7 key emerging messages gleaned from Fullerton's fixed income team at the annual IMF meet:
- Rates reflect evolving growth, inflation and financing dynamics.
- Competition for capital is intensifying.
- Market discipline replaces policy space.
- Energy’s inflation pass-through adds to cyclical inflation risks.
- AI is a growth engine and a concentration risk.
- Geoeconomic fragmentation is structural.
- Emerging-market resilience is conditional.
Key takeaways from policymakers and market participants discussions at the IMF Annual Meeting from 14–16 October 2026
The broad message from Bangkok is one of resilience and a “New World Order”, where emerging themes will re-shape the investment opportunity set ahead. Economic activity has proven to be more robust than expected, with investments in artificial intelligence (AI) being a key focal point. Across discussions, speakers presented a more demanding backdrop – higher government borrowing, heavy investment needs, energy and trade disruptions, and less room for policy error. Amid this backdrop, capital markets are re-pricing to the evolving dynamics.
The mood can be described as cautiously resilient. A set of transformative forces are emerging, which have significant impact on global macro conditions and fixed income markets. Amid higher global yields, the cost and availability of capital are being altered – heavier sovereign borrowing, investment in artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure, energy and supply-chain disruptions, and a more fragmented global economy are re-configuring how investors are re-examining fixed income. These forces are inter-connected. They support growth in some areas, influence the inflation outlook, increase competition for long-dated funding, and reduces the room for policy error.
Seven takeaways from the discussions
1. Rates reflect evolving growth, inflation and financing dynamics
The US 10-year Treasury yield was a recurring reference point. Selected investment practitioners noted that it had risen by about 100 basis points throughout the course of 2026, to around 5.2% at that time (in mid-October), well above the level markets had anticipated at the start of the year. Other views however argued that US monetary policy was not restrictive, while discussion of the long-end focused on the combined effect of government borrowing actions, AI-related issuance, changes in Japanese demand for US treasuries, and a more price-sensitive US Treasury buyer base.
There was no single “one size fits all” explanation for the move. Views ranged from a more growth-led interpretation to higher cyclical inflation; while other speakers emphasised term-premium and fiscal concerns (as governments issue more debt to fund the deficits). In a scenario where governments, corporates and households carry more debt, even a modest increase in rates has a large effect on interest bills and asset valuations.
The debate itself captures the overlapping factors – stronger growth can support yields, but a rise driven by financing requirements, or rising risk premiums will still have knock-on implications for valuations and borrowers. Participants differed on how persistent these forces would be.
2. Competition for capital is intensifying
Participants described 2026 as a potential record year for global debt and equity issuance. One estimate put issuance at about US$5 trillion set against an investable pool of roughly US$220 trillion. That pool is large, and comprises of issuers across sovereigns (to fund defence, energy security, and grid upgrades); hyperscalers (to finance data centres, computing capacity ,and power infrastructure build-outs); as well as other corporates that need to restructure their supply chains and pursue merger activity.
The competition is particularly visible at longer maturities, where the tech companies’ infrastructure funding needs increasingly square off against sovereign issuance for investors’ allocation. Pension and insurance investors can absorb some supply, but discussions at the various sessions suggest buyers demanding greater compensation (i.e. yield) amidst the heightened competition for capital.
Some participants viewed this combination of record supply and price-sensitive buyers as potentially increasing competition for duration. They also noted that the price of duration is 7 now increasingly influenced by a mix of sovereign borrowing trends, corporate investment actions, and investor capacity.
3. Market discipline replaces policy space
Another concern observed by industry participants was the gap between benign and calm pricing in some risk assets, against the strain in others. At that time of the conference in October, selected economists have described this combination of higher yields, equities near highs (albeit this has come off in early November), and tight spreads as unusual, warning against assuming markets could absorb an adjustment without consequence.
Others highlighted how leverage and repo funding in the non-bank space could transmit fiscal stress more quickly than what the headline indicators or debt ratios alone suggest. A rapid move in yields or volatility in this area could accelerate de-leveraging and amplify any initial shocks. Credit market discussions also pointed to the divergence taking place – where investment grade debt had been more resilient, while non-investment grade and vulnerable credits were showing signs of re-pricing. The discussions recognised that policymakers retain a range of tools, with market conditions influencing how and when they are deployed.
4. Energy’s inflation pass-through adds to cyclical inflation risks
In discussions on energy, the focus was on how higher oil and diesel costs are transmitted through transport, food and production channels, and whether the effects persist further out in terms of wages, services and inflation expectations. Policymakers are attentive to second order effects, even where growth is soft. Japan was discussed as an example of inflation pressure persisting despite soft growth. Estimates shared during the discussion put headline CPI of about 1.7% with energy subsidies, versus roughly 2.5% without them, alongside producer-price inflation near 7% and several years of wage growth around 3%.
The debate centred mostly on the timing of inflation pass-through effects and the risk that temporary relief measures mask or are ineffective in dealing with the underlying pressures. This uncertainty complicates the path for central banks and keeps inflation pass-through in their conversation even as growth risks remain.
5. AI is a growth engine and a concentration risk
AI was discussed not simply as a technology theme. While it was widely acknowledged that the AI megatrend is supporting widespread productivity gains, it is also coming to fore as a major financing and macroeconomic force. Industry observers cited estimates of roughly US$10 trillion in global AI spending over seven years. This scale of investment is shifting large technology companies from an asset-light, software-oriented model towards a capital-intensive infrastructure one – comprising of data centres, chips manufacturing and raw processing power, turning them into substantial issuers of debt and equity capital in the process, to fund their new operating model.
The key question raised was whether revenue growth and productivity gains will validate the scale and timing of that spending. If monetisation lags, adjustments could be felt across technology equities, corporate bonds and private credit. AI therefore presents concentration risk albeit being a potential source of growth, while adding to the competition for longer-dated capital at the same time.
6. Geoeconomic fragmentation is structural
Participants described trade as changing shape – adapting, rather than disappearing altogether in this “New World Order”. Tariffs, export controls and regulatory differences are encouraging more regional supply chains (China Plus One); and in some cases, separate operating models for different markets. While China remains central to global production, companies are looking to diversify rather than abandon trade entirely. This can create opportunities for economies that can attract new manufacturing and technology investment. Observers noted that global trade can continue growing, with AI-related exports and technology equipment among the winners and Southeast Asia among the potential beneficiaries.
The discussions also drew a distinction between diversifying away from reliance on the US dollar versus abandoning it. Alternative payment channels are growing (example: mBridge, CIPS, or the e-CNY), but the framing of these emerging platforms was one of investors’ hedging their bets and gradual adjustment, not an abrupt monetary break from the USD. For bond investors, this development argues for monitoring both capital flows and the institutional framework encouraging such actions. Amidst ongoing discussion, the broader concern that frequently came to play was that global fragmentation makes supply, inflation and currency spillovers less predictable.
7. Emerging-market resilience is conditional
Many Emerging Markets entered this period with stronger policy frameworks, more flexible currencies, improved external balances and more credible central banks than in previous cycles. These improvements have helped some currencies and local bond markets withstand global volatility. But resilience is uneven and highly dependent on conditions beyond domestic growth – US rate direction, energy prices, currency effect pass-through, fiscal credibility and access to financing all matter.
Country discussions at the forum illustrated the divergence. Mexico’s limited rate differential and possible further US tightening were seen as constraints; Türkiye’s rate cuts were described as “cutting without easing”; and India’s response to supply-side and energy pressures underscored the inflation challenge. At the same time, Emerging Market sovereigns are also competing with advanced economy governments and hyperscalers for that same long-term capital from discerning investors. The relevant question is not simply which market offers the highest yield, but whether the policy mix, external financing profile, and market liquidity can support that yield through periods of stress.
The road ahead: Selective fixed income positioning amid a more nuanced global backdrop
Taken together, the seven themes above form an inter-connected account of the discussions. AI investment and public borrowing are increasing demand for long-term funding. Energy shocks and fragmented supply chains make the inflation outlook more uncertain. These developments are shaping fixed income market outcomes, with funding dynamics and issuer fundamentals influencing relative performance. For fixed income investors, understanding how these forces interact is important when assessing opportunities.
Higher all-in yields improve the starting point for fixed income investors, but do not remove the need for selectivity and diligence. Income can play a larger role in total returns, while duration may be assessed against both the policy cycle and structural forces at play. Credit quality, liquidity and re-financing capacity deserve close attention, while Emerging Market exposure calls for country-level analysis of policy credibility and external resilience. In a world where capital is abundant but increasingly contested, methodical and disciplined portfolio construction matters.
Bangkok did not produce a single directional call on bonds, equities or the dollar. It did leave a consistent impression however – that the global economy has shown an ability to absorb shocks, but the financial system is very discerning between weak funding plans, uncertain policy and crowded exposures. The conference conversations were therefore less about whether capital is available than about who can best attract it, at what price, and with what capacity to withstand evolving conditions.
This piece summarises the mood and various discussions that took place at the 2026 IMF conference in Bangkok. It reflects the views presented by various participants at the time and is for information purposes only. It is not to be construed as investment advice or a recommendation.
Important Information
No offer or invitation is considered to be made if such offer is not authorised or permitted. This is not the basis for any contract to deal in any security or instrument, or for Fullerton Fund Management Company Ltd (UEN: 200312672W) (“Fullerton”) or its affiliates to enter into or arrange any type of transaction. Any investments made are not obligations of, deposits in, or guaranteed by Fullerton. The contents herein may be amended without notice. Fullerton, its affiliates and their directors and employees, do not accept any liability from the use of this publication. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified, although Fullerton Fund Management Company Ltd. (UEN: 200312672W) (“Fullerton”) believes it to be fair and not misleading. Such information is solely indicative and may be subject to modification from time to time. The contents herein may be amended without notice. Fullerton, its affiliates and their directors and employees, do not accept any liability from the use of this publication.
Reference to any specific securities in this article is for illustration purpose only and does not represent Fullerton’s current view of the security or constitute any recommendation.