Recently, two completely different forecasts have emerged in the market. On one side, well-known investor Rogers is warning of a global financial crisis by 2026, while on the other side, a leading investment bank predicts that the A-shares will rise another 38% next year.

These two viewpoints are almost at odds. One says the global economy will collapse, while the other says China's stock market will continue to thrive. Which judgment is closer to reality? Or are both just pie-in-the-sky predictions?

Looking at Rogers' logic, he has always preferred to judge from long-term cycles and macro perspectives. The theory of a financial crisis in 2026 may be based on deep-seated factors like debt cycles and asset bubbles. This kind of view is not without market support.

However, on the other hand, the institution's forecast of a 38% increase is also not unfounded—it's usually calculated based on specific variables such as policy expectations, economic fundamentals, and valuation repairs. Both have data backing them up; the key difference is the time horizon they are looking at.

In the long term, financial risks versus medium-term market opportunities are not mutually exclusive. The crucial factor depends on your own investment cycle and risk tolerance.