Polestar is headquartered in Sweden, listed on Nasdaq, and manufactures vehicles in South Carolina. Yet when it came to maintaining access to the US market, those markers of global integration mattered less than the ownership structure behind it. Following a decision under new US connected vehicle restrictions, Polestar will no longer be permitted to sell future vehicle models in the American market. The decisive factor was not product, compliance, or operations, but its Chinese ownership structure.

For multinational companies operating across increasingly fragmented geopolitical markets, that should command attention. Polestar is not an isolated story. It is the latest expression of a regulatory logic that has been gaining momentum for years -one increasingly focused not simply on what companies do, but who ultimately controls them. To understand how this logic developed, it helps to look at the pattern that came before.

Written with Anita Ng (Kompass Advisory)

Founders building frontier technology companies spend enormous time on product, talent, speed, valuation, and dilution -far less on the structure forming around the company during its earliest financing rounds, even though those decisions often shape far more than ownership. Financing is often secured before the strategic value of those technologies is fully understood. By the time governments, investors, or acquirers pay close attention, the legal and commercial relationships surrounding the company are already deeply embedded.

Competition over frontier technology no longer begins at scale - it begins at the level of ecosystem design itself. Countries are increasingly competing not simply to attract startups, but to shape the capital, infrastructure, and institutions through which strategically important companies are built. Because capital in strategically sensitive sectors is increasingly not a neutral commodity, that choice is a strategic decision about where ...

Geopolitical rivalry is reshaping the rules of trade - and Asia's leaders are saying so directly. At the Future of Asia forum in Tokyo, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim warned that export restrictions and industrial policies are increasingly being driven by strategic competition rather than economic logic, risking a division of the region into competing spheres that would force countries such as Malaysia to choose sides. His comments underscore the challenge facing many economies across Asia. Their prosperity has been built on openness, trade, investment, technology partnerships, and access to multiple markets. As geopolitical competition intensifies, many governments are seeking to preserve those relationships rather than narrow them.

Malaysia's response has been pragmatic. Alongside discussions on artificial intelligence, critical minerals, maritime cooperation, and energy security, it continues to position itself as a trusted manufacturing, logistics, and investment destination. Newly signed agreements with Japan on energy ...

The disruption around the Strait of Hormuz and freshly announced US plans to levy additional duties on 60 economies are often discussed separately - one as a geopolitical and energy issue, the other as a trade war. In practice, both operate as geoeconomic pressures that compound each other. The challenge for companies is increasingly cumulative rather than isolated. Contingency plans are facing frequent twists. Assumptions embedded in existing supply-chain models are becoming unstable at the same time.

The Hormuz crisis squeezes shipping access, freight pricing, insurance costs, rerouting pressure, delivery reliability, and energy flows. This also causes heavy timing pressure from supply-chain rerouting, inventory repositioning, and logistics disruption. Companies accelerating shipments ahead of tariff deadlines are now competing for the same constrained carrier capacity that the Hormuz disruption has already tightened. Therefore, an additional layer of tariffs or even just uncertainty risks triggering another surge ...

Indonesia's latest move to centralize commodity exports through a state entity represents a significant shift in how strategic resources are governed. Unlike simple export restrictions or resource nationalism, Jakarta is restructuring the entire commercial architecture of the nickel market - replacing direct producer-to-buyer negotiation with centralized state control. At the centre of the proposed framework is Danantara Sumberdaya Indonesia (DSI), a trading company under Indonesia's sovereign wealth fund structure that will become the sole export channel through which producers of nickel, coal, palm oil, and other strategic resources sell to overseas buyers.

This is expected to fundamentally alter the commercial structure of Indonesia's commodity markets by replacing decentralized producer-to-buyer trade with a centralized state-run export system. For contracts already in place, the state will "evaluate" those that represent under-invoicing. Through overhauling governance and directly managing trades with foreign buyers, Indonesia is positioning itself to attract ...

The global trade system is not accidentally broken. It is being remade- by governments with incompatible visions of what it should become. What looks from the outside like chaos - tariffs on, tariffs off, court rulings, bilateral summits, retaliation regulations - are signs of geopolitical restructuring. The question for multinational executives is not whether stability will return. It is how to make consequential decisions before it does.

Three developments define the current moment: the judicial unravelling of US tariff orders; the Trump-Xi summit and the emergence of managed bilateralism as the preferred architecture of global trade; and China's counter-regulatory response, which is quietly making supply chain reconfiguration far more costly than most boardrooms have modelled. Businesses face pressure from both directions simultaneously - Washington pulling supply chains out of China, and Beijing making it costly to go. Every exit has a price. What the Courts ...

A three-way contest over the future of AI infrastructure is reshaping the conditions of global business. The way companies navigate overlapping regulatory and geopolitical frameworks will determine whether large-scale capital investments translate into sustained value creation or structural constraint.

Brussels, Beijing, and Washington are each developing distinct legal frameworks - AI laws, data regulations, export controls, national security powers, and investment screening mechanisms - that collectively govern the technology stack defining the next decade of economic activity. These instruments reflect individual policy priorities, and in several important respects produce incompatible obligations for businesses operating across all three jurisdictions. For firms deploying AI across borders, the result is not limited to incremental compliance complexity, but structural divergence in operating conditions. Decisions on architecture, vendor ecosystems, data geography, and market access increasingly sit at the intersection of capital allocation and