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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-03-31Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-31

Анотація

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.

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Xiaohongshu's Second Great Voyage, This Time Sailing Towards AI

Xiaohongshu's Second Voyage: Navigating Towards AI Since ChatGPT's emergence, Xiaohongshu's founder Mao Wenchao has been acutely aware of AI's potential threat, recognizing that the life advice people seek from chatbots overlaps directly with his platform's core business. Founded in 2013 as a PDF shopping guide for Chinese tourists, Xiaohongshu evolved into a massive community where millions share authentic, personal experiences—from product reviews to travel tips. This vast repository of "I've tried this" human judgment became its most valuable asset. However, the rise of AI, which delivers instant answers, challenges the very need for users to sift through numerous personal notes. Fearing its treasure trove of lived experience could become mere training data for others, Xiaohongshu is proactively adapting. In 2026, it established a dedicated AI division (Dots), launched RED Skill to turn user experiences into usable AI tools, and acquired the AI search product "Diandian." Its investments now extend to AI firms like MiniMax and hardware startups, moving upstream to address needs before they even become search queries. The platform's commercialization strategy is also evolving. With a newly acquired payment license and tools like the AIPS model to track consumer decision journeys, Xiaohongshu aims to seamlessly integrate recommendations with transactions, embedding commerce within AI-generated answers. Yet, a critical tension remains. While building smarter machines to organize and leverage its human experiences, Xiaohongshu must prevent AI from drowning out the authentic, flawed, and trustworthy "I've tried this" voices that built its community. Its core challenge is to harness AI's power without letting the map—the machine's perfect, synthesized answer—replace the territory of genuine human experience. This balance between technological advancement and preserving human trust defines its current journey and its future.

marsbit27 хв тому

Xiaohongshu's Second Great Voyage, This Time Sailing Towards AI

marsbit27 хв тому

SharpLink CEO: How to Understand Ethereum Developers Just Exceeded 1 Million?

SharpLink CEO reflects on the milestone of Ethereum surpassing 1 million historical developers, emphasizing that this figure represents the largest pool of technical talent ever assembled around an open, permissionless blockchain network. While approximately 232,000 developers remain active, the key question for the crypto industry is not which chain is fastest, but where the best builders choose to build long-term. Ethereum's advantage lies in a decade-long accumulation of infrastructure, standards, tools, liquidity, and a cohesive culture, making it the default operating system for programmable finance. This developer base is tackling complex challenges: the Glamsterdam upgrade aims to enhance scalability while preserving core principles; synchronous composability seeks to unify Rollup ecosystems; and significant efforts are underway for post-quantum security. Ethereum's deeper network effects stem from composability and shared standards (like the EVM and Solidity), creating a flywheel of more developers, tools, and liquidity. Three reinforcing strengths cement Ethereum's lead: credible neutrality (secured by ~900k validators), a modular architecture with interconnected Rollups, and a culture that attracts top researchers. The ecosystem is consolidating as the trusted coordination layer for internet-native finance, favored by large institutions valuing security and liquidity. The future of Ethereum is being built by this global community of founders and architects.

链捕手42 хв тому

SharpLink CEO: How to Understand Ethereum Developers Just Exceeded 1 Million?

链捕手42 хв тому

A Clod of Chinese Soil Chokes Two Japanese Giants

"Chinese Soil Chokes Japanese Giants" The production of a key electronic specialty gas, tungsten hexafluoride (WF6), vital for manufacturing AI chips, was halted by two leading Japanese producers—Kanto Denka and Central Glass. Their shutdown was not due to a technological failure but a sudden, critical shortage of a raw material they had long taken for granted: ultra-high-purity (6N-grade) tungsten powder, which is almost entirely sourced from China. Following a quiet Chinese export announcement in January 2026, tungsten powder shipments to Japan dropped to zero for months. Despite frantic efforts, Japanese companies found no viable alternative; imported powder was three times more expensive and lacked the required purity. Their existing stockpiles were exhausted by mid-2026. WF6 is essential for depositing tungsten into the microscopic contact holes of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) chips, which are crucial for advanced processors like those from Nvidia. While Japanese firms had mastered producing ultra-pure WF6 gas, their entire supply chain relied on China's 6N tungsten powder—a dependency now revealed as a fatal vulnerability. China's dominance in this "soil" results from decades of painstaking R&D by companies like Xiamen Tungsten and China Tungsten & Hightech. They overcame immense technical hurdles, such as separating chemically similar molybdenum from tungsten, to achieve mass production of the world's purest tungsten powder. With their primary suppliers gone, Kanto Denka and Central Glass announced a permanent halt to WF6 production starting July 1, 2026. This immediately created a supply crisis for major semiconductor manufacturers like Samsung and SK Hynix, forcing them to urgently seek and certify new Chinese suppliers for WF6 itself. The reversal marks a dramatic shift: China has moved from exporting low-value raw materials to controlling the high-purity foundation of a critical global tech supply chain, upending a long-established industrial hierarchy.

marsbit1 год тому

A Clod of Chinese Soil Chokes Two Japanese Giants

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片