Guacamaya, January 19, 2026. The U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and the capture of Nicolás Maduro have carried enormous political and symbolic weight. However, for major Wall Street players, the episode has not, for now, altered the core dynamics of global markets. BlackRock and JPMorgan agree that the Venezuelan case fits into a more fragmented world, but without the immediate capacity to generate systemic financial contagion.
From BlackRock’s perspective, the world’s largest asset manager, what has occurred in Venezuela does not constitute an exogenous shock capable of reshaping global portfolios. Instead, it fits within an analytical framework the firm has already embraced: a “new macroeconomic regime” defined by geopolitical fragmentation, the energy transition, and a wider dispersion of long-term outcomes.
In its latest report, BlackRock argues that the U.S. operation confirms the existence of what it calls a “third world order” since World War II. This order is marked by the United States actively redefining its economic and strategic relationships, without every episode of geopolitical tension automatically translating into global market volatility.
This diagnosis explains why the firm has not altered its positioning. BlackRock maintains its overweight stance in U.S. equities, its structural bet on the technology sector—particularly artificial intelligence—and its exposure to hard-currency emerging market bonds. The message is clear: while the Venezuelan episode is politically significant, it lacks the scale necessary to disrupt global risk appetite.
Even uncertainty over the country’s political future—including the potential role of Delcy Rodríguez in an interim leadership—is viewed more as background noise than as a systemic threat. For BlackRock, the absence of a clear political and military plan for Venezuela increases local uncertainty, but “this may not matter much for global markets.”
On commodities, the assessment is equally restrained. The firm does not expect significant short-term changes in Venezuela’s oil, gas, or mining output, reducing the likelihood of immediate macroeconomic spillovers through commodity channels.
JPMorgan: the focus is on assets—but they are few and highly concentrated
JPMorgan takes a different approach, one that is more microeconomic and asset-specific. The bank is not asking whether Venezuela will move global markets—something it largely rules out—but rather which specific assets could be affected by a potential political and economic realignment.
The conclusion is blunt: direct equity exposure to Venezuela is now marginal. According to the report led by Diego Celedón, of the 12 companies with significant operations in the country in 2013, half have exited or delisted. Among those that remain, Venezuela accounts for less than 5% of sales or EBITDA in nearly all cases.
Companies such as MercadoLibre, Telefónica, and Arcos Dorados report impacts of less than 1% on key metrics. Coca-Cola Femsa maintains a slightly larger, though still marginal, presence, with around 2% of its total sales volume in Venezuela. Masisa, with exposure close to 5%, stands out as one of the few industrial players with a still-relevant footprint.
For JPMorgan, the real focus is not on diversified multinationals, but on a small group of highly concentrated firms. Rusoro Mining and Gold Reserve stand out for their near-total exposure to Venezuelan assets: 100% in Rusoro’s case and 99% for Gold Reserve. Both companies have long faced legal disputes, regulatory blockages, and severe operational constraints, making them high-risk bets heavily dependent on the political outcome.
The bank emphasizes that any meaningful reduction in Venezuela’s risk premium will hinge on the stability of the new political framework and on clear signals in key sectors such as energy and finance, where U.S. strategic interest appears to be concentrated.
Other firms: caution without alarm
Broadly speaking, other international research houses strike a similar tone. The dominant narrative frames the episode as geopolitically significant but financially contained. The underlying reason is structural: after a decade of sanctions, defaults, and isolation, Venezuela has ceased to be a relevant node in global capital flows.
For international investors, the country had already been largely “disconnected” from the global financial system. As a result, even an abrupt political shift raises more medium-term questions than it does immediate market reactions.
A political event in a fragmented world
The implicit consensus among BlackRock, JPMorgan, and other firms is telling: Maduro’s capture does not change the global financial map because that map had already changed. In a more fragmented world, with regionalized value chains and more selective capital flows, not every geopolitical event has the capacity to become a financial crisis.
Venezuela has returned to the center of international political debate, but for the world’s largest asset managers, it remains—for now—a peripheral variable in the equation of global markets.
