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

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Following the collapse of Huione Pay—dubbed the "Alipay of Southeast Asia"—seven months ago, the region's underground financial guarantee platform sector is undergoing a significant reshuffle. This power vacuum has been swiftly filled by emerging platforms such as XinBi, Tiger/Navigator, JinBei (renamed JinBo), Dali/Tiancheng, and FullyLight. These platforms, operating largely via Telegram and offering services like escrow for illicit transactions, have absorbed the vast user base and markets left behind by Huione. While positioning themselves as "trust intermediaries," their primary clientele consists of networks involved in online scams, money laundering, illegal gambling, and even human trafficking. For instance, the Tiger/Navigator platform explicitly provides "escrow" services for kidnapping-for-ransom operations ("强押车交易"). Data underscores the immense scale: Huione alone processed over $103 billion in cryptocurrency payments and facilitated over $31 billion through its escrow market before its downfall, linking it to Cambodia's notorious Prince Group. Since its collapse, competitors have seen explosive growth. For example, the XinBi platform has accumulated over $1.6 billion in total USDT revenue, while platforms like NewPay, OkPay (under Dali), and FullyLight Wallet collectively processed over $4.8 billion in USDT in a single year. This ecosystem thrives in regions like Cambodia and Myanmar, where regulatory gaps allow these platforms to act as critical financial infrastructure for sprawling cybercrime industries, from scam compounds to online casinos. The article concludes that the moniker "Southeast Asian Alipay" is a misnomer, obscuring the platforms' fundamental role in enabling serious criminal enterprises rather than representing legitimate financial innovation.

Odaily星球日报43 хв тому

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Odaily星球日报43 хв тому

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Title: The Shifting Landscape of Crypto Venture Capital The era of dedicated crypto venture capital funds is undergoing a significant transformation. Once essential for navigating the sector's complexity and high risk, these specialized funds are now facing an identity crisis as the market matures. This shift mirrors historical patterns in other specialized investment classes like cleantech and SPACs, where initial information advantages dissipate as technologies become mainstream and integrated into existing industry frameworks. The article argues that crypto is reaching a critical inflection point, transitioning from a "building phase" to an "integration phase." Major players like Stripe, BlackRock, and Visa now engage with crypto not for its novel mechanics but as a foundational financial infrastructure. Their needs—regulatory compliance, banking partnerships, distribution channels—align with traditional fintech, a domain easily understood by large, generalist funds like Sequoia and Founders Fund. This evolution creates a "barbell effect" within the VC landscape. On one end are massive, diversified platforms that can incorporate crypto as one vertical among many. On the other are small, nimble funds focused on niche, experimental projects. The middle ground—medium-sized dedicated crypto funds—is being squeezed out. Their typical fund size makes it impossible to generate sufficient returns solely from early-stage crypto bets, yet they cannot compete with giants for later-stage deals. Consequently, leading crypto-native firms like Paradigm and Framework Ventures are expanding into AI, robotics, and other sectors, driven partly by LP pressure for better returns amid a broader VC DPI crisis. Others, like Dragonfly and a16z, have narrowed their crypto focus predominantly to financial infrastructure like stablecoins, reframing the sector's core narrative. For crypto entrepreneurs, this consolidation presents challenges. While generalist funds offer larger checks and broader resources, crypto projects now compete fiercely with AI for attention and capital within these firms. Furthermore, the long-term, non-commercial foundational work that built the ecosystem—funded by dedicated crypto VCs—is less likely to attract generalist capital focused on direct returns. The conclusion is that "crypto investor" as a standalone category is becoming obsolete, akin to "internet investor." Crypto is becoming a baseline infrastructure layer. The future will see a barbell structure: large-scale growth financing handled by generalist funds, while pioneering, speculative projects are funded by small, specialized vehicles. The dedicated crypto funds of the 2017-2021 boom, which incubated core infrastructure, are giving way to this new, bifurcated reality.

Foresight News1 год тому

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Foresight News1 год тому

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbit1 год тому

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片