half of their total funding, including debt and capital, has been financed by the Public Investment Fund. Recourse to bank borrowing is low but has been increasing. We expect banks’ giga-project financing to rise as projects approach operational phases and financing can be supported by cash flows,” the rating agency said.

Fitch estimates that bank financing to giga projects was a modest 5%-7% of average sector loans at end-2025. New project awards fell by almost 50% in 2025, but the value of contracts awarded since 2022 is about USD 435 billion, providing significant business opportunities for banks. This should put total exposure to giga projects, both on- and off-balance-sheet, below 10% of the sector’s combined credit risk, the report claimed.

“Delays in giga-project execution or substantial recalibration of their scale could affect the banking sector’s asset-quality metrics in the longer term. However, current low exposure means the projects are unlikely to lead to significant increases in system-wide Stage 2 and Stage 3 loan ratios in 2026-2027,” the report said.

Fitch expects financing requirements for broader “Vision 2030” diversification projects to translate into sustained strong bank loan growth, despite the announced recalibration.

“This will, in turn, drive greater diversification of Saudi banks’ funding sources, underpinning further growth of Saudi Arabia’s debt capital markets, including international issuance,” the agency continued, while adding, that Saudi banks’ exposure to these giga-projects remains modest but is likely to rise as some projects become operational.

“We expect banks’ giga-project financing to rise as projects approach operational phases and financing can be supported by cash flows. We believe this type of financing mostly carries risk-weighting of around 80%-130%, so greater lending to these initiatives could weigh on capital. This, coupled with more stringent capital regulation, could encourage banks to make greater use of tools such as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and significant risk transfers (SRTs) to relieve pressure on capital ratios, or to adjust their dividend payouts,” Fitch remarked.

The post Saudi Vision 2030 giga projects to top USD 1 trillion: Fitch appeared first on International Finance.

The official launch took place on February 7 at the Grand Egyptian Museum, attended by Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, Minister of Planning and Economic Development Rania Al-Mashat, key members of the entrepreneurial ministerial group, the governor of Giza, ambassadors, and various stakeholders from the startup ecosystem and venture capital funds.

“The Startup Charter represents a strategic framework to enhance the capabilities of startups and the entrepreneurial ecosystem, aiming for rapid, sustainable economic growth driven by competitiveness and innovation, while also contributing to job creation. The initiative follows over a year of consultations involving 15 national entities and more than 250 representatives from the startup ecosystem, entrepreneurs, and parliamentary bodies,” according to an official statement from the Egyptian Cabinet. As outlined by the “Ministerial Group for Entrepreneurship,” the charter is designed to support up to 5,000 startups, generate an estimated 500,000 direct and indirect jobs, and accelerate international expansion.

Egypt’s startup ecosystem has gained significant traction in recent years, with ventures attracting USD 228 million in venture capital and debt financing during the first five months of 2025 alone, marking a notable increase from the 2024 situation. Official figures indicate that total funding for the sector reached USD 614 million in 2025, a sign of growing investor confidence and a more diverse financing landscape.

The charter has set out several key objectives over the next five years, including accelerating startup expansion into international markets, developing local talent to combat brain drain, promoting venture capital, and attracting investments through a unified financing initiative. It also seeks to connect critical challenges in various sectors with innovative solutions from startups.

While describing the reform as the first step toward modernising Egypt’s policies and legislation to better support startups, Al-Mashat further emphasised that the charter is not just a theoretical document but a practical and adaptable tool that will evolve to meet technological advancements and market needs. She further highlighted that the priorities of the charter were determined after extensive consultations with key stakeholders, aiming to create a dynamic and sustainable business environment that fosters innovation and attracts investment.

One key feature of the “Startup Charter” is the introduction of a unified definition of startups, newly established companies with a focus on rapid growth, flexibility, and innovation. This definition will allow startups to access a range of incentives and benefits, including official classification certifications from small and medium enterprise authorities.

“Additionally, it includes a unified financing initiative designed to coordinate available funding resources from government entities. The initiative aims to amplify the impact of these resources by up to four times, to mobilise USD 1 billion over the next five years through government-backed guarantees, joint investments with venture capital funds, and collaboration with private-sector investors,” Arab News reported.

The post Egypt unveils USD 1 billion Startup Charter to boost innovation, jobs appeared first on International Finance.

The region’s unique position is also a draw as the GCC offers a middle-ground risk and return profile standing between the low-risk, low-yield markets of the West and the higher-risk, high-yield opportunities in the East.

Maturing markets reduce risk

Industry experts observe that the GCC’s political and economic environment has stabilised significantly in recent years. Hugh Morris, Senior Research Partner at the consultancy Z/Yen, explains that as the market matures, perceptions of geopolitical risk in the region have improved. A more stable environment has, in turn, enabled a growing pipeline of infrastructure projects.

With risks now seen as lower, more investors are willing to compete for opportunities in the Gulf than ever before. In a global investment climate where low-risk assets with decent yields are scarce, the GCC’s balanced risk-reward profile is especially compelling to international financiers.

This improved climate has paved the way for greater collaboration among lenders. International banks, armed with large pools of capital and expertise in complex project financing, are increasingly partnering with local GCC banks that have invaluable on-the-ground knowledge and relationships.

Together, these partnerships blend global financial power with local insight to ensure projects are funded and executed effectively. These synergies help major developments get off the ground, as each party brings complementary strengths to the table.

Even with these positive trends, project finance deals are not without challenges. Many projects span 20 or more years, with loan repayment schedules commonly stretching over 12 to 25 years. Critically, loans are usually repaid from the project’s own revenues once it is operational, as sponsors do not typically guarantee the debt.

This structure means lenders shoulder significant risk, since repayment hinges entirely on the project’s success. Naturally, banks expect to earn a premium interest rate in return for taking on this risk. However, competition in today’s market is pushing lenders to offer more attractive terms to win business, even as they must adhere to strict capital adequacy rules. Balancing risk-based pricing with competitive financing packages has become a key focus for Gulf banks.

Diversification drives mega-projects

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) currently lead the region in large-scale project investments. A major driver behind this trend is the strategic push to diversify national economies away from oil and gas, building a sustainable post-oil future. Both countries benefit from centralised decision-making as directives from top leadership translate swiftly into infrastructure initiatives on the ground. For example, Saudi Arabia has embarked on pioneering projects in green hydrogen energy, and the UAE has made a bold entry into nuclear power. Saudi Arabia’s $50 billion Al Diriyah development near Riyadh aims to create a cultural and tourist hub, echoing Dubai’s success in drawing international visitors.

Despite this ambitious pipeline, not everything is rosy. A spokesperson for Bank ABC points out that there remains an estimated $5 trillion annual investment gap globally for clean energy, highlighting shortcomings in meeting climate targets after COP29.

The bank argues that financial institutions must play a greater leadership role in bridging this gap. This reality highlights why so many Gulf-based banks and investors are concentrating their efforts on funding renewable energy and other energy-transition projects.

Rise of social infrastructure

Another notable shift in the Gulf’s project finance landscape is the growth of social infrastructure projects such as hospitals, schools, and public amenities, which are often structured as public-private partnerships (PPPs). Ehab Nassar, a director at Fitch Ratings, observes that this trend is driven by the same strategy of reducing reliance on oil revenues.

Governments in the GCC have been ramping up PPP frameworks to tap private-sector capital and expertise for public projects. Until the late 2010s, true project finance deals outside the oil and gas sector were relatively limited. Since then, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have introduced formal PPP programmes as part of their economic diversification agendas.

Not every major project in the region uses a PPP structure. For instance, Abu Dhabi’s Barakah nuclear power plant is a cornerstone of the UAE’s clean energy strategy. It was financed through a more traditional mix of government support and international investment rather than a typical PPP, combining debt and equity in its funding.

It was backed by over $18 billion in loans from the Abu Dhabi government and international lenders (including KEXIM), plus an equity investment of $4.7 billion from a joint venture between Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).

Because the plant will help decarbonise the UAE’s power grid, the authorities classified its financing as a green loan, emphasising its contribution to the country’s green economy goals. In July 2023, once the plant was operational, two major Emirati lenders, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and First Abu Dhabi Bank, stepped in to refinance a large portion of the project’s debt, taking over the loan facilities that KEXIM had initially provided.

Innovative financing structures

Project financiers in the GCC are also experimenting with new deal structures to improve funding efficiency. One notable evolution, highlighted by Abbas Husain of Standard Chartered, is the use of “hard mini-perm” financing coupled with long-term off-take agreements.

In these arrangements, a project’s initial bank loan might have a shorter tenor, effectively requiring refinancing after a few years, while the project itself benefits from a long-term concession or purchase contract.

This approach shifts much of the refinancing risk to the off-taker and offers two key benefits. There are lower initial financing costs and greater liquidity from banks to kick-start construction. Such projects often plan to refinance later by issuing project bonds or securing longer-term commercial loans once the development is operational.

For infrastructure projects where the off-taker does not shoulder refinancing risk, developers typically secure long-term bank loans up front. Export credit agency (ECA) financing and other government-backed loans remain crucial in these cases, providing stability with low interest rates over long tenors and often coming with guarantees or insurance that enhance the project’s credit profile. By boosting the project’s credit quality in this way, such support makes it more attractive to a broader range of investors.

Refinancing for cost optimisation

Once projects are up and running, many Gulf sponsors seek to refinance their debt on better terms. According to Mazen Singer, a partner in infrastructure finance at PwC Middle East, most project owners look to refinance about five to eight years after a project becomes operational. By that stage, construction is complete, operations have stabilised, and revenue streams are more predictable.

The project’s risk profile improves significantly. Refinancing at this point can lower the overall cost of capital and optimise the debt structure. In some cases, it even allows sponsors to free up capital for new developments. If one waits much longer, those advantages diminish, and once a loan’s remaining term becomes short, the potential savings from refinancing are far more limited.

The pool of financiers and investors has also widened as the GCC market matures. Singer notes that more export credit agencies are now involved in Gulf projects. In addition, specialised infrastructure funds are drawn to mature, cash-generating (brownfield) assets, and local capital markets are growing more open to project bond issuances.

Husain of Standard Chartered adds that improved regulatory and governance frameworks, clearer procurement processes, and high-calibre project sponsors have made banks much more comfortable with regional project risks.

Strong sovereign support underpins many deals, and often the off-taker is a state-owned utility or the obligation is backed by a government ministry. This backing substantially reduces perceived credit risk and has enabled banks to offer financing at more competitive rates than in the past.

Thanks to an expanding track record of completed projects, investors now see a pipeline of successful ventures in the GCC, which builds confidence that each new project is a sound investment. These successes, and the collaborative financing behind them, demonstrate the Gulf governments’ determination to construct a prosperous post-oil future.

However, industry veterans caution that financial discipline is still needed. Hugh Morris cautions that regulators must prevent investors from over-leveraging projects and taking excessive returns, as such practices could undermine long-term infrastructure sustainability.

The future of project financing

While progress in Gulf project finance has been impressive, experts note certain challenges remain. One issue is the lack of historical precedent in the region for some project finance scenarios, which breeds uncertainty for lenders. For example, there is still little proven case law on how readily lenders can enforce their security interests if a project runs into trouble.

Another concern is limited transparency and information sharing, which makes it harder for outside investors to gauge project risks. All of these gaps point to the need for stronger legal and regulatory frameworks across the GCC to reduce uncertainty and build long-term confidence. Notably, regulatory development is not uniform across the bloc. The UAE and Saudi Arabia boast the most advanced frameworks and capital markets, while smaller economies are still catching up.

Industry analysts suggest several steps that could further strengthen the Gulf’s project finance ecosystem. One suggestion is the standardisation of PPP frameworks. Uniform PPP laws and contracts across the region would make projects more bankable and attract international lenders. Another idea is to develop secondary markets.

An active trading of infrastructure debt and equity would facilitate refinancing and let banks recycle capital into new projects. Finally, there is a shifting refinancing risk to off-takers. If utilities (project off-takers) bear future refinancing obligations, initial lenders can free up capacity, boosting liquidity for new projects.

With ongoing regulatory advancements and collaboration among stakeholders, the GCC is positioned to become a leader in the next phase of global infrastructure finance. However, sustaining this momentum will require more than just money. It also calls for developing human capital.

Analysts like Mazen Singer emphasise the importance of cultivating local expertise and institutional capacity in project finance. By training professionals and nurturing national champions in the industry, Gulf countries can ensure that the ambitious projects of today lead to a lasting legacy of knowledge and prosperity.

The post The Gulf’s new capital play appeared first on International Finance.

Why must we accept the premise that a nation so unbelievably rich in gold, coltan, and tungsten, a nation that should be an economic powerhouse, is instead condemned to perpetual, bloody volatility? Tell me why, when the answer is staring us directly in the face, who profits?

The chaos you observe in Eastern DRC is manufactured, financed, and a guaranteed revenue stream for the powerful patrons operating just across the border, using their immediate geographical advantage as an economic tool.

Look at the resurgence of the March 23 Movement, the M23, a powerful armed group whose very origins are rooted in the devastating aftermath of the 1990s Rwandan genocide, confirming that this cycle of conflict is deep, historical, and externally driven.

The M23 claims to fight against systemic discrimination of ethnic Tutsis, a convenient political fiction designed to provide cover for their true, brutal objective, the military and economic control over the vast mineral wealth of North Kivu.

Their security claims are merely a shield, a flimsy pretext for securing lucrative, unregulated artisanal mining sectors, ensuring that external patrons can deny responsibility while the resource drain continues unabated.

The M23’s latest offensive is the most damning evidence of their capabilities and their explicit state-level backing. This was a sophisticated military campaign culminating in the seizure of Goma, the provincial capital of North Kivu, in January 2025, a decisive military and logistical victory.

Immediately after the conquest, the M23 plunged hundreds of thousands of civilians into chaos, creating a humanitarian siege by severely restricting crucial aid access and consolidating territorial control through sheer terror.

This pattern is clear: M23 advances directly correlate with spikes in resource extraction and export by neighbouring states, proving that state policy is deliberately designed to maintain chaos just across the border, creating a vast, lawless, and profitable extraction zone disguised as a conflict zone, a war sustained by calculated, cold-blooded design.

Who truly arms the proxy

How can we continue to describe the M23 as a local rebel force operating independently or on scraps of local funding? It is an absurdity. How can a decentralised militia repeatedly defeat a national army, capture strategic cities like Goma, and even push towards Bukavu, utilising military tactics and resources only available to a sovereign state? The answer is laid bare in the explicit and absolutely damning findings of the United Nations Group of Experts.

The evidence presented by the United Nations (UN) is conclusive, it is undeniable, and an indictment. As far back as December 2022, the UN Group of Experts provided clear, verifiable evidence that a neighbouring state, specifically naming the Rwandan Defence Force, provided material, operational, and logistical support to the March 23 Movement.

This is a documented indictment of state sponsorship of an armed group involved in systematic atrocities, representing a serious violation of international law and the sovereignty of the DRC, is it not?

The final 2024 report of the Group of Experts, S/2024/432, confirmed the profound and continuing external involvement, noting the unauthorised presence of external forces operating in the Eastern DRC in a manner inconsistent with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC.

The most crucial, most strategically significant detail confirming this state-level involvement is the documented deployment of sophisticated weaponry, including surface-to-air missiles, by this neighbouring state, alongside occurrences of GPS jamming and spoofing activities.

It confirms only one thing: the M23 is acting as a fully integrated, heavily armed proxy force, directly challenging DRC sovereignty and escalating the conflict far beyond traditional guerrilla warfare. This is a professionalised, state-sponsored military project, where the M23 is used as a shield to test advanced military doctrines and technologies, all while the sponsoring state denies direct involvement to avoid international sanctions and accountability.

Despite these explicit UN findings detailing state sponsorship, the deployment of SAMs, and sovereignty violation, effective international sanctions targeting the sponsoring state have been conspicuously absent, sending a clear, criminal signal that the financial benefits of the war economy currently outweigh the political will to enforce accountability. What an outrage.

How conflict minerals escape

The core motivation for sustaining this violence is simple: it is rapacious, it is entirely about resources. Eastern DRC holds some of the world’s most extensive deposits of critical raw materials, minerals essential to global electronics and high-end consumer markets, including gold and the so-called 3Ts, Cassiterite, Coltan, and Wolframite, the sources of tin, tantalum, and tungsten.

These minerals move through supply chains that are intentionally opaque, beginning in isolated artisanal mines and ending up in your smartphones, your medical devices, and your aircraft components, illustrating the direct, bloody connection between Congolese suffering and global consumption.

The structure of this resource extraction maximises profit while minimising local benefit. The majority of mining in Eastern DRC is artisanal, conducted with minimal mechanisation, existing either in a legal grey area or entirely outside government control.

This extra-legal status is fundamentally critical because it leaves the miners, who have no recourse to legitimate government protection, completely open to ruthless exploitation by armed groups. The M23 and other militias enforce systemic exploitation and what the UN refers to as modern slavery, subjecting miners, including children, to inhumane working conditions to secure their revenue streams, the hidden human cost of your digital life.

Once extracted, these resources, which include gold generating millions of dollars yearly for armed groups, are immediately moved through local sales agents, negociants, and trading houses, comptoirs. This is the moment of laundering, the critical juncture where the Congolese blood mineral is washed clean by being deliberately blended with minerals sourced from other, supposedly conflict-free sources.

Neighbouring countries, including Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and Tanzania, play a significant and necessary role in these routes, acting as jurisdictional laundering hubs, providing the final, sanitised export receipt.

Groups like the FDLR and other armed factions obtain millions of dollars yearly from gold alone, gold that is immediately trafficked through neighbouring countries like Uganda and Burundi. The M23, leveraging its state backing, taps directly into this immense resource drain, ensuring its substantial war chest remains perpetually full regardless of international outcry.

Resource extraction and re-export constitute a core, illicit component of the economic policy of M23’s patrons, designed to capture and monetise Congolese wealth under the convenient cover of legitimate commodity trading.

Despite international mandates like the US Dodd-Frank Act requiring due diligence for these minerals, the system is demonstrably porous and totally ineffective, allowing countries with advanced processing capacity, like Rwanda with its gold refinery, to act as essential hubs, meaning global consumers are unwittingly subsidising the M23’s campaign of terror. Is that not a sickening reality?

Statistical evidence of economic fraud

If the political pronouncements of neighbouring capitals are built on systematic denials, then the trade statistics are the hard, quantifiable evidence of their deep economic deception. We must confront the trade figures directly.

How, we must ask, do countries with relatively small-scale domestic mining operations suddenly become disproportionate global exporters of high-value Congolese minerals? The data consistently reveals an undeniable economic fraud, a Great Mineral Mirage constructed solely to mask massive resource theft from the DRC.

Look at the stark contradiction evident in Rwanda’s coltan exports. Coltan is essential for capacitors in mobile devices, and its trade is subject to international scrutiny. Since 2022, the precise period that coincides with the M23’s latest, most destructive offensive, Rwanda’s coltan exports have increased sharply, yet its domestic tantalum production has demonstrably stagnated, an impossible economic feat without illicit imports.

This is a statistical confession, mirroring patterns from the 1990s when Rwandan forces controlled much of the DRC, and Rwanda became a leading coltan exporter despite mining none of the mineral themselves at the time. The M23 provides the military mechanism, and Kigali provides the legally sanitised export documentation.

The gold trade offers an even more egregious statistical disparity that quantifies the sheer scale of the theft. Rwanda exported an enormous $555.7 million in gold in 2022. Contrast this enormous sum with the official bilateral trade figures from the DRC, which show that it exported only $3.5 million in gold to Uganda in 2023.

This massive, hundreds of millions of dollars gap in highly liquid, untraceable wealth demonstrates conclusively that the vast majority of Congolese gold, forcibly extracted by armed groups, is being illegally funnelled directly into neighbouring states’ official export ledgers.

Rwanda also holds disproportionate global market shares in other key Congolese minerals, reporting 31% of total global tungsten exports and 14% of total tin exports in 2022, confirming Rwanda’s role as the primary consolidation and re-export hub for 3Ts forcibly sourced from the DRC. The figures confirming the reliance on laundered resources are indisputable.

The toll of unchecked violence

We have established the financial incentives and the geopolitical machinations fuelling this conflict, but we must never, ever allow the statistics of trade to overshadow the staggering human price paid for every illicit ounce of gold and every illicit shipment of coltan that leaves the Congo. This is an escalating human rights catastrophe, where the M23’s advances translate directly into mass death, displacement, and systematic terror, confirmed by the evidence.

The humanitarian landscape in Eastern DRC was already dire, with over 21 million people requiring humanitarian aid, one of the highest figures worldwide. The M23’s renewed offensive has exacerbated this crisis to unimaginable levels. Between January and February 2025 alone, the M23’s expansion displaced over 1.15 million individuals across North and South Kivu.

Critically, 660,513 of these were people who had already been displaced, confirming that the M23 specifically targets vulnerable populations to maximise territorial clearance and control. Approximately one million people have been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring countries, an entire population dispossessed.

The M23’s method of conquest involves war crimes and atrocities utilised as a systematic tool of control, not accidental collateral damage. Reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm summary executions, arbitrary killings, and the widespread use of gender-based violence, constituting war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity.

In Goma, following the January 2025 occupation, Human Rights Watch documented the summary execution of at least 21 civilians in the Kasika neighbourhood, emphasising that these were deliberate acts carried out to solidify control through sheer terror. Witnesses recounted M23 fighters going house-to-house, summarily killing every adult male they found and subjecting scores of women to rape, heinous, unspeakable crimes.

The deliberate targeting of infrastructure and aid demonstrates the clear intent to maximise civilian suffering and create a humanitarian siege. Humanitarian infrastructure and warehouses have been systematically looted, severely compromising the necessary humanitarian response, with large quantities of food, medicine, and essential medical supplies lost in targeted attacks on UN agencies and non-governmental organisations.

With the Goma airport closed and most roads connecting the city inaccessible due to M23 restrictions, the control exerted by the proxy force effectively isolates vulnerable populations, weaponising hunger and disease to drive displacement and secure unpopulated mineral zones. It is monstrous.

Global accountability is essential

The narrative is now undeniably clear. The evidence, presented by the United Nations and confirmed by trade statistics, is overwhelming. The M23 conflict is a sophisticated, self-funding economic enterprise, a cycle of violence deliberately orchestrated by state patrons and fuelled by the illicit profits of gold and coltan. We have seen the UN indictments, we have seen the quantifiable statistical anomalies, and we have documented the devastating human cost, so why, why does the world remain silent? It is a question of profound moral failure.

The international paralysis is fundamentally geopolitical, driven by the very interests that profit from the conflict. Regional diplomatic efforts intended to broker peace, such as the Luanda and Nairobi processes, have repeatedly collapsed under the weight of vested interests and profound mistrust between Kinshasa and the neighbouring capitals.

When the DRC government insisted that the Luanda Process remain strictly between sovereign states, refusing to commit to dialogue with the M23, the sponsoring state effectively cancelled a scheduled peace agreement, demonstrating that the proxy force itself is utilised as the central obstruction to a durable peace, a cynical display of power.

The failure of regional mechanisms, coupled with the lack of decisive international action following the UN’s explicit findings of external state support and the deployment of sophisticated weaponry, creates an environment of absolute, total impunity.

The operational nexus of the war economy is undeniable. External state support enables M23 operations, which secures artisanal mines through systematic terror, which funds the armed groups, which funnels resources through neighbouring export hubs, and this entire, horrific cycle is successfully shielded by global diplomatic inertia. How can we stand for this? The current system of supply chain due diligence, designed to prevent conflict mineral trade, has failed spectacularly, demonstrably. What more proof do we need? We must recognise that until the financial lifeline of the M23 is severed, the violence will continue unabated. Therefore, the international community has a profound moral and legal obligation to act decisively, to stop hiding behind process, and to impose targeted accountability. This requires immediate, verifiable sanctions targeting the specific corporate entities, the trading houses, and the smelters operating in neighbouring states that participate in mineral blending and laundering.

We must move beyond the abstract notion of “conflict minerals” to target the concrete financial structures that monetise the violence, directly targeting the estimated millions of dollars yearly that bankroll this war. The world must starve the war economy, impose rigorous accountability upon the state patrons who enable it, and demand that the flow of blood minerals stops funding the conflict that continues to condemn one of the world’s richest nations to absolute poverty and ceaseless violence. We must break this cycle, or we will remain eternally complicit in the crime.

The post Eastern Congo’s stolen future appeared first on International Finance.