Are we, in fact, losing the very notion of safe assets?

Indeed, the old paradigms are currently being re-examined, and as you say, we used to talk about risk-free assets, which were, broadly speaking, mainly government bonds from developed countries and, on the other hand, risky assets, which were shares.

This approach is being called into question quite fundamentally, and for good reason.

Government debt and the trajectory of deficits are beginning to cause concern against a backdrop of generally weaker economic growth.

Are governments really risk-free after 30 years of erosion? The answer is undoubtedly no.

Conversely, very high quality companies may be perceived as less risky.

They are multinational, so they transcend national borders.

So could one argue that safety isn't inherent to any asset class, but rather emerges from discipline, well-diversified portfolio construction?