Soaring Oil Prices No Longer Drive Up Interest Rates, What Is the Market Afraid Of?

marsbit2026-03-31 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-31 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Oil prices surged nearly 60% in March 2026—the steepest monthly rise since Brent crude's inception in 1988—after the Strait of Hormuz closed, cutting off 17.8 million barrels per day of oil flow. Historically, such spikes pushed inflation expectations and bond yields higher, but this time, the 10-year Treasury yield fell sharply from 4.44% to 3.92% in late March, signaling a decoupling. This divergence reflects a market shift: growth risks now outweigh inflation concerns. Bond markets are betting on recession rather than persistent inflation. Historical oil shocks—like those in 1973, 1979, 1990, and 2008—often preceded economic downturns. The sole exception was the 2022 spike, which triggered severe inflation instead. Market expectations pivoted rapidly. Earlier, traders anticipated rate cuts, but by late March, weak consumer confidence and manufacturing data drove bets toward Fed dovishness. Chair Powell emphasized monitoring whether the supply shock is temporary, but the bond market has already priced in recession risks. If stagflation emerges—as during 1973–1982—real assets like gold and commodities may outperform, while stocks and bonds could suffer. The 60/40 portfolio would be particularly vulnerable. Analysts project Brent could average $115–125 in April, with a peak of $150 possible if the Strait remains closed. The bond market’s verdict is clear: fear of recession dominates.

Since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on March 2, approximately 17.8 million barrels per day of global oil flow have been cut off. In March alone, Brent crude surged nearly 60%, while WTI rose about 53%. This marks the steepest monthly gain for the Brent contract since its inception in 1988, surpassing the 46% record set during the 1990 Gulf War.

Conventionally, soaring oil prices drive up inflation expectations, and bond yields should follow suit. For most of the past two decades, oil prices and the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield have indeed been positively correlated. But this time, they moved in opposite directions.

In the first three weeks of March, the two were still moving upward in sync. WTI rose from $67 to $100, while the 10-year yield climbed from 4.15% to 4.44%. The turning point occurred between March 27 and 30: oil prices continued to surge, but the yield plummeted from 4.44% to 3.92%, dropping 52 basis points in three trading sessions and breaking through the psychologically significant 4% level.

This was a classic "flight to safety," with the bond market making a judgment: growth risks have now outweighed inflation risks. As the economic firm Oxford Economics put it, "growth risks began to outweigh inflation risks." In other words, the market is not unafraid of inflation; it is more afraid of a recession.

This decoupling is not common, but whenever it occurs, the subsequent story tends to be unfavorable.

Over the past half-century, there have been five instances where oil prices surged more than 35% in a short period. During the 1973 oil embargo, U.S. GDP subsequently fell by 4.7%. The 1979 Iranian revolution caused global GDP to deviate from trend growth by 3 percentage points. The 1990 Gulf War led to a brief U.S. recession. In 2008, oil prices peaked at $147; although the primary cause of that recession was the financial crisis, the oil price shock accelerated the economic downturn. The only exception was the oil price surge driven by the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, which did not trigger a recession but came at the cost of the most severe inflation in 40 years.

The surge in March 2026 exceeded all the above cases. According to research by Federal Reserve economist James Hamilton, there is no mechanical link between oil price shocks and recessions, but "the greater the net increase in oil prices, the more significant the suppression of consumption and investment." Goldman Sachs has raised the probability of a U.S. recession to 30%, while consulting firm EY-Parthenon puts the figure at 40%.

The market's reaction speed was also unusually fast.

In early March, CME FedWatch showed the market expected three rate cuts for the year, with a 70% probability of a cut in June. Then, as oil prices continued to climb, the U.S. import price index jumped 1.3% on March 26, and incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh hinted that the neutral rate might be higher. That day, the probability of a rate hike within the year soared to 52%, and the 10-year yield touched 4.35%. FinancialContent defined this day as "The Great Hawkish Pivot."

Four days later, the narrative completely flipped. On March 30, consumer confidence data fell sharply, manufacturing unexpectedly contracted, and the 10-year yield plummeted to 3.92%. According to FinancialContent, market bets on a dovish pivot by the Fed in May rose to 65%. Goldman Sachs said the market had bet wrong on the direction of rate hikes. That same day, Powell told undergraduates at Harvard that the Fed "has not yet reached the moment where it must decide whether to look through the war shock," but emphasized that "the anchoring of inflation expectations is key."

According to Axios, Powell's remarks were interpreted by the market as: the Fed neither wants to raise rates to fight inflation nor is it in a hurry to cut rates to save the economy. Instead, it is waiting to see whether this supply shock is temporary or persistent. But the bond market can wait no longer.

If history is any guide, Citi strategist McCormick put it most bluntly: what lies ahead is stagflation, which is bad for bonds and bad for stocks.

The Great Stagflation from 1973 to 1982 delivered a report card on asset returns. Gold delivered an actual annualized return of +9.2%, the commodities index (S&P GSCI) surged 586% over the decade, and real estate gained +4.5%. In contrast, the S&P 500's actual annualized return was -2%, and long-term Treasuries returned -3%. According to NYU Stern historical data, long-term Treasuries suffered a -8.6% loss in 1979 alone.

The traditional 60/40 investment portfolio (60% stocks + 40% bonds) was caught in a squeeze during stagflation. Only physical assets outperformed inflation. Société Générale predicts Brent will average $125 in April, with a "credible peak" of $150. Goldman Sachs is slightly more moderate, forecasting an April average of $115, but assuming the Strait of Hormuz reopens within six weeks, falling to $80 by year-end.

The bond market has already made a choice for everyone: between inflation and recession, it is betting on recession.

İlgili Sorular

QWhy did the 10-year Treasury yield fall sharply despite the surge in oil prices in late March 2026?

AThe bond market experienced a 'flight to safety', with growth risks (fear of recession) beginning to outweigh inflation risks, causing investors to rush into bonds and push yields down.

QWhat historical precedent suggests about the economic outcome following such a sharp oil price increase?

AHistorical cases (1973, 1979, 1990, 2008) show that sharp oil price surges of over 35% were often followed by economic recessions or significant slowdowns, with the exception of the 2022 Ukraine war spike which caused high inflation instead.

QHow did the market's expectation for Federal Reserve policy change dramatically within a few days?

AOn March 26, market pricing indicated a 52% probability of a rate hike due to inflation concerns, but by March 30, it had flipped to a 65% probability of a dovish pivot and rate cuts due to weak consumer confidence and manufacturing data.

QWhat is the potential worst-case macroeconomic scenario feared by the market, according to a Cit strategist?

ACit strategist McCormick stated that the worst-case scenario ahead is stagflation, which is bad for both bonds and stocks.

QWhich asset classes historically performed well during the 1973-1982 stagflation period, according to the article?

ADuring the 1973-1982 stagflation, gold delivered a +9.2% real annualized return, the S&P GSCI commodity index rose 586% cumulatively, and real estate returned +4.5%. In contrast, stocks and long-term bonds had negative real returns.

İlgili Okumalar

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

Last Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an enforcement letter that forced Anthropic to take its two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. The stated reason was unspecified national security concerns, initially linked to potential "jailbreaks" of the models' safeguards. However, new details suggest the action stemmed more from a deteriorating relationship between the Trump administration and Anthropic, rather than a genuine technical threat. According to reports, the government cited a little-known export control regulation, compelling Anthropic to block access for all non-U.S. persons, including its own international employees. The company complied, shutting down the models without a court order or specific technical details from the government. Cybersecurity expert Katie Moussouris revealed she was privately shown a research paper detailing a potential safeguard bypass in Fable 5. She argued the described method was minor and did not warrant an export ban, stating that attempts to "fix" it would only weaken the model's defensive capabilities. Moussouris and other experts have since called for the order to be revoked, warning it dangerously removes advanced cybersecurity tools from U.S. defenders. Analysts like Justin Hendrix suggest the move appears retaliatory and sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the U.S. government can unilaterally shut down a tech company's products. The incident has raised concerns about the reliability of American AI and the potential for political interference in the tech industry, serving as a warning to the broader sector.

marsbit4 dk önce

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

marsbit4 dk önce

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

In his latest notes, Ray Dalio addresses a critical question for investors amid the AI-driven stock market surge: how should one allocate assets during a transformative technological revolution? Dalio emphasizes that technological advancement does not automatically make related stocks attractive. Historical tech cycles—marked by excitement, crowding, volatility, and eventual shakeouts—show that even long-term winners like Microsoft and Apple experienced severe drawdowns. Today's AI sector faces similar uncertainties: overinvestment, intensifying competition, geopolitical tensions (e.g., Taiwan's chip supply), tax policy shifts, anti-AI sentiment, and potential disruption from future technologies like quantum computing. Dalio's core argument focuses on the highly concentrated market structure, where a few tech giants dominate major indices. He warns investors against unknowingly holding concentrated, correlated exposures. Instead of chasing a handful of AI leaders, he advocates for a robust, diversified portfolio of 15 or more high-quality, uncorrelated investments, risk-balanced to match an investor's volatility tolerance. Mathematically, such diversification significantly improves the risk-return ratio—for example, holding 15 uncorrelated assets can boost the ratio by over four times compared to a single concentrated bet. Dalio cautions that future equity returns appear low, with his bubble indicator suggesting real returns could be negative over the next 5-10 years. He stresses that knowing what you don't know is as important as knowing what you do. In an environment of high uncertainty and concentration, avoiding large, concentrated bets on AI stocks is prudent. The optimal strategy is disciplined diversification—the "holy grail" of investing—to navigate this technologically driven cycle with lower risk and comparable or better returns.

marsbit8 dk önce

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

marsbit8 dk önce

The World Cup has only been played for a few days, but some AI prediction models have already been crowned as oracles, while others have stumbled badly.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup has sparked significant interest not only on the pitch but also in AI-driven match prediction. Major models like Qwen, Copilot, and ChatGPT are being used to forecast outcomes, scores, upsets, red cards, and key player performances. Qwen gained early attention by accurately predicting Mexico's 2-0 win over South Africa (including a red card risk) and South Korea's 2-1 victory over the Czech Republic in the opening matches. Copilot's pre-tournament predictions had notable successes, such as correctly calling the Mexico 2-0 scoreline, South Korea's 2-1 win, and Brazil's 1-1 draw with Morocco. However, it also had clear misses, failing to predict upsets like Australia's 2-0 win over Turkey or Switzerland's draw with Qatar. ChatGPT provided detailed analytical reasoning, correctly predicting Mexico's 2-0 win, but its full-tournament predictions tended to favor favorites, missing several underdog results and draws. Tests pitting multiple models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Claude) against the same match, like Mexico vs. South Africa, showed varying predictions, with only some hitting the exact score. In summary, while AI models like Qwen have shown promising early results in specific match details, and others have had isolated successes, they collectively struggle to consistently identify upsets and underdog performances. AI is becoming an additional reference tool for prediction markets but is far from a definitive source.

marsbit8 dk önce

The World Cup has only been played for a few days, but some AI prediction models have already been crowned as oracles, while others have stumbled badly.

marsbit8 dk önce

Missed Out on SpaceX's IPO? Take a Look at SpaceX's Complete Supply Chain

SpaceX is now public, but its high valuation and losses may deter some investors. However, the real opportunity, as seen with Apple, Tesla, and Nvidia, may lie in its extensive supply chain. SpaceX, funded primarily by its profitable Starlink service, spends hundreds of billions annually on components for its rockets, satellites, and planned orbital AI data centers, creating significant revenue streams for suppliers. Key suppliers are categorized by their indispensability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like **NVIDIA** (GPUs for AI supercomputers), **Eutelsat (SATS)** (spectrum rights), **Filtronic** (millimeter-wave amplifiers), **Materion (MTRN)** (beryllium alloys), and **STMicroelectronics (STM)** (phased array chips). The second category comprises suppliers costly to replace due to long certification cycles or deep integration, such as **Honeywell (HON)** (flight controls), **Carpenter Technology (CRS)** (specialty steel), **Hexcel (HXL)** (carbon fiber), **Broadcom (AVGO)** (data switching), and **Linde** (industrial gases). The third group involves high-volume, cost-critical manufacturers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Major players here include Taiwanese contract manufacturer **Wistron NeWeb (6285)** and several Chinese-listed firms: **Sunway Communication (300136)**, **Parker Advanced Materials (605123)**, **Western Superconducting (002149)**, and **Yingliu Co., Ltd. (603308)**. Other niche providers include **Tianyin Electromechanical**, **Tongyu Communication**, **Trimble (TRMB)**, **Astronics (ATRO)**, and **CTSH**. The timing is now relevant because: 1) SpaceX's procurement is accelerating with plans for 100 launches in 2026, 30 million Starlink terminals, and orbital data centers. 2) Its IPO has brought unprecedented transparency to its supply chain. 3) This phase mirrors early days of the Tesla supply chain boom. The investment thesis shifts from betting on SpaceX's stock to betting on the steady, order-book-driven revenues of its essential suppliers. Risks remain, such as commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, and technological shifts, but the supply chain offers a potentially less speculative path to participate in SpaceX's growth.

marsbit26 dk önce

Missed Out on SpaceX's IPO? Take a Look at SpaceX's Complete Supply Chain

marsbit26 dk önce

Jane Street: The Most Powerful Behind-the-Scenes Operator in the Crypto Industry

Jane Street: Crypto's Most Powerful Behind-the-Scenes Operator A recent 13F filing revealed Jane Street, the secretive Wall Street quant giant, drastically reduced its Bitcoin ETF holdings while increasing stakes in Ethereum ETFs. This move highlights its role not as a directional investor, but as a critical infrastructure player extracting "tolls" from crypto's institutionalization. The firm, founded in 2000 and famously lacking a CEO, has systematically embedded itself across crypto markets. It acts as a key Authorized Participant (AP) and market maker for major Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, profiting from arbitrage between ETF shares and underlying assets. Its approach combines quantitative prowess with a willingness to hold positions for structural arbitrage, differing from pure high-frequency traders. Jane Street faces allegations related to the 2022 Terra (LUNA) collapse. A lawsuit claims it used non-public information to withdraw $85 million in UST minutes before a critical withdrawal by Terraform Labs, allegedly exacerbating the crash and avoiding over $200 million in losses. The company denies the claims. Further indicating its reach, a wallet suspected to be operated by Jane Street ("JaneStreetIndia") was identified on the prediction market Polymarket. This bot executed over 11,000 high-frequency trades on short-term crypto price movements with a near-perfect win rate, showcasing a套利 strategy divorced from traditional prediction. Beyond trading, Jane Street holds equity in crypto infrastructure like Kraken, 1inch, and Arbitrum, and mining stocks. Its strategy is clear: avoid betting on winners, but secure a position in the market's essential plumbing. By becoming a ubiquitous part of the liquidity infrastructure—from ETFs to OTC trading and potentially链上 markets—Jane Street operates as a market force itself, raising questions about whether crypto's decentralized,散户-friendly alpha is being permanently eroded by traditional finance's most sophisticated players.

Foresight News29 dk önce

Jane Street: The Most Powerful Behind-the-Scenes Operator in the Crypto Industry

Foresight News29 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片