As international tensions rise, the financial world is increasingly shaped by conflicts, sanctions, and political disputes. Professionals across banking, asset management, and policy need a clear lens through which to assess how these disruptive forces travel from headlines to balance sheets.
From the corridors of central banks to trading floors, the repercussions of geopolitical events ripple across asset prices, capital flows, and economic growth. By exploring definitions, mechanisms, concrete examples, and mitigation strategies, this article aims to guide institutions and investors in navigating an era where threat, realization and escalation define market volatility.
At its core, geopolitical risk encapsulates the threat, realization and escalation of wars, terrorism, sanctions, and state tensions that disrupt trade, finance, and diplomacy. The Caldara–Iacoviello framework, adopted by the IMF, MSCI, and ECB, emphasizes three stages: threat signals, event occurrence, and potential escalation.
It is crucial to distinguish between mere threats—such as tariff rumors or military drills—and realized events like invasions or sweeping sanctions. Even before materialization, threats can alter risk premia, trigger sudden capital shifts, and ignite currency swings. Once realized, the economic toll manifests in trade disruptions, supply-chain breakdowns, and strained banking systems.
In the post-2020 landscape, geopolitical risk has vaulted to the top of financial risk registers. The ECB now treats it as a key supervisory priority for banks, given how shocks transmit through credit, market, and funding channels.
A 2025 EY survey found that 91% of chief risk officers ranked geopolitical conditions among their top five concerns for the next three years. Nearly two-thirds have already curtailed lending in exposed regions, while over half tightened standards. Industrywide, 84% of respondents to a DTCC survey labeled geopolitical risk as the #1 threat alongside cyber attacks.
On a macro scale, the World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report warns that rising economic nationalism and tariff volatility are stalling long-term corporate planning. Some estimates place the cost of geoeconomic fragmentation index tracking between $0.6 trillion and $5.7 trillion as competing blocs emerge.
Geopolitical shocks penetrate financial systems through multiple pathways. Their effects are rarely isolated, instead cascading across markets, national economies, and institutional balance sheets.
Together, these pathways create feedback loops. For example, asset volatility undercuts investor sentiment, which leads to tighter bank lending, further dampening economic activity.
Tariffs and sanctions directly hamper cross-border trade, elevating costs and reducing the volume of goods, services, and investments. According to ECB analysis, uncertainty around the war in Ukraine during 2022–24 shaved roughly three percentage points from GDP growth in Central and Eastern Europe and drove inflation higher.
On the banking front, geopolitical shocks can materialize as higher non-performing loans, funding strains, and operational breaches. A Boston Fed study in 2025 showed that banks with sizable foreign branches saw elevated credit risk following major international events. At the same time, the share of EU banks suffering successful cyber attacks nearly tripled, exacerbating reputational and liquidity pressures.
The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has unsettled European energy markets, contributing to persistent inflation and prompting central banks to adjust policy rates. Major geopolitical events tend to generate declines in equity markets that are up to seven times larger than typical shocks, according to IMF research.
In 2025, “Tariff Tuesday” episodes—where the U.S. imposed sudden levies on Canada, China, and Mexico—drove the 10-year Treasury yield to a 2-year high of 4.592% and sent the U.S. dollar tumbling nearly 10% year-to-date. These abrupt policy moves chilled investor sentiment, disrupted corporate planning, and forced banks to rerate credit and liquidity risk.
Regional conflicts like the Israel-Hamas war have also strained global energy and shipping routes, leading to supply-chain bottlenecks that elevated commodity prices and squeezed corporate margins.
While geopolitical events cannot be predicted with certainty, institutions can shield themselves by adopting resilient frameworks. A diversified portfolio, robust scenario analysis, and nimble liquidity management are essential.
Leaders should foster collaboration between risk, treasury, and trading desks to ensure that emerging political signals translate swiftly into portfolio adjustments and capital allocations.
Geopolitical risk has elevated from a niche concern to a defining feature of modern finance. From banks tightening credit lines to sovereign bond spreads surging, the financial impacts are profound and far-reaching.
By embracing rigorous scenario planning and agile risk management, institutions and investors can navigate turbulent geopolitical waters, turning uncertainty into opportunity and preserving long-term stability in an interconnected world.
References
