How BRICS sees the world

West-aligned countries are the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union (27 countries), Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. BRICS groups based on 10 member and 10 partner countries.

Source – RBC Wealth Management; data as of 7/2/25 based on United Nations Population Division estimates for all countries, except EU countries based on Trading Economics’ projections

The area chart shows the following population groups as a percentage of global population: BRICS members, 47.9%; BRICS partners, 7.1%; West-aligned countries, 15.0%; other countries, 30.0%.

<!–

–>

The soul of BRICS: Sovereignty

BRICS members and partners have specific domestic development programmes in multiple directions to shore up their own sovereignty and national security, some backed by big fiscal spending. These include technological, energy, agriculture, health, metals/minerals, and financial security initiatives. Ironically, America under Trump 2.0 is also attempting to shore up its own sovereignty in many of the same areas.

BRICS’ priority on sovereignty was recently demonstrated by the most active and intense level of coordination between and among members that we have seen in the association’s history.

This occurred after the Trump administration threatened and then imposed extra tariffs on Brazil due to disagreements about the country’s domestic political and judicial affairs, and on India for geopolitical reasons due to its relations with Russia and purchases of Russian crude oil during the Ukraine crisis.

India and Brazil strongly pushed back against these tariffs, citing violations of their sovereignty. China also stated multiple times that it would not succumb to pressure regarding its trade relations with Russia or any other country.

These events and other tariff threats on the association as a whole caused quite a stir within and among BRICS countries because they are viewed as de facto economic sanctions.

We think any use of “tariffs as sanctions” – whether by the U.S., European countries, or other Western nations – could continue to backfire.

The fallout from these disputes and high tariff rates in general are hastening integration within BRICS and the SCO, and we think these issues will ultimately incentivise more countries to push harder to achieve a multipolar global order sooner rather than later.

Investing in the shift toward a multipolar world

BRICS’ ongoing integration and development, combined with increasing U.S. trade protectionism since 2018, reinforces our belief that a potential shift to a multipolar, more fragmented world order argues for a new way of thinking.

Investment portfolio allocations should be viewed through a different lens. Sub-asset class allocations within equities and fixed income should no longer be assessed through the lens of cooperative globalisation that occurred in previous decades, as we don’t think that era is coming back anytime soon.

This translates into three practical implementations in investment portfolios:

• We believe this new era begs for more active asset management of country, industry, and company investment exposures.
• We recommend investors diversify geographically. For investors in North America, we suggest maintaining less of a “home bias” or “regional bias” allocation in equity and fixed income portfolios than in years past and would consider increasing allocations to international stocks and bonds. We believe all investors should take a close look at allocations to Asia and emerging markets to determine if they are sized appropriately, up to at least the long-term recommended strategic allocation level.
• On the stock side of portfolios, regardless of region, we still suggest including exposure to equity industries geared toward sovereign development.