Welcome to 2026. Inflation is still sticky, real yields still matter, and markets can reprice fast when policy, geopolitics, and risk sentiment shift. 

With the next RBA decision approaching, the ASX can feel less like a local story and more like a window into the broader macro regime.

‍

• The next rate decision is about balancing inflation control, growth risks, and how the Australian dollar (AUD) responds to yield differentials and risk sentiment.
• Lenders can act as real-time signals for household and small and medium enterprise (SME) credit conditions as funding costs and competition shift.
• Names like MQG and GMG can be highly sensitive to global liquidity, risk appetite, and changes in discount rates. That can amplify moves when conditions change.

‍

1. Commonwealth Bank (ASX: CBA)

CBA is often viewed as a bellwether for domestic mortgage and funding conditions. It can react to funding costs and any early hints of arrears pressure, rather than just the “rates up/rates down” trigger.

Traders track the yield curve and bank funding spreads as it’s often the first tell when the story flips from net interest margin (NIM) to credit (bad debts). 

In a higher-for-longer setup, banks may rally first on “better margins” until the market starts pricing credit risk instead. 

In the past, CBA hit record highs in early 2026, up roughly 11% year to date (YTD), before a mid-February pullback amid broader market volatility.

What traders watch

• Broker handling: Every broker call listed is on the bearish side: 4 Sells, 1 Underperform, and 1 Underweight.
• Targets and implied move: Target prices range from A$120 to A$140. Using the “% to reach target” column, that implies a last close of about A$178.68, which equates to roughly 22% to 33% downside versus the targets shown (targets are estimates, often set on a 12-month basis, and are not guarantees).
• Broker tone: Citi stays Sell (“in-line quarter/limited revisions”), while Morgan Stanley argues the hurdle is higher after the stock’s outperformance, as “good” may no longer be good enough.

‍Risks: 2:30 pm (AEDT)  event gaps, sharp reversals, and quick sell-offs when too many traders are on the same side. 

‍

‍

2. National Australia Bank (ASX: NAB)

NAB is where you look when you’re trying to figure out whether the engine room of the economy is purring or quietly overheating. 

When policy stays tight, lenders can look fine right up until they don’t. Margins can defend, deposit competition can bite, and the comfort line, “defaults are contained”, gets stress-tested by reality. 

NAB tends to trade more like an invoice: what businesses are paying, what they are delaying, and how fast conditions change when confidence turns. 

What traders watch

NAB is up about +15.46% YTD, with the stock recently around A$49. In the latest print, traders are watching how NAB’s A$2.02 billion Q1 cash profit shows resilience even as expense inflation starts to creep in. 

• Broker handling: Mixed but skewed cautious. 3 Sells (Morgans, Citi, Ord Minnett), 1 Equal-weight (Morgan Stanley), 1 Outperform (Macquarie), 1 Buy (UBS).

• Targets and implied move: Targets run from A$35.00 to A$50.50, and the implied last price is about A$49.10, so most targets sit below the market, with UBS as the modest upside call.
• Broker tone: UBS is the lone Buy with a A$50.50 target (about +2.85%). Macquarie is Outperform, but its A$47.00 target is still below the implied last. Citi, Morgans and Ord Minnett stay Sell, with targets clustered A$35.00 to A$39.25. Morgan Stanley sits Equal-weight at A$43.50.

‍Risks: margin squeeze from deposit competition, a turn in business credit quality, and fast repricing if “contained defaults” stops being credible.

‍

‍

3. Macquarie Group (ASX: MQG)

Macquarie is what you get when you blend markets, asset management, deal-making, and a global appetite for volatility... and then you hand it a very expensive suit. 

Macquarie doesn’t just listen to the RBA; it listens to the entire room. Global rates, risk appetite, and market plumbing often matter as much as anything said in Martin Place.

What traders watch

While Macquarie is about +1.93% since Jan 1, traders are watching global yields, volatility regime shifts, plus any read-through to deal flow and trading conditions.

• Broker handling: The table shows a mostly supportive mix, with no outright sells.
• Targets and implied move: The implied last price is about A$207.12. The average target across the brokers shown is about A$229.70 (around +10.9%), with targets ranging A$210.00 to A$255.00.
• Broker tone: Ord Minnett and UBS sit at Buy, Citi is Neutral, Morgans is Hold, and Morgan Stanley is Equal-weight. Supportive, but not unanimous.

‍Risks: liquidity shocks, volatility “air pockets,” and a fast downgrade cycle if global conditions sour.

‍

‍

4. QBE Insurance Group (ASX: QBE)

Insurers can look unusually “clean” in higher-rate regimes because their float finally earns something again. When yields rise, investment income can start doing real work and can offset a lot… until the world reminds everyone why insurance exists in the first place.

QBE is a tug-of-war between higher rates helping the portfolio and catastrophe risk plus claims inflation trying to take it back with interest.

What traders watch

QBE is about +10.06% since Jan 1, and in the latest print, traders are watching investment yield trends, catastrophe loss headlines, and any sign that the pricing cycle is cooling.

• Broker handling: The broker calls shown lean positive: Outperform (Macquarie), Buy (Citi, UBS), Overweight (Morgan Stanley), plus two upgrades to Buy from Hold (Ord Minnett, Bell Potter).
• Targets and implied move: The table implies a last price around A$21.89. Targets range from A$21.80 to A$26.00. The average target across the brokers shown is about A$24.06 (around +9.9%).
• Broker tone: Ord Minnett has the highest target at A$26.00 (about +18.78%). Bell Potter is also shown as an upgrade to Buy, but with a target fractionally below the implied last (-0.41%).

Risks: major catastrophe events, claims inflation and the market pricing “peak rates” too early.

‍

‍

5. Goodman Group (ASX: GMG)

Goodman Group is where the rate story meets the valuation story. When yields rise, long-duration equities get repriced as the discount rate stops being theoretical. 

GMG can still execute operationally, but the stock often trades like a referendum on the cost of capital, cap rates, and whether the market thinks the future is getting cheaper or more expensive.

What traders watch

GMG is about +2.86% YTD with traders watching 10-year yields, cap rate chatter, funding conditions, and data-centre narrative momentum.

• Broker handling: The broker calls shown skew positive, with no sells. 3 Buys (Bell Potter, Citi, UBS), plus Accumulate (Morgans), Outperform (Macquarie), Overweight (Morgan Stanley), and 1 Hold (Ord Minnett).
• Targets and implied move: Targets range from A$31.25 to A$41.50. The implied last close is about A$28.42, and the simple average target in the table is about A$36.35 (around +27.9% above the implied last close).
• Broker tone: Morgan Stanley is the most bullish on target price at A$41.50 (+46.02%). Citi is also constructive at Buy with A$40.00 (+40.75%). Ord Minnett is the cautious outlier at Hold with A$31.25 (+9.96%).

‍Risks: valuation compression if yields rise, refinancing narratives, and cap rate repricing.

‍

‍

6. JB Hi-Fi (ASX: JBH)

JB Hi-Fi tends to move with the mood of the household budget. When the consumer is steady, and promotions stay manageable, the story can look simple. 

When spending tightens and discounting ramps up, the market quickly shifts to margin risk and guidance risk.

What traders watch

 As JB Hi-Fi is about -12.64% since Jan 1, traders are keenly watching sales momentum vs consumer confidence, promo intensity, and margin resilience.

• Broker handling: The mix is constructive overall, but not unanimous. The table shows 2 Buys (Citi, Bell Potter) plus 1 Upgrade to Buy from Neutral (UBS), 1 Outperform (Macquarie), 1 Upgrade to Hold from Trim (Morgans), and two more cautious calls, Underweight (Morgan Stanley) and Lighten (Ord Minnett).
• Targets and implied move: Targets range from A$72.90 to A$119, with the implied last close about A$84.06. The simple average target in the table is about A$96.56 (around +14.9% above the implied last close).
• Broker tone: Bell Potter is the most bullish on target price at A$119.00 (+41.57%). Macquarie is also positive at Outperform with A$106.00 (+26.10%). On the cautious side, Morgan Stanley is Underweight with A$72.90 (-13.28%). The latest change notes in the table show UBS upgraded to Buy from Neutral and Morgans upgraded to Hold from Trim (both dated 17/02/2026).

‍Risks: unemployment surprises, margin damage from discounting, and fast sentiment reversals around consumer data.

‍

‍

7. Judo Capital (ASX: JDO)

Judo Capital is the cleanest expression of “small and medium enterprise (SME) credit plus funding competition” you can put on a screen. 

It is a focused lender, a floating-rate loan book, and growth that looks heroic right up until funding costs and defaults decide to start a conversation at the same time. 

In an RBA-sensitive tape, Judo can move like a thesis you cannot pause. Spreads, deposits, credit quality, and sentiment all reprice in real time.

What traders watch

Judo is down about -0.58% since Jan 1, meaning traders are watching net interest margin (NIM) versus deposit competition, SME arrears and default signals, and any shift in funding pressure. 

• Broker handling: The calls shown are all positive. Morgans is Accumulate (noted as a downgrade from Buy). Macquarie is Outperform. Morgan Stanley is Overweight. UBS, Ord Minnett, and Citi are all Buy.
• Targets and implied move: Targets range from A$2.05 to A$2.40, the implied last close is about A$1.72. The simple average target in the table is about A$2.19 (around +27% above the implied last close).
• Broker tone: Ord Minnett is the most bullish on target price at A$2.40 (+39.53%). UBS is Buy at A$2.25 (+30.81%). Morgan Stanley is Overweight at A$2.20 (+27.91%). Citi is Buy at A$2.15 (+25.00%). Morgans sits at A$2.09 (+21.51%) after the downgrade to Accumulate. Macquarie is Outperform at A$2.05 (+19.19%).

‍Risks: SME credit turns quickly in a slowdown, and funding competition can squeeze spreads faster than loan yields reprice.

The global initial public offering (IPO) market saw a resurgence in 2025. Proceeds increased 39% to US$171.8 billion across 1,293 listings, the sharpest annual rebound since the post-pandemic boom. 

That momentum is now building into 2026 for what some financial analysts speculate could be the biggest IPO year in history.

A handful of mega-cap private companies, including SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic, are exploring going public this year, with combined valuations that could exceed US$3 trillion.

2025 IPO market data

‍

Top IPO candidates in 2026

1. SpaceX - US$1.5T valuation

SpaceX revenue reportedly hit US$15 billion in 2025, with analysts projecting an increase to US$22-24 billion in 2026. The company has been cash-flow positive for years, driven largely by its Starlink satellite broadband network.

Following its February 2026 all-stock acquisition of Elon Musk's AI company xAI, the combined entity also encompasses Grok AI and the social media platform X (Twitter).

Leading financial analysts have reported SpaceX is targeting a mid-2026 listing. Its next funding round is estimated to raise around US$50 billion, putting its initial market cap at US$1.5 trillion, which would make it the second-highest IPO valuation of all time. 

This valuation would mean SpaceX would trade at 62–68 times projected 2026 sales. A steep premium that requires massive growth assumptions around Starlink and longer-term space-based AI ambitions.

‍

2. OpenAI - US$850B valuation

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, now reports more than 800 million weekly active users of its groundbreaking AI product. 

Originally a nonprofit research lab, it has restructured into a for-profit entity developing large language models for consumer, enterprise, and developer applications.

OpenAI is reportedly targeting a Q4 2026 IPO, finalising a US$100 billion-plus funding round (its largest ever), which would put its valuation at US$850 billion. 

However, OpenAI still needs to overcome some near-term hurdles to achieve the potential associated with such a high valuation. 

It projects US$14 billion in losses in 2026 and does not expect profitability before 2029. It is facing intensified competition from Google Gemini and other AI startups cutting into its market share, and Elon Musk has filed a lawsuit against the company seeking up to US$134 billion in damages. 

‍

3. Anthropic - US$350B valuation

While OpenAI has leaned into consumer products, Anthropic has built its business around enterprise adoption. Roughly 80% of its revenue comes from business customers, and eight of the Fortune 10 are now Claude users.

Anthropic closed a US$30 billion funding round in February 2026 at a US$350 billion valuation, more than double its US$183 billion valuation from five months earlier. 

Anthropic’s annualised revenue has been growing at 10x per year since 2024, well outpacing OpenAI’s growth of 3.4x per year. If this trend continues, Anthropic revenue could pass OpenAI by mid-2026. However, since July 2025, Anthropic’s growth rate has slowed down to 7x per year.

Anthropic has engaged law firm Wilson Sonsini to begin IPO preparations, and the recent appointment of former Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell to its board signals a governance push ahead of a potential late-2026 listing.

The company is not yet profitable, but its enterprise-heavy revenue mix and rapid growth trajectory make it one of the most closely watched IPO candidates this year.

‍

4. Stripe - US$140B valuation

Stripe processed US$1.4 trillion in total payment volume in 2024, roughly 1.3% of global GDP. Half the Fortune 100 now use Stripe, and recent moves into stablecoins and AI-to-AI "agentic commerce" payments are expanding its addressable market.

Stripe remains one of the most anticipated fintech IPOs globally, but the company has shown a lack of urgency to list in the past. Co-founder John Collison said at Davos in January 2026 that Stripe was "still not in any rush." 

Rather than pursuing an IPO, Stripe has conducted tender offers every six months at rising valuations, providing employee liquidity without surrendering control. 

These frequent tenders effectively function as a private-market alternative to going public. However, a traditional IPO is still on the cards in 2026, with the company's February tender offer valuing it at US$140 billion or more, and profitability since 2024 removing one of the key barriers to listing.

‍

5. Databricks - US$134B valuation

Databricks completed a US$5 billion funding round in February 2026 at a US$134 billion valuation. 

The company's annualised revenue exceeded US$5.4 billion in January 2026, growing a massive 65% year-on-year, with AI products generating US$1.4 billion. 

CEO Ali Ghodsi has said the company is prepared to go public "when the time is right," with most analysts expecting a H2 2026 listing. At US$134 billion, Databricks is valued at more than twice publicly traded rival Snowflake (~US$58 billion).

‍

Bottom line

2026 has the potential to be the biggest IPO year by valuation in history. With the most likely candidates, SpaceX and Databricks, matching the total valuation of all 2025 IPOs on their own.

If major AI players like OpenAI and Anthropic, as well as world-leading payment fintech Stripe, also list before the end of the year, 2026 could see over US$3 trillion in total value added to global markets through IPOs alone.

For over 110 years, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has operated at a deliberate distance from the White House and Congress.

It is the only federal agency that doesn’t report to any single branch of government in the way most agencies do, and can implement policy without waiting for political approval.

These policies include interest rate decisions, adjusting the money supply, emergency lending to banks, capital reserve requirements for banks, and determining which financial institutions require heightened oversight.

The Fed can act independently on all these critical economic decisions and more.

But why does the US government enable this? And why is it that nearly every major economy has adopted a similar model for their central bank?

‍

The foundation of Fed independence: the panic of 1907

The Fed was established in 1913 following the Panic of 1907, a major financial crisis. It saw major banks collapse, the stock market drop nearly 50%, and credit markets freeze across the country.

At the time, the US had no central authority to inject liquidity into the banking system during emergencies or to prevent cascading bank failures from toppling the entire economy. 

J.P. Morgan personally orchestrated a bailout using his own fortune, highlighting just how fragile the US financial system had become.

The debate that followed revealed that while the US clearly needed a central bank, politicians were objectively seen as poorly positioned to run it.

Previous attempts at central banking had failed partly due to political interference. Presidents and Congress had used monetary policy to serve short-term political goals rather than long-term economic stability.

So it was decided that a stand-alone body responsible for making all major economic decisions would be created. Essentially, the Fed was created because politicians, who face elections and public pressure, couldn’t be relied upon to make unpopular decisions when needed for the long-term economy.

‍

How does Fed independence work?

Although the Fed is designed to be an autonomous body, separate from political influence, it still has accountability to the US government (and thereby US voters). 

The President is responsible for appointing the Fed Chair and the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, subject to confirmation by the Senate. 

Each Governor serves a 14-year term, and the Chair serves a four-year term. The Governors' terms are staggered to prevent any single administration from being able to change the entire board overnight.

Beyond this “main” board, there are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks that operate across the country. Their presidents are appointed by private-sector boards and approved by the Fed's seven Governors. Five of these presidents vote on interest rates at any given time, alongside the seven Governors.

This creates a decentralised structure where no single person or political party can dictate monetary policy. Changing the Fed's direction requires consensus across multiple appointees from different administrations.

‍

The case for Fed independence: Nixon, Burns, and the inflation hangover

The strongest argument for keeping the Fed independent comes from Nixon’s time as president in the 1970s.

Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Burns complied, and Nixon won in a landslide. Over the next decade, unemployment and inflation both rose simultaneously (commonly referred to now as “stagflation”). 

By the late 1970s, inflation exceeded 13 per cent, Nixon was out of office, and it was time to appoint a new Fed chair.

That new Fed chair was Paul Volcker. And despite public and political pressure to bring down interest rates and reduce unemployment, he pushed the rate up to more than 19 per cent to try to break inflation. 

The decision triggered a brutal recession, with unemployment hitting nearly 11 per cent. 

But by the mid-1980s, inflation had dropped back into the low single digits. 

Volcker stood firm where non-independent politicians would have backflipped in the face of plummeting poll numbers.

The “Volcker era” is now taught as a masterclass in why central banks need independence. The painful medicine worked because the Fed could withstand political backlash that would have broken a less autonomous institution.

‍

Are other central banks independent? 

Nearly every major developed economy has an independent central bank. The European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and Reserve Bank of Australia all operate with similar autonomy from their governments as the Fed.

However, there are examples of developed nations that have moved away from independent central banks.

In Turkey, the president forced its central bank to maintain low rates even as inflation soared past 85 per cent. The decision served short-term political goals while devastating the purchasing power of everyday people.

Argentina's recurring economic crises have been exacerbated by monetary policy subordinated to political needs. Venezuela's hyperinflation accelerated after the government asserted greater control over its central bank.

The pattern tends to show that the more control the government has over monetary policy, the more the economy leans toward instability and higher inflation.

Independent central banks may not be perfect, but they have historically outperformed the alternative.

‍

Why do markets care about Fed independence?

Markets generally prefer predictability, and independent central banks make more predictable decisions.

Fed officials often outline how they plan to adjust policy and what their preferred data points are. 

Currently, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly jobs reports, and quarterly GDP releases form expectations about the future path of interest rates.

This transparency and predictability help businesses map out investments, banks to set lending rates, and everyday people to plan major financial decisions.

When political influence infiltrates these decisions, it introduces uncertainty. Instead of following predictable patterns based on publicly released data, interest rates can shift based on electoral considerations or political preference, which makes long-term planning more difficult.

The markets react to this uncertainty through stock price volatility, potential bond yield rises, and fluctuating currency values.

‍

The enduring logic

The independence of the Federal Reserve is about recognising that stable money and sustainable growth require institutions capable of making unpopular decisions when economic fundamentals demand them.

Elections will always create pressure for easier monetary conditions. Inflation will always tempt policymakers to delay painful adjustments. And the political calendar will never align perfectly with economic cycles. 

Fed independence exists to navigate these eternal tensions, not perfectly, but better than political control has managed throughout history.

That's why this principle, forged in financial panics and refined through successive crises, remains central to how modern economies function. And it's why debates about central bank independence, whenever they arise, touch something fundamental about how democracies can maintain long-term prosperity.