[ad_1]
Technical Assessment: Bullish in the Intermediate-Term
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Ignoranti quem portum petat, nullus suus ventus est.
“For the one who does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable.”
— Seneca
Seneca’s line is not about luck or optimism. It is about clarity. The wind may be strong, the ship well built, and the crew determined, but none of that matters if the captain cannot name the destination. The same is true in business. Opportunity, effort, and resources have little value without clear direction.
Too many companies today are sailing without a port. They are busy, ambitious, and full of activity, but lack alignment on where they are truly headed. Strategies shift, meetings multiply, and goals expand, yet the course remains uncertain. In that fog, even progress feels like drift.
Research from Harvard Business Review shows that companies often overestimate their internal alignment. HBR found that while employees believed their companies were highly aligned on strategy, their actual alignment was only 23 percent, far lower than executives assumed. Similarly, McKinsey found that organizations with strong alignment between strategy and financial systems consistently outperform their peers in shareholder returns and adaptability.
The issue is rarely a lack of intelligence or ambition. It is a lack of focus. Leadership teams often become so absorbed in managing daily execution that they lose sight of the larger course. The meetings, reports, and metrics meant to create clarity can instead create clutter. When priorities are not anchored to direction, organizations move, but they do not progress.
At ProCFO Partners, we often see this pattern in fast-growing companies. Early success brings expansion, and expansion brings complexity. What once felt clear becomes clouded as new opportunities, initiatives, and investments compete for attention. The organization gains speed but loses shape. Departments set their own definitions of success, and decisions that once aligned begin to diverge.
An illustrative case study
One client, a midsize managed services firm, arrived full of potential but short on clarity. Their cash flow forecasts were reactive, their budget was a spreadsheet of disconnected assumptions, and the leadership team spent more time responding to problems than steering the company forward. Together, we began by defining their destination: to become the most reliable partner in their industry. From there, we aligned every element of budgeting and forecasting to support that goal. Each investment and expense had to advance one of three priorities: customer reliability, team development, or margin improvement. Within 12 months, cash conversion improved, margins strengthened, and leadership regained confidence in their decision making. For the first time, they shared they were able to manage their cash flow with a sense of clarity and control.
Another client, a medical imaging and resources company, had been operating in constant reaction mode. Decisions were made for short-term survival rather than long-term direction, and the budget reflected habit more than strategy. Together, we developed a financial roadmap that linked budgets and forecasts to a clear destination, then aligned investments with the few priorities that mattered most. Once the financial framework was rebuilt around their true priorities, the organization moved from short-term survival to forward-looking leadership. They reestablished focus, strengthened their planning rhythm, and regained the momentum needed to pursue growth.
Clarity guides everything
Clarity cannot stop at strategy. It must extend into the financial framework that sustains it. Too often, budgeting becomes a mechanical exercise in balancing numbers rather than a deliberate act of alignment. Teams forecast revenue and manage expenses, yet overlook the most important question: How does this budget move us closer to our goals? A clear budget is not just a financial plan. It is a statement of strategy, a roadmap that defines priorities, allocates resources, and ensures that money and mission move in the same direction.
When financial leadership is guided by clarity, everything else aligns more easily. Decisions become faster, trade-offs become smarter, and resources are used with precision. The budgeting process transforms from a constraint into a catalyst for growth. It brings purpose to every dollar spent and accountability to every result achieved.
4 ways for leaders bring clarity back
These practices help leaders reinforce direction and ensure that strategy translates into consistent, measurable action.
Clarity, not complexity, drives sustainable growth. When leaders align strategy, budgets, and reporting around a well-defined destination, decisions gain coherence and accountability strengthens. Financial systems become the living proof of clarity in action. They turn plans into measurable progress, ensuring that effort compounds instead of dissipating.
Closing thought
The strongest winds cannot help a ship without a port. The same is true for business. When leaders define their destination with precision and connect it to every plan and budget, each decision gains meaning. As Seneca observed centuries ago, direction determines the value of the wind. In business, clarity determines the value of effort.
The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.
[ad_2]
Nelson Tepfer
Source link
[ad_1]
Gold has just crossed a milestone no asset class has ever reached before—a $30 trillion market cap. That number alone says a lot about where investors are seeking safety and what they expect from the decade ahead. It also reveals something surprising: why many disciplined investors, myself included, see gold’s new height as a signal to stay bullish on Bitcoin.
The rotation has begun
Over the past several years, investors have been steadily rotating out of traditional U.S. bonds and into harder assets with gold, silver, and Bitcoin among them. Ray Dalio, one of the most respected hedge fund managers in history, suggested a 15 percent portfolio allocation in gold. When that kind of institutional voice underscores diversification as a core principle, it’s worth paying attention.
When I launched a digital asset fund in 2022, gold’s total market cap was over $10 trillion, and Bitcoin’s hovered near $1 trillion. Today, gold has tripled, while Bitcoin’s market cap is roughly $2 trillion. The ratio between those two assets—the original and the digital store of value—has widened dramatically. Historically, such divergences don’t last forever.
Read the market’s rhythm
Markets move in cycles. Crypto has followed a four-year rhythm: 2013, 2017, 2021, and now 2025. Each cycle brought an early crash, consolidation, and then a steep recovery that eventually set new highs. This year’s volatility feels familiar. The sudden downturns and sharp rebounds look a lot like 2020–2021, what I call “manufactured flushes,” driven by macro headlines, election speculation, and social-media-fueled anxiety.
It’s tempting to see each dip as the end of the story. But if past cycles hold, we may only be in the middle chapters. Gold’s surge to $30 trillion underscores a broader truth: The global appetite for hard, finite assets hasn’t peaked.
Why this matters to entrepreneurs
Even if you’re not in finance, this moment carries key lessons for anyone running a business.
Every cycle—whether it’s commodities, technology, or public sentiment—tests our ability to adapt. The leaders who thrive aren’t the ones who predict every move. They’re the ones who position early, stay diversified, and refuse to anchor themselves to the latest trend.
Gold’s milestone is a reminder that “safe” and “static” are not the same thing. What once felt stable—the bond market, the dollar, the corporate ladder—looks much different now. Today’s investors and founders are redefining stability as agility: the capacity to shift resources quickly toward what holds value next is the key.
For entrepreneurs, that means balancing our proven revenue streams with experiments in new markets or technologies. For investors, it means pairing traditional holdings with selective exposure to emerging assets that have asymmetric upside. In both cases, the principle is the same: Resilience comes from diversification, not devotion. We’ve seen evidence of this in the past weeks and days. In the moments when gold has faltered or taken big drops, Bitcoin has rallied. We can see the rotation happening, and those who’ve diversified into both arenas remain safe.
A broader rebalancing
When capital moves from paper to tangible or verifiable scarcity, it’s more than an investment trend. Now it becomes a cultural signal. People are asking where value truly lives. Is it in institutions, in algorithms, or in the productive work of builders and creators?
The answer will shape how we allocate not only our money but also our trust.
I believe gold’s record valuation will one day be viewed as a turning point. This may be the moment where investors are acknowledging that “hard assets” now include digital ones.
Whether Bitcoin fulfills that role completely remains to be seen. But the pattern is clear: The world is looking for assets that are transparent, finite, and globally accessible.
In my opinion, this is the key takeaway for anyone leading a company or a team. We’re operating in a market that rewards clarity, scarcity, and authenticity—the very traits that define leadership in uncertain times.
Gold is glittering at $30 trillion; however, the real measure of value lies in how we adapt as the rules of value creation continue to change.
The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.
[ad_2]
Bridger Pennington
Source link
[ad_1]
Michael Burry, the famed “Big Short” investor who predicted the 2008 housing crash, is once again warning of an emerging market bubble. Nearly two decades later, the hedge fund manager is now sounding alarms about the sky-high valuations of A.I. companies and is voicing them on a modern forum: Substack.
Yesterday (Nov. 23), Burry launched a newsletter on the platform that will focus on his bearish views on the technology, among other topics. “The current market environment is contentious and running hot. Lots to talk about,” he wrote in the description accompanying his new Substack, which has already amassed more than 35,000 subscribers. Access costs $379 annually or $39 per month.
One of his first posts draws parallels between the lead-up to the dot-com crash of the early 2000s and today’s A.I. boom. Burry compared Nvidia—which recently became the first company to reach $5 trillion in market cap—to Cisco, the tech company whose stock soared and then collapsed during the dot-com era.
In an X post announcing his Substack, Burry expanded on the idea that the A.I. market may be echoing past bubbles. He cited former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, who assured investors in 2005 that a housing bubble “does not appear likely.” Burry then pointed out that Jerome Powell, the Fed’s current chair, has described A.I. companies as “profitable” and “different” from previous speculative manias.
Burry rose to prominence after spotting the warning signs of the subprime mortgage crisis—a bet that made him $100 million personally and earned more than $700 million for his clients. His prescient move was immortalized in Michael Lewis’ The Big Short and the subsequent film starring Christian Bale. After the global financial crisis, Warren Buffett told Congress that Burry was acting as a “Cassandra,” referring to the Trojan princess cursed to deliver true prophecies no one believed. His new newsletter pays homage to this feat through its name, “Cassandra Unchained.”
In recent years, Burry has made several market calls that didn’t pan out, but his latest warnings about A.I. have sparked fresh attention online. The buzz began in October, when he returned to X after a two-year hiatus to post: “Sometimes, we see bubbles. Sometimes, there is something to do about it. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play.”
Soon after, his hedge fund, Scion Asset Management, disclosed in regulatory filings that it had a short bet worth more than $1 billion against Nvidia and Palantir, another hot A.I. stock. Burry closed his hedge fund a few days later and returned capital to investors.
In his Substack description, Burry said Scion’s closure was partially motivated by a desire to share investment ideas more freely. “Running money professionally came with regulatory and compliance restrictions that effectively muzzled my ability to communicate,” he wrote. “These constraints meant I could only share cryptic fragments publicly, if at all.”
Burry told readers to expect one to two posts a week, along with occasional Q&As, videos and guest contributions. Rather than placing bets, he’ll be breaking down markets.
“I am not retired,” said Burry. “There is still nothing I enjoy more than analyzing companies and markets each and every day.”
[ad_2]
Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly
Source link
[ad_1]
Earlier this month, electric carmaker Rivian unveiled a $4.6 billion compensation plan for its founder and CEO, RJ Scaringe—a package that has drawn comparisons to Tesla’s $1 trillion deal for Elon Musk. Like Musk’s award, Rivian’s plan hinges on a series of highly ambitious performance targets over the next decade, including lifting Rivian’s stock price to $140 (it currently trades around $15). In a softening EV market, and without the financial momentum or investor fervor that once buoyed Tesla, those targets appear particularly steep.
In an SEC filing, Rivian’s board said the package is designed to retain Scaringe as the company enters a “critical next phase” and prepares to launch production of its new electric SUV, the R2. The compensation plan doubles his annual base salary from $1 million to $2 million and gives him the right to buy up to 22 million shares across 11 tranches if Rivian’s stock hits specific price milestones. Scaringe can acquire an additional 14.5 million shares if Rivian meets profit and cash-flow targets before 2032. He can exercise his first tranche at $40 per share. Scaringe currently owns about 1 percent of Rivian. If the plan vests fully, he could add roughly 3 percent more.
Unlike Musk’s plan, Scaringe’s award does not require a shareholder vote, because it was issued under an already approved 2021 incentive program. Rivian’s board ultimately deemed the original performance goals as unrealistic, including a target that envisioned the stock hitting $295.
Much of Scaringe’s windfall hinges on the success of the new $45,000 R2 SUV and the smaller R3, which is expected to be priced in the mid-$30,000 range and has already generated significant consumer interest.
Rivian faces a very different landscape than Tesla did during its early ascent. Tesla benefited from low interest rates, abundant capital, and an early-adopter boom in EV enthusiasm. Musk also rode a wave of unique tailwinds—from meme-stock mania to rapid early profitability and a cult-like following—that helped him meet some of the lofty targets in his famously controversial 2018 pay package.
And a successful EV business is far from enough. Since reaching profitability in 2019, Tesla’s high stock price has been increasingly buoyed by optimism on its non-vehicle products, such as software and robotics.
Rivian’s non-EV prospect is less clear and appears to be reliant on external partnerships. Earlier this year, the company formed a joint venture with Volkswagen Group to develop a scalable “software-defined vehicle” architecture, with winter testing of a reference vehicle planned for early 2026. This technology underpins the upcoming R2 and R3 lines, which Rivian hopes will move the company into more affordable, higher-volume segments.
But Rivian’s financial picture remains strained. The company recently missed Wall Street earnings expectations, laid off 4.5 percent of its workforce in October, settled a $250 million lawsuit over R1 price hikes, and restructured top leadership. Although Scaringe is well-liked by Rivian owners, he lacks the cult-of-personality advantage Musk enjoys. Meanwhile, Rivian faces the same nationwide cooling in EV demand—exacerbated by cuts in EV tax credits—that is weighing on every major automaker.
[ad_2]
Abigail Bassett
Source link
[ad_1]
Today (Nov. 18), Klarna reported its first quarterly earnings as a public company. The fintech giant, which debuted on the New York Stock Exchange in September, is growing quickly as it leans into A.I. and looks to expand beyond its Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) service into more traditional banking offerings.
Klarna beat Wall Street expectations with $903 million in revenue for the July–September period, a 26 percent increase from a year earlier. In its largest market, the U.S., sales rose 51 percent from a year ago.
The company also posted gains in gross merchandise volume (GMV), an e-commerce metric measuring the value of goods sold. GMW jumped 23 percent year-over-year to $32.7 billion for the quarter. One gloomy spot was net income, which swung to a $95 million loss compared to a $12 million profit during the same period in 2024. Klarna attributed the decline partially to a change in accounting principles.
Demand also increased for Klarna’s “Fair Financing” option, which lets customers spread payments for larger purchases over longer periods. U.S. GMV for the offering jumped 244 percent during the quarter, while global GMV rose 139 percent. Fair Financing is now available at 151,000 merchants, or 18 percent of Klarna’s total merchant base.
Klarna is still best known for its BNPL services, but the company aims to shift “from payments to full neobank,” CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski said during his company’s earnings call. A neobank refers to a fintech firm that offers banking services without a physical branches, such as Chime or Revolut.
In July, Klarna launched the “Klarna Card,” a payment card that combines BNPL features with a traditional debit card. The product has already gained more than 4 million signups, according to Siemiatkowski, and accounted for 15 percent of Klarna’s global transactions as of October.
Klarna is also turning to A.I. to move into new areas. As an early adopter, the company has embraced the technology across personal shopping, internal productivity tools and even an A.I. avatar of Siemiatkowski capable of presenting earnings.
A.I. has transformed customer service as well: an A.I. assistant Klarna introduced last year now performs the work of more than 850 full-time employees and has saved the company $60 million, Siemiatkowski said. In part because of these efficiency gains, Klarna does not “believe that hiring is the right approach at this point in time,” he added.
That doesn’t mean the CEO is unconcerned about A.I.’s impact on workers. While blue-collar jobs are typically vulnerable during economic downturns, Siemiatkowski warned that A.I. could more heavily affect “high-income households and white-collar jobs.” He said he is closely monitoring unemployment trends to understand how the technology might affect consumers who rely on Klarna.
[ad_2]
Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly
Source link
[ad_1]
ANB Bank reduced its position in shares of iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA:IWM – Free Report) by 12.1% in the 2nd quarter, HoldingsChannel reports. The firm owned 14,836 shares of the exchange traded fund’s stock after selling 2,046 shares during the period. iShares Russell 2000 ETF accounts for about 1.4% of ANB Bank’s investment portfolio, making the stock its 17th largest holding. ANB Bank’s holdings in iShares Russell 2000 ETF were worth $3,201,000 as of its most recent SEC filing.
Other institutional investors and hedge funds have also recently added to or reduced their stakes in the company. Quaker Wealth Management LLC increased its holdings in shares of iShares Russell 2000 ETF by 211.1% during the second quarter. Quaker Wealth Management LLC now owns 120 shares of the exchange traded fund’s stock worth $26,000 after buying an additional 228 shares in the last quarter. Opal Wealth Advisors LLC bought a new stake in iShares Russell 2000 ETF during the 2nd quarter worth approximately $28,000. Financial Network Wealth Advisors LLC bought a new stake in iShares Russell 2000 ETF during the 1st quarter worth approximately $29,000. Brooklyn Investment Group acquired a new stake in iShares Russell 2000 ETF during the 1st quarter valued at $30,000. Finally, Proathlete Wealth Management LLC bought a new position in iShares Russell 2000 ETF in the 2nd quarter valued at $30,000.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF stock opened at $237.48 on Friday. The business’s fifty day moving average is $243.28 and its two-hundred day moving average is $226.15. The firm has a market cap of $65.77 billion, a P/E ratio of 17.69 and a beta of 1.13. iShares Russell 2000 ETF has a 52 week low of $171.73 and a 52 week high of $252.77.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (the Fund) is an exchange-traded fund. The Fund seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Russell 2000 Index (the Index). The Index is a float-adjusted capitalization weighted index that measures the performance of the small-capitalization sector of the United States equity market and includes securities issued by the approximately 2,000 smallest issuers in the Russell 3000 Index.
Want to see what other hedge funds are holding IWM? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA:IWM – Free Report).
Receive News & Ratings for iShares Russell 2000 ETF Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for iShares Russell 2000 ETF and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.
[ad_2]
ABMN Staff
Source link
[ad_1]
This Q&A is part of Observer’s Expert Insights series, where industry leaders, innovators and strategists distill years of experience into direct, practical takeaways and deliver clarity on the issues shaping their industries. At a moment when cyber threats are escalating alongside geopolitical tensions, Canada finds itself at a crossroads: how to defend its digital infrastructure, protect its economy and maintain global competitiveness while preserving the values of an open, democratic society.
Judith Borts, senior director of the Rogers Cybersecure Catalyst at Toronto Metropolitan University, sits at the intersection of policy, security and economic strategy. With a career spanning provincial economic development, national innovation policy and cross-sector collaboration, Borts has become one of Canada’s most vocal advocates for treating cybersecurity not as a niche technical specialty but as a shared societal responsibility—one that will determine the country’s digital sovereignty in the years ahead.
Her work at the Catalyst focuses on building the talent, partnerships and operational capacity Canada needs to withstand increasingly sophisticated attacks. But it’s her policy background that gives her a panoramic view of what’s at stake. Canada, she argues, can no longer afford a reactive approach to cyber risk. Nation-state adversaries, criminal networks and A.I.-accelerated threats are moving faster than traditional governance models can respond, and the downstream costs to Canadians are already enormous.
Borts outlines where Canada is falling behind global peers, what a truly unified national cyber strategy would require and why talent development may ultimately matter more than any single technological breakthrough. She also offers a candid look at the sectors most vulnerable today, the policies needed to strengthen resilience and how emerging technologies like A.I. and quantum computing will reshape the country’s digital future. Canada’s prosperity increasingly depends on something once viewed as purely defensive: a secure and trusted digital ecosystem.
Even as global alliances shift, intelligence sharing through networks like the Five Eyes, G7 and NATO remains strong. That’s not really where Canada’s biggest challenge is. What we really need to zero in on is building our own sovereign defence and resilience—including in the cyber and digital domains—so we can protect ourselves, respond quickly when threats come up and recover safely and securely.
Cyberattacks today can come from anywhere (foreign governments, organized groups or even individuals), and they pose real risks to Canadian institutions, businesses and citizens. Our national security and defence strategies need to reflect that reality. We need to invest more in homegrown talent and innovation, from cybersecurity research to advances in A.I. and quantum technologies, so that Canada can stay ahead of the curve. It’s not about losing trust in our allies; it’s about maintaining our strong relationships while also making sure we have the strength and resilience to stand on our own when it matters most.
Every sector in Canada, as well as around the world, is exposed to cyber risk. Healthcare continues to face some of the most visible and alarming threats. Ransomware attacks have forced hospitals to cancel surgeries and even shut down emergency systems, putting patient safety directly at risk. The energy sector is another major target. And what used to be mainly about stealing data has now shifted to attempts to interfere with the systems that keep our power grid running. As our digital and physical infrastructure becomes more connected, those risks multiply and even a single successful attack can throw essential services across the country into chaos.
Canada’s economy is powered by small and medium-sized businesses, which make up about 99 percent of all companies in the country and account for more than half of the country’s GDP. These companies are increasingly being targeted but often lack the specialized staff, training and resources to respond effectively. Plus, the impacts of a ransomware attack on an SMB’s bottom line can be massive.
We’re seeing progress in some areas, but these are still isolated efforts. Real national cybersecurity and resilience mean a coordinated approach, one that brings strong security standards together with real investment in education, innovation and long-term capacity building. That’s how we keep Canada’s economy secure and competitive in the years ahead.
A top-down approach alone won’t keep up with how fast threats evolve or be able to address the practical needs of all regions. Real resilience comes from bringing federal, provincial and local efforts together so we can build safe and secure communities, share information faster, respond in real time and build trust across sectors.
We also need to make it easier for Canadian businesses to operate securely, both at home and abroad. That means creating a more harmonized and less fragmented set of cyber standards and compliance requirements, so companies aren’t forced to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across jurisdictions. Taking a more unified approach that integrates leading global approaches and consistent standards would help Canada stay internationally competitive while keeping our digital ecosystem strong and secure.
In a nutshell, the federal government should set the national vision and provide the framework and tools while empowering local governments, organizations and innovators to adapt that framework to their realities. When everyone works from the same playbook, security can become part of how we do business—not a barrier to it.
It’s an exciting time for cybersecurity in Canada, but the truth is we’re not yet keeping pace with our peers. The United States invests close to $800 billion or 3.5 percent of GDP annually in research and development, while Canada spends less than 2 percent of ours, and only a fraction of that goes toward cyber and defense innovation. That gap matters. The European Union, meanwhile, approaches cybersecurity not just as a security issue but as a pillar of economic resilience, seeing digital protection and competitiveness as two sides of the same coin.
Canada has world-leading talent in cybersecurity, A.I. and quantum. We are also building a strong foundation with proposed legislation like the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (Bill C-8) and a growing base of innovation, but we need to move faster—connecting our federal, provincial and municipal strategies, strengthening our talent pipeline and investing in homegrown technology. If we treat cybersecurity as both national defence and economic opportunity, we can close the gap and position Canada as a real leader in the digital future.
If there’s one thing recent cyberattacks have taught us, it’s that we need to wake up. No one is really paying attention to how serious this has become. We’re seeing massive fraud and data theft happening quietly, every day, and too often the response is weak at best. The impacts are not only felt at the victim’s level; the burden of the costs to Canadians is enormous, and we’re all paying for this.
And still, people aren’t changing their passwords, companies still skip basic protections like multi-factor authentication, and we’ve normalized the idea that our data will be stolen eventually. That has to change.
There’s a common mantra in the cyber community that when it comes to cyber threats: ‘it’s not if, but when.’ But the lesson isn’t that attacks are inevitable. It’s that we need to take preventative action and prepare for potential threats. Complacency is our biggest weakness.
We can’t treat cybersecurity as background noise while we rush to adopt new technologies like A.I. A.I. can make systems smarter, but it also makes cyber threats faster, more targeted and harder to detect. At the same time, many organizations are adopting A.I. without fully addressing the very real risks that come with it. Every organization embracing A.I. should be asking: Are we doing this in a way that keeps us secure and our clients/customers safe?
True resilience isn’t about specific actions by a cyber team; it’s about how fast and effectively we respond and how seriously we take the responsibility to protect ourselves in the first place.
No single group can solve Canada’s cybersecurity challenges on its own—the threats are too complex, the digital infrastructure is too vast and diverse and the stakes are too high. True resilience depends on everyone working together: universities driving research and developing talent, government providing intelligence, guidance and coordination, industry building secure systems and helping to generate specialized talent and Canadian tech companies pushing innovation forward.
But collaboration can’t just happen in boardrooms or policy papers: we also have to meet Canadians where they are. Digital resilience and cyber awareness are no longer specialized skills; they are now basic workplace essentials. Everyone, regardless of their role, needs to understand how to protect information, manage digital tools responsibly, and remain vigilant to evolving threats. If we’re going to reach everyone, it means finding more creative and practical ways to weave cyber awareness and digital resilience into everyday life, whether that’s through local community programs, small business training or more accessible education.
When universities, public institutions, government, and industry connect directly with Canadians, cybersecurity stops being an abstract concept and becomes something everyone can take part in.
That whole-of-society approach is no longer optional. It’s literally the foundation of our national resilience.
When we talk about securing Canada’s digital future, the real advantage isn’t just in technology; it’s in people. We need Canadians to protect what matters to Canada and build a robust digital infrastructure that we can rely on to keep our economy and country growing in the face of mounting threats. This requires a trustworthy and capable workforce. At the Catalyst, we have no delusions about the impacts of A.I. on cybersecurity work. The key question is: what does a skilled cybersecurity workforce look like in the age of A.I.?
We are hyper-focused on creating not only skilled cybersecurity professionals, but also helping those in other organizational roles across different sectors to better understand the cybersecurity challenges they are facing while maintaining a keen eye on emerging technologies such as A.I. and quantum computing. Through our programs, we’re building job-ready professionals who can address the human, organizational and technical issues of cybersecurity.
But in an era where A.I. can automate certain technical functions, the real challenge—and opportunity—is in ensuring that we have an agile workforce and that we educate and support individuals in exercising judgment, creativity, critical thinking, contextual understanding and ethical reasoning that machines can’t replicate.
It’s like asking how you maintain a community of great writers when A.I. can draft a paragraph for you: the value shifts to insight, empathy, strategy and human perspective.
For too long, we’ve talked about cybersecurity as a purely defensive measure. Many still view it as just the cost of doing business. The truth is, in the modern economy, cybersecurity is an investment, and resilience is one of our biggest competitive advantages. It’s the bedrock of national prosperity and our ticket to maintaining our position as a serious player on the global stage.
Think about it: when we create an environment built on digital trust, with infrastructure that is both robust and secure, everything else follows. It’s what gives international partners the confidence to invest here, and it’s what gives our own innovators in critical sectors like finance, healthcare and technology the secure launchpad they need to bring their best ideas to life.
So, the critical question is, how do you intentionally build that kind of environment? It doesn’t happen by accident, and it can’t rest solely on a policy or a plan. It only comes about through action.
By combining smart government policies and strong intellectual property and patent protections with real incentives for our businesses, we stop treating cybersecurity as a problem to be solved and start seeing it for what it is: a massive opportunity to build our next generation of tech leaders and secure Canada’s role as an innovator.
A.I. is rewriting the cybersecurity landscape, and quantum computing won’t be far behind. Each one presents both huge opportunities and serious threats. As these technologies start to converge, we will see incredible new possibilities and potential, but also significant power to cause real damage if we’re not prepared.
A.I. is now an arms race. For every advanced risk detection model we create, our adversaries are using A.I. to launch attacks. And quantum computing is the horizon. This will threaten most of the common encryption used today.
This new reality demands a strategic change, including what the industry calls the “shift-left approach.” Traditionally, security testing happened at the end of a project, just before the software was released. Shift-left flips that model by pushing security earlier in the development cycle—essentially “shifting” it to the left on the project timeline.
For example, instead of waiting until a new system is fully built to check for vulnerabilities, developers should build security into the design on day one, and then test for risks at each step. This approach comes from modern software engineering, but it’s now essential for cybersecurity: if emerging technologies like A.I. aren’t built with security-by-design, we’re already behind.
Ultimately, by investing in talent, targeting the best in R&D, and investing in an innovative ecosystem, Canada can make sure we’re not just reacting to technological change but we are leading the change.
[ad_2]
Judith Borts
Source link