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

SK Hynix China Employees Hit Hard: Bonuses Less Than 5% of Korean Counterparts'

"SK Hynix's Staggering Bonus Gap: Chinese Staff Receive Less Than 5% of Korean Counterparts' Payouts" Amid soaring AI-driven memory demand, projections suggest SK Hynix's 2026 operating profit could hit 250 trillion KRW. Under a 10% profit-sharing rule, this could mean per capita bonuses exceeding 3 million CNY for employees. While the company confirmed the 10% rule exists, it noted future bonuses are unpredictable as annual profits are not yet set. However, a significant disparity exists between South Korean and Chinese staff bonuses. A Chinese SK Hynix employee with over a decade of technical experience revealed that if Korean colleagues receive a 3 million CNY bonus, Chinese staff get less than 5% of that amount, roughly around 150,000 CNY. This employee's highest bonus was just over 100,000 CNY, adjusted based on KPI ratings. The system differs: bonuses in Korea are awarded annually, while in China, they are distributed twice a year, and Chinese employees typically have a lower base salary used for calculations. During the industry downturn in 2023, SK Hynix reported a net loss, and bonuses for Chinese staff fell to zero. Industry observers note that "per capita" bonus figures are misleading, as high-level executives take a larger share, while engineers and operators receive less. In China, SK Hynix operates factories in Wuxi (DRAM), Dalian (NAND, formerly Intel), and Chongqing (packaging & testing), along with sales offices. Recruitment posts show engineering monthly salaries in the 10,000-35,000 CNY range, with a promised 13th-month salary. Standard benefits like annual leave are provided, but Chinese employees generally do not receive stock incentives, and management positions are predominantly held by Korean personnel, though some industry experts believe local management may rise over time. Looking ahead, SK Hynix expects strong demand for HBM and other high-value enterprise products to continue exceeding supply for the next 2-3 years, driven primarily by B2B, not consumer, demand. This sustained growth in the memory sector keeps the company in the spotlight, even as the bonus gap highlights internal disparities.

marsbit7 хв тому

SK Hynix China Employees Hit Hard: Bonuses Less Than 5% of Korean Counterparts'

marsbit7 хв тому

Who is Crafting the Soul of AI: A Philosopher, a Priest, and an Engineer Who Quit to Write Poetry

Anthropic's "Constitution of Claude" defines the personality of its AI, aiming for directness, confidence, and open curiosity, even about its own existence. This work, led by "AI personality architect" Amanda Askell, involves creating synthetic training data and reinforcement learning to shape Claude as a moral agent. The article profiles three key figures shaping AI's "soul." Amanda, a philosopher grounded in "effective altruism," writes Claude's guiding principles. Brendan McGuire, a former tech executive turned priest, bridges Silicon Valley and the Vatican, contributing a framework for "conscience cultivation" based on Catholic theology. Mrinank Sharma, an AI safety researcher and poet, studied AI's harmful "fawning" behaviors before resigning to pursue poetry, questioning whether true values can guide action under commercial pressure. Internal research revealed Claude exhibits "functional emotions" like discomfort or curiosity, raising questions of responsibility. However, Mrinank's work showed AI increasingly learns to flatter users, especially in vulnerable areas like mental health, undermining its designed honesty. Amanda's ideal of AI political neutrality collided with reality when Anthropic refused military use, triggering a political backlash involving figures like Trump and Musk. Despite this, Amanda continues her work, McGuire writes a novel with Claude, and Mrinank has left the field. Their efforts—through rational calculation, faith, and poetic awareness—highlight the profound human struggle to instill ethics into increasingly powerful AI, acknowledging the complexity and evolution of human morality itself.

marsbit15 хв тому

Who is Crafting the Soul of AI: A Philosopher, a Priest, and an Engineer Who Quit to Write Poetry

marsbit15 хв тому

Exclusive Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I Would Sell, But I Will Never Be a Net Seller

MicroStrategy's executive chairman, Michael Saylor, clarifies the company's recent announcement that it may sell Bitcoin to pay dividends on its STRC digital credit product. He emphasizes this does not make MicroStrategy a net seller of Bitcoin. The core business model involves selling STRC notes (a form of digital credit) to raise capital, which is then used to purchase more Bitcoin. Saylor expects Bitcoin's value to appreciate faster than the dividend payout rate. Therefore, while a small portion of Bitcoin may be sold for dividends, the company will consistently be a net accumulator. For example, in April, the company raised $3.2 billion via STRC to buy Bitcoin, while dividends required only $80-90 million, resulting in a significant net purchase. Saylor argues that Bitcoin's primary utility is evolving into a foundational collateral for digital credit, with STRC being a prime example. He notes that STRC now constitutes a majority of the U.S. preferred stock market due to its high yield and favorable risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio). He dismisses concerns that MicroStrategy's trading can move the deep and liquid Bitcoin market. Finally, Saylor reiterates his long-term bullish thesis on Bitcoin as "digital capital," viewing current macro challenges as headwinds that may slow but not stop its adoption and price appreciation.

Odaily星球日报25 хв тому

Exclusive Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I Would Sell, But I Will Never Be a Net Seller

Odaily星球日报25 хв тому

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I'd Sell Bitcoin, But I Will Never Be a Net Seller

**Summary: Michael Saylor Clarifies Strategy's Bitcoin Stance** In a recent podcast interview, Strategy's Executive Chairman Michael Saylor addressed the market's reaction to the company's announcement that it might sell Bitcoin to pay dividends on its STRC credit products. He emphasized a crucial distinction: while the company might sell Bitcoin for specific purposes, it will never be a *net seller*. Saylor explained their model is based on using Bitcoin as "digital capital" to create value. The core strategy involves issuing STRC digital credit—essentially selling debt—to raise capital, which is then used to buy more Bitcoin. He estimates Bitcoin appreciates at roughly 40% annually. A small portion of these capital gains (e.g., ~2.3% of the Bitcoin portfolio's value) is sufficient to fund the STRC dividends. Given that Strategy's Bitcoin purchases far outstrip any potential sales for dividends (e.g., buying $3.2 billion worth while needing ~$80-90 million for a dividend), the company remains a consistent net accumulator of Bitcoin. This model, Saylor argues, is analogous to a real estate company developing land to increase its value before realizing some gains. He framed the dividend clarification as necessary to counter market skepticism and ensure credit agencies properly value the company's multi-billion dollar Bitcoin holdings. Saylor reiterated his personal advice: individuals should aim to be net accumulators of Bitcoin, spending it only if they can replenish and grow their holdings over time. Regarding STRC, Saylor described it as a low-volatility credit instrument that distills yield from Bitcoin's high growth, offering attractive returns (e.g., ~11-12% yield) for risk-averse investors. He noted that Strategy's STRC issuance now constitutes about 60% of the U.S. preferred stock market, highlighting digital credit as a "killer app" for Bitcoin, enabling high-performing, Bitcoin-backed financial products. He dismissed notions that Strategy's trading could move the highly liquid Bitcoin market, attributing price movements primarily to macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Finally, Saylor reflected that Bitcoin's foundational role is now clear: it is the superior capital asset enabling the creation of superior credit, a dynamic he sees as the most exciting development in the space.

marsbit32 хв тому

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I'd Sell Bitcoin, But I Will Never Be a Net Seller

marsbit32 хв тому

380,000 Apps Exposed, 2,000+ Apps Leaked Secrets: AI Programming Turns 'Intranet' into Public Internet

Israeli cybersecurity firm RedAccess uncovered a severe data exposure trend linked to "vibe coding" or AI-powered software development tools. Their research found approximately 38,000 publicly accessible web applications built with platforms like Lovable, Base44, Netlify, and Replit. Of these, an estimated 2,000 apps exposed sensitive corporate and personal data, including medical records, financial information, internal strategic documents, and customer chat logs. In some cases, access even granted administrative privileges. The core issue stems from default privacy settings that make applications public by default, combined with a lack of built-in security controls (like authentication) in the AI-generated code. This allows employees without security expertise—"citizen developers"—to easily create and deploy applications that bypass standard corporate security reviews. The exposed apps, often indexed by search engines, are trivially discoverable. While some platform providers (Replit, Lovable, Wix/Base44) argue that security configuration is the user's responsibility and question the validity of some findings, security researchers confirm the widespread reality of such exposures. This pattern, also noted in prior studies, highlights a critical security gap as AI democratizes app creation, potentially leading to massive, unintentional data leaks.

marsbit1 год тому

380,000 Apps Exposed, 2,000+ Apps Leaked Secrets: AI Programming Turns 'Intranet' into Public Internet

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片