The core argument was straightforward: gold’s financialization via the GLD ETF in 2004 had transformed it from a barbarous relic into a fully fungible, 21st-century financial instrument. Central bank accumulation, an insatiable retail bid, and gold’s evolving hybrid risk-on/risk-off correlation profile made it a structurally sound long.

• At the time of that August note, the 100-day rolling GLD-SPX spread sat at 5.09%, having compressed sharply from 41.24% at the April 2025 tariff-tantrum peak.

• The S&P 500/gold ratio was 1.86x against a long-term average of 1.6x, implying a fair-value gold price of approximately $3,900/oz.

By September 5th, a note titled New Trade Discussion added gold miners for convexity. The rationale: junior miners in the GDXJ ETF were operationally leveraged to the gold cycle, reporting record revenues, record earnings, record operating cash flow, and a record average profit per ounce of $1,900 against all-in sustaining costs. Miners had delivered 70–90% year-over-year earnings growth for eight consecutive quarters. Pinebrook preferred GDXJ over GDX for its superior growth profile.

Then came October 20^th. Gold had risen 132% from its October 2, 2023, bull-market birthday, the strongest absolute advance in the history of the yellow metal.

The GLD ETF had closed within a whisker of being 2-standard deviations overbought relative to the S&P 500 on a one-calendar-year lookback, reaching 47.22% versus a 2-sigma threshold of 48.19%.

The same note sounded caution. The average drawdown across the prior gold bull cycles was -16.3%. A correction was less of a matter of if and more of when and how deep.

The answer came on January 28, 2026, when gold peaked at $5,417.21/oz, having surged a parabolic 25.1% in January.

• At peak, the GLD/SPX spread was stretched to 79.69% above its 200-day rolling return, the most overbought reading since March 1980.

• On a one-year rolling basis, the GLD-SPX rolling return spread was more than 3 standard deviations above the mean, a level unseen in 20 years of data.

In a note titled Miners, published February 2, 2026, Pinebrook got short the miners.

Five Months of Reckoning

Gold’s drawdown from the January 28th peak has been ugly. As of June 11, 2026, gold spot trades at $4,212.26/oz, a decline of 22.24% from the January 28^th peak of $5,417.21/oz.

The June 11, 2026, intra-day low of $4024.01/oz. represents a peak-to-trough drawdown of -25.72%, exceeding every prior correction in the post-2006 gold super-cycle, where the historical average peak-to-trough decline across 11 prior episodes was -16.30%.

Read more

The market did not panic. It rotated.

Friday’s catalyst was the May jobs report: 172,000 jobs added, with net upward revisions of 93,000 to prior months. The three-month average rose sharply to 188,000. It was the third strong report in a row.

A strong jobs print with upward revisions does one thing above all else in the current environment: it raises the probability of a hike not only of one hike, but of multiple hikes this year.

The 2-year Treasury, already at 4.04% heading into the number, and gapping up to 4.14%, tells the story.

The sector breakdown of Friday’s price action is worth examining in detail:

In a genuine risk-off event, all six of those rows are red. The fact that XLV and XLF held positive on a day the index dropped 2.58% tells you this was a Tech-specific repricing, not a macro panic.

The weekly numbers confirm it:

• Health Care rose 2.37%.

• Financials rose 1.4%.

• Consumer Discretionary fell 4.97%.

• Industrials were up .61%

• IT fell 5.61%.

Three out of five sectors were up on the week. The market is reassigning capital.

For a sector ETF of XLK’s size and liquidity, -6.66% in a single session is a huge cyclical move. The AVGO contagion, the payrolls catalyst, and the rate repricing all hit simultaneously. Whether Friday was capitulation or the beginning of a more sustained drawdown is the central question heading into the week.

• XLK has retraced a meaningful portion of its 55.45% rally from the March 30th trough to the June 2nd peak.

• Now at a 41.41% advance as of June 5th.

• One of the most important data points this week received the least attention:

• Year-to-date through Friday, the Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGS) is up just 0.83%.

• The S&P 500 excluding the Mag-7 (XMAG) is up 9.87% YTD.

• The cap-weighted S&P 500 ETF (SPY) is up 8.16% YTD.

• The equal weighted S&P ETF (RSP) is up 8.49%.

The other 493 stocks in the S&P 500 are collectively outperforming the seven largest companies by roughly 900 basis points year-to-date and helps to validate the rotation call.

Does This Look Like 1999?

A reader posed this directly: what did this look like in the 1999-2001 rotation? Does some level of concentration necessitate rotation equals selloff?

We now have 27 years of daily data on all five sector ETFs — XLV, XLF, XLY, XLI, and XLK (all launched December 22, 1998) — which allows a proper apples-to-apples comparison. The answer requires going sector by sector, not relying on the composite.

Chart 1: 30-day average rolling correlations of all five sectors vs. SPY, full 27-year history. Note the September 2000 trough at 0.188 — visually in a different universe from Friday’s 0.474.

The two eras share a striking structural resemblance at the regime level.

• The dot-com full cycle (Jan 1999 – Oct 2002) ran a mean 5-sector correlation of 0.742.

• The current cycle (Jan 2024 – Jun 2026) is running at 0.725.

Within rounding, they share the same low-correlation environment. The frequency of sub-0.60 readings is also nearly identical: 11.8% of trading days in the dot-com window, 10.5% in the current window. These are the only two sustained low-correlation regimes in the 27-year dataset.

While the composite average looks similar between the two eras, the individual sector lines tell a completely different story. In 1999-2000, all five sectors were dispersing from the index simultaneously — a broad market-wide phenomenon driven by investors making confident sector-level bets across the entire index.

Today, three of the five sector lines are clustered relatively tightly. The anomaly is concentrated in two sectors: XLV and XLF.

Chart 2: 30-day rolling correlations for each of the five sectors vs. SPY, full 27-year history. The dot-com era (amber) and current cycle (blue) are the only two sustained low-correlation regimes.

The Structural Differences — Four of Them

1. Sigma extremity. Against the dot-com window’s own mean and standard deviation, today’s composite reading of 0.474 is -2.51σ. The September 27, 2000 trough of 0.188 was -4.64σ against that same window — and against data known in real time at that moment, approximately -4.5 to -5σ. The chart makes this point better than any number: the September 2000 collapse is nearly off the bottom of the page. We are not there. We are not even close to there.

2. Source of the low correlation. In 1999-2000, sector mean correlations ranged from 0.615 (Industrials) to 0.778 (Tech) — a tight cluster, all sectors participating. Today, XLK at 0.878 is tightly fused to the index. The low-correlation reading is driven almost entirely by XLV and XLF. Strip those two out and the remaining three sectors are running at normal-to-elevated correlations. This is a two-sector anomaly, not a market-wide one.

3. Trajectory pattern. The dot-com regime produced a single catastrophic break — a near-vertical collapse to 0.188 in September 2000, followed by a snap recovery within weeks. The current cycle has produced three distinct dips below 0.60: July 2024 (monthly average 0.479), February 2025 (0.593), and now June 2026 (0.491). Each has recovered. But the recoveries are getting shallower and the floor is gradually descending. Repeated shallow dips suggest rotation. A single violent break suggests dislocation.

4. Market return context. SPY price return during the dot-com full cycle (Jan 2, 1999 – October 9, 2002): -36.66%. XLK: -64.5%. SPY total return in the current cycle (January 2, 2024 – June 5, 2026): +56.04%. XLK: +92.38%. Same low-correlation regime signature. Completely opposite market outcomes. The dot-com bust was caused by valuations completely detached from earnings reality. The AI trade today is led by companies with real, growing, massive earnings.

Direct answer to the reader’s question:

Read more

• Understanding the Business and Its Valuation

• A Very New Story Dressed in Old Clothes

• Tesla as Benchmark

• Index Inclusion: Its an AI world

• Sector Classification

Read more

• Pinebrook generated a +17.12% net return for the period January 2 through May 29, 2026, against an S&P 500 return of +10.73% over the same period — a spread of +6.39%.

• On a risk-adjusted basis, the portfolio produced a Sharpe Ratio of 2.07 and a Sortino Ratio of 2.31.

• The Sortino exceeding the Sharpe — consistent with prior periods — confirms that realized volatility is skewed to the upside.

• Maximum drawdown was contained at -6.56%, reached on April 7, 2026, during the war ceasefire, before recovering sharply.

• Upside participation was strong at 109.1% capture, while downside exposure was meaningfully reduced at 88.2%capture. A beta of 0.82 and SPX correlation of 0.59 reflect a portfolio with market exposure calibrated to opportunity rather than passive index tracking.

• The updated blotter and dashboard, through close of May 29, 2026, can be found here.

January – February: +6.28% / +1.84%

The portfolio opened the year decisively, posting gains of +6.28% in January and +1.84% in February against a flat-to-negative S&P 500. The primary driver in January was a concentrated position in Korean equities via EWY — entered in early January at $104.27 and closed January 30th at $123.96, a +18.9% return on the position. DXJ, capturing yen-weakening dynamics, contributed an 8.9% gain and was exited in mid-February. Silver short positions provided an additional non-correlated contribution in late January and early February. The combined effect was a +8.26% cumulative portfolio gain through the first two months against the S&P 500’s +0.48%, producing 778 basis points of spread.

March: -5.34%

March was the portfolio’s weakest month, with a decline of -5.34% against the S&P 500’s -5.09%, producing a modest negative spread of -25 basis points. A cluster of position unwinds — KRE, WNC, RSP, EWU, and DXJ — all moved against the book simultaneously during a period of broad risk-off positioning driven by war uncertainty.

April: +4.02%

April contained the period’s most significant single-event trading sequence. On April 7th the portfolio reached its maximum drawdown of -6.56%, driven by GDX/GDXJ long exposure and crude oil futures positioning ahead of the ceasefire announcement. The following session on April 8th produced the period’s best single day at +4.88%, as ES and NQ futures positions captured the market reversal. The April 9th–10th cluster — long-biased futures and long EEM — produced additional gains as global equities recovered sharply. Pinebrook’s April return of +4.02% reflects entry positioning that was partially caught in the initial drawdown before the recovery.

May: +9.89%

May was the strongest month of the 2026 year-to-date period at +9.89%, outperforming the S&P 500’s +5.15% by 474 basis points. Semiconductor exposure via SMH, reopened clean energy positions (QCLN, PBW), and broad emerging market participation through EMXC were the primary contributors. The closure of short Indonesia (EIDO) and short India (INDA) positions also contributed positively as those markets underperformed. Open positions at period close include meaningful long exposure to EWY, TSM, and ESM6 futures, along with a diversified book entered in the final week of May.

The following table places 2026 YTD performance within the portfolio’s full history since inception in August 2024.

It is fine right now in the same way that the Mediterranean was calm in the straits between Scylla and Charybdis until Odysseus had to sail through them. The calm is real. The dangers flanking it are equally real.

The purpose of this note is to identify what investors need to know so that they come out the other side of the strait with their ship and PNL intact.

I. The Market: Not FOMO

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

• Pinebrook’s 4.60% price target on U.S. nominal 10-year yields was tagged last week on Friday, May 15th.

• Price action has accelerated to the upside with yields hitting an intraday high of 4.6853% on Tuesday, May 19th, and the 4.75% secondary yield target has come into view.

• Yields have come down modestly on more war resolution jawboning.

• This is performative noise.

I. THE FRAMEWORK: WHAT MOVES THE TEN-YEAR

From the NY Fed: “In standard economic theory, yields on Treasury securities are composed of two components: expectations of the future path of short-term Treasury yields and the Treasury term premium.

“The term premium is defined as the compensation that investors require for bearing the risk that interest rates may change over the life of the bond. Since the term premium is not directly observable, it must be estimated”.

The above is the sanitized academic version. These pages dispense with the pretense and offer up a seasoned practitioners take:

The term premium (“TP”) is the animal in the forest no one has ever seen. We assume it exists because we see footprints of the Sasquatch of the fixed income rates complex.

It expands when investors fear the unknown — when the forward path of growth, inflation, and policy is genuinely unclear. It contracts when that fog lifts. The term premium does not respond to realized data. It responds to anticipated data — to what markets believe is coming next.

Thus, the price action in the U.S. 10-year Treasury note is best understood not as a single variable but as the sum of three distinct forces, of which two are directly observable: real rates plus an inflation component, proxied here by the breakeven inflation rate (“BE”).

Reals + BE = Nominal Yields

• Breakeven inflation is the market’s pricing of the forward inflation path.

• Real rates can be further disaggregated by subtracting the term premium to isolate a real risk-free rate that is free of investor risk preferences and represents the market’s estimate of where real, inflation adjusted, short rates will settle in equilibrium over the life of the note.

• The term premium is best conceptualized as the residual compensation investors demand for the uncertainty of holding fixed income duration.

• Thus, the above expression becomes:

CURRENT MARKET SNAPSHOT — MAY 20, 2026

Source: NY Fed ACM Model, Bloomberg FWISUS55. Identity: RRFNR + TP + BEI = Nominal (1.34 + 0.83 + 2.48 = 4.65).

• The identity is simple: the real risk-free neutral rate plus term premium plus inflation breakevens equals the nominal yield — but the causal dynamics underneath it are anything but simple.

• At 83 basis points as of May 15th, the term premium is near its highest absolute level of the post-pandemic cycle.

The question this note addresses is why — and whether the causal forces driving it have been exhausted or are still building.

II. WHERE WE CAME FROM: THREE EPISODES OF TP EXPANSION

This is the third notable term premium expansion of the post-pandemic cycle. Understanding the first two is essential context for reading the third.

Episode One: August 2020 — March 2021 (+174 bps)

The first expansion ran from negative 137 basis points to positive 35 basis points — 172 basis points in total. Markets were front running what would become realized inflation.

• Critically, term premiums peaked in March 2021 even though actual inflation did not peak until February 2022.

• Core PCE kept grinding higher for nearly a full year after the TP made its local high.

This apparent paradox — term premiums falling while inflation was still rising — is not a paradox at all.

• By the time inflation peaked in February 2022, markets had already priced the Fed’s response.

• The 2022 move in nominals was mechanically driven by the hiking campaign, not by term premium expansion.

Episode Two: July 2023 — October 2023 (+137 bps)

The second expansion ran from negative 93 basis points to positive 44 basis points, for a total delta of +137 basis points.

• In the summer of 2023, investors were pricing an overshoot in the disinflationary process, betting that the Fed had over-tightened.

• Term premiums collapsed as markets began pricing a recession that never came as a result of the Fed’s most aggressive policy rate hiking cycle in two generations.

• Risk premiums bounced from deeply negative in July 2023 as they begin to front run hot inflation data in September 2023 plus a monster Q3 2023 GDP print

• By the time term premiums peaked on October 25, 2023, markets were already looking past the noise.

• A documented record from these pages — written in real time — called the growth slowdown in advance, went long 10’s on October 26, 2023, and by November called the soft landing then declared the Fed hiking cycle dead in December.

Episode Three: September 2024 — Present (+111 bps and Counting)

The current episode began on September 11, 2024, at negative 28 basis points. It was catalyzed initially by the Fed’s surprise 50-basis-point cut on September 18th, 2024, which took recession risk off the table.

A strong September employment report, the election of Donald Trump, and a rapidly evolving inflation picture have since added fuel (tariffs and a war-of-choice-induced supply shock).

Term premiums briefly went negative again on December 2, 2025 before reversing decisively. They now sit at 83 basis points — near the absolute highest of the cycle – and reflect a total 111-basis point upside move.

Unlike the prior two episodes, which were driven by a single dominant causal variable — inflation expectations in 2020-21, disinflationary overshoot fears in 2023 and then a subsequent violent reversal — the current expansion is driven by a multi-causal, structurally ambiguous set of forces.

That ambiguity is not incidental to the thesis. It is the thesis.

III. CALIBRATING THE MOVE: WHAT THE HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION SAYS

Before examining the causal drivers in detail, it is worth stepping back and asking a quantitative question: how extended are current levels relative to history, and how much room remains before nominals become statistically extreme?

Using daily data from the NY Fed ACM model (July 2004 through May 2026, n=5,400 observations) for nominal yields, and TIPS-based real yields from January 2009 forward, the following picture emerges. The Bloomberg 5Y5Y inflation swap (FWISUS55) serves as the forward inflation expectations input — the swap-based rate is methodologically cleaner than the Treasury-derived FRED equivalent, stripping out the TIPS liquidity premium that distorts breakeven readings during stress periods.

Standard Deviation Framework — 10-Year Yields

Sources: NY Fed ACM Model, Bloomberg FWISUS55. Real yields from Pinebrook 10YR Daily Analysis (TIPS-based). QE-adjusted series excludes periods of financial repression.

Several observations follow directly from this data.

• Real yields, at 2.17%, are already deep inside the 1-sigma band on both the full-history and QE-adjusted series (2.45% and 2.33%, respectively) and pushing towards the 2-standard deviation band.

• The work of repricing real rates higher — a process that began in 2022 — is largely done as real’s approach their upper historical bound.

• The nominal 2-sigma ceiling sits between 5.35% and 5.44%, depending on the sample.

• At 4.65%, there are approximately 70 to 79 basis points of room before nominals reach a level that would be statistically extreme relative to the post-2004 distribution.

• This is meaningful runway — but it is not unlimited.

• The composite upper bound — constructed by adding the 2-sigma real yield to the current 5Y5Y inflation swap — produces a range of 4.80% to 4.92%.

• Current nominals at 4.65% are near this range.

In plain terms: the statistical framework says nominals have room to move a bit higher to the high 4%’s, before hitting a historically extreme ceiling in the 5%’s.

Read more

The implication was clear enough. Come back when the data has done more work. Three buckets were laid out, the third explicitly labeled early, and the note closed with a provocation rather than a summary: the margin in a dislocated oil market is not in the molecule — it is in the ability to move it.

Three weeks on, the data has done considerable work. It is time to score the map.

Bucket one was the simplest call: AI is real, the capex cycle is real, the earnings power is real, and the market is correct to assign premium valuations to companies that sit at the center of that buildout. History has shown repeatedly that technological cycles are underappreciated on the way up.

The Q1 earnings season has now validated that framework with a forcefulness that has surprised even the bulls. Eighty-four percent of S&P 500 companies have beaten consensus earnings estimates — better than the one-, five-, and ten-year averages of 79, 78, and 76 percent, respectively. Net margins have officially reached a record 13.4 percent.

The market was not wrong to own the AI supply chain. Instead, it may have been insufficiently aggressive about it.

Bucket two was the energy call: the dip in XLE and OIH was a buying opportunity, not a warning. The physical system does not reset when a ceasefire is announced. Infrastructure damage, insurance repricing, shipping route disruption, and the arithmetic of rebuilding a global inventory deficit measured in billions of barrels do not resolve on a diplomatic timeline.

Pinebrook established positions in XLE and OIH on May 5th. Those positions are modestly underwater as of this writing. The COZ6/COZ7 spread — the instrument identified in the April 8th Destiny note as the monitoring signal for physical tightness — is at 10.42, slightly off its prior high of 12.68 on May 4^th. The old March 19^th peak of 9.43 is in the rear-view mirror.

Bucket three was the least obvious and the most interesting: the dislocation is not simply that oil is scarce, but that it is geographically mismatched. Value accrues not just to the producer but to the system that re-routes, stores, balances, and delivers.

The market has confirmed buckets one and two in price and is beginning to sniff bucket three. This note advances the framework to the next question: what does the forward path look like from here, and how does the evolution of Fed policy reshape the probability distribution for every asset class?

In trying to find a signal, an appropriate starting point is often identifying, then discarding, the noise. The noise in this case is last week’s headline numbers in the Jobs Day employment report.

The signal is in the labor market’s immunity to recessionary pressure, which was flagged in January, when Initial Claims were running near 210,000.

• Three months and one geopolitical oil shock later, the 4-week Claims average stands at 203,750 and near multi-year lows.

• Continuing Claims have fallen to 1,782,000, the lowest reading since April 2024.

• We are now deep enough into the window when companies might have begun layoffs in response to an oil shock of this magnitude. That has not happened.

This is the fourth consecutive month in which the street’s recession anchoring has caused it to underestimate the resilience of the American labor market.

What the jobs report does not do is provide any rationale for Fed easing.

• The employment picture has one important nuance the headlines obscure. The ECI breakdown from the April 30th release told the deeper story: wages and salaries grew +0.7 percent quarter-over-quarter while benefit costs grew +1.3 percent — benefits growing at nearly double the rate of wages.

• Healthcare benefits specifically are up 5.7% YoY. Individual market benchmark silver plan premiums increased 21.7% in 2026. The mechanism is precise and the policy implication unambiguous.

• Rising employer-sponsored insurance costs suppress wages without raising take-home pay. Compensation costs increase, but the increase accrues to insurance companies and healthcare providers — not to worker paychecks.

Tuesday morning’s CPI prints added further anxious noise to the labor market picture. Deflating wages by CPI removes a year of nominal wage gains.

While Mike Konczal, whose chart appears above, is a Pinebrook friendly, we cannot let him have all the chart fun. Below is a chart of indexed wages of non-supervisory workers (the W2 proletarians who do not receive management bonuses or stock option-based compensation) deflated by CPI.

• Real wages are down -0.9% from their peak.

• Real aggregate weekly payrolls are down -0.4%

In a normal world, both measures of real wages and weekly payrolls would be sending a yellow recessionary flag, and today’s consensus will take it as such.

We are not in a normal world.

Market participants should look forward. As with Pinebrook’s February forward call of an inflationary growth pick-up, and confirmation of the restocking cycle, aided by a gargantuan AI Capex spend, signs of a reaccelerating labor market are manifesting themselves.

Read more

Here is what you said.

On what’s missing: most of you said nothing. That’s the most useful answer I got, because it tells me the problem isn’t the content — it’s the delivery. The framework is working. The infrastructure around it isn’t.

Three specific gaps came through consistently across the responses that did flag something:

First, the X problem. I heard this loud and clear.

• Some of you have stayed on a platform you hate, but continue to stay on, because of my feed.

• Some of you are getting alerts late because X buries them.

• Some of you just find it a mess.

• Several of you told me to get off it entirely.

You are right on all counts. The freeloader problem I described in my last email is the business reason to leave. Your frustration with the platform is the subscriber reason. Both point the same direction.

Second, the trade blotter.

• You want to know when I move, the moment I move — not via a screenshot, not after the fact, not by hunting through X.

• You want a more easily accessible and visually appealing trade record.

• You want current analytics on the portfolio.

• A live, time-stamped, always-current alert system of every position entry and exit.

Several of you described this differently but you were all asking for the same thing.

Third, a dashboard. Not generic stuff like another RSI or VIX feed. Everyone has access to ToS, Trading View, Interactive Brokers, and in some cases a Bloomberg Terminal. You want something that represents a systematized, always-current view of where things stand.

• This means a visual representation of the proprietary tools I use in my framework, unique to Pinebrook.

• From prosaic mean reversion to my most up to date inflation views.

Here is what I want you to know. Before I build anything for a premium tier, I am upgrading what you already have. You are my core business.

• You came first and you stay first.

• The people who have been here since the beginning — paying the early price of admission, reading every piece, replying to emails like this one — are not getting a downgrade so I can sell a shinier product to someone else.

• That is not how this works.

So here is what I am building, in order, for current subscribers:

First: I am killing the X feed and moving to Discord. The private X channel is going away. Discord replaces it — gated, paid-only, no freeloaders. Access is granted automatically when you subscribe and revoked automatically when you don’t. The macro reads and real-time commentary that currently live on X will live there instead. You will receive a separate email with the Discord invite link and setup instructions. You will have two weeks notice before X goes dark. If you’ve been staying on X because of me, you can finally delete it.

I will work on the back-end architecture and set up before an announcement. Please be patient. I still have research and writing responsibilities to you, and those come first.

Second: The blotter and trade alerts. The moment I plan to enter or exit a position, it will hit your Substack inbox, the Discord trade alerts channel, and Substack chat. One alert, three delivery mechanisms. You get it however you prefer to receive it. Instrument, direction, size, rationale in plain English. No latency. No hunting. The moment I plan to move, you will know.

I plan to make the blotter live, or at least with minimal delay, depending on the cost of data API feeds. Every position, time-stamped, always current, accessible via a link pinned in Discord and embedded in Substack. Not a monthly PDF. Not a screenshot. A (near) live record that updates constantly. Details to be determined.

This effort will not start until the Discord goes live and the kinks get worked out. Baby steps.

Third: The dashboards. Not generic indicators — my frameworks, my signal variables, the proprietary stuff that drives the analysis you’ve been reading. Things that don’t exist anywhere else because I built them. Part of this is understanding reader requirements and demands. Part of this is my own evolution with tech and new tools.

That is the Core upgrade. It is not a teaser for a premium tier. It is what you are paying for, made significantly better, at no additional cost.

Speaking of cost, a meaningful number of you also flagged price — not as a hard no, but as a genuine concern. I heard that too. My business philosophy has always been to reward loyalty with loyalty and respect my customers. Once you lock in a price, it’s honored for the life of your subscription. This will always be the case regardless of price increases for new subscribers.Pro comes after. And when it does, it will be built on top of an already-improved foundation — not a reason to feel like you’re missing something.

One more thing. Several of you said things in your replies that had nothing to do with product features. You told me to protect my energy. You wished my kids well. You sent warmth that I did not expect and genuinely appreciated. I don’t take that lightly either.

More to come shortly.

-David

Read more

The Setup: Tariff Shock, Vol Spike, and the Playbook

April began where March left off: in a headline-driven market with elevated implied volatility, a degrossed book, and an active geopolitical and macro backdrop.

The month’s defining event came on April 7^th, when President Trump delivered his Taco. The Pinebrook home team did not hesitate. A wide net was cast, and risk was deployed indiscriminately across the board.

Heros:

• April 5 & 7: Long December 2026 oil futures COZ6.

• April 7: Long SPX futures ESM6, EWY, TSM, EFA, DXJ, EEM.

• April 7: Long gold micro-futures, MGCM6.

• April 10-14: Long SPY, ESM6.

• April 10 – 16: Short U.S. 10-yr note futures, ZN.

• April 16 – 22: Short Europe and Asia, EFA and IEUR.

The EWY position was a home run, with a 20.56% return by month end.

Zeros:

• April 10-14: Long gold miners GDX & GDXJ.

• April 5 & 7: Long June 2026 oil futures COM6.

Pinebrook was stopped out from COM6 on Friday, April 17^th and low of the day after a Cheeto tweet. The risk into the weekend outweighed the implied shiny toy model targets.

The result: -335bps PNL hit on the hard loss, and an additional 100bps on foregone profits if the futures contracts would have been held till expiration.

Woulda, shouda, could have. It’s cope of course.

Read more

To smooth the data, we take a three-month moving average of each time series and assign weights that represent their rough contributions to U.S. economic output: 25% to manufacturing and 75% to services.

Doing so produces a graph that looks like this.

Strong Numbers. Complicated Story.

On the surface, the April ISM prints are unambiguously good. Both manufacturing and services are expanding. New orders in both series are above 53, a level that historically points toward continued output growth over the following two to three quarters. If you stopped reading here, you could write a straightforward bullish note.

We are not stopping here.

Read more

Read more

You’re a paid subscriber, which means you’re not here by accident. You’ve followed the framework, watched the calls play out, and stuck around. I don’t take that lightly.

I’m building the next phase of Pinebrook and before I build anything, I want to hear from you directly.

Two questions:

1. What’s the one thing Pinebrook doesn’t curre…

Read more

In Homer’s Odyssey, Odysseus is warned that he must sail through a narrow strait flanked by two inescapable dangers: Scylla, the six-headed monster on the cliff, and Charybdis, the whirlpool capable of swallowing the entire vessel. There is no safe passage. There is only the discipline to identify which risk to manage more carefully, and the nerve to sail.

Markets in April 2026 have placed investors in a structurally analogous position.

• On one side churns the Charybdis of American exceptionalism running at full throttle — S&P 500 net margins at a fifteen-year record, forward earnings at an all-time high for the 49th consecutive week, a labor market printing 189,000 initial claims against a long-run average of 220,700.

• On the other side rises the Scylla of global macro deterioration — a Strait of Hormuz that remains functionally closed with no credible off-ramp in sight, a Eurozone sliding into stagflation with its anchor economy at Covid-era weakness, and an inflation pipeline in fertilizers, food, healthcare, and freight that is no longer prospective. It is arriving.

This note is a navigator’s chart. Every section below is written with one purpose: to create new forward-looking knowledge, not to report what is already known. The navigation section translates that knowledge into specific, actionable trade expressions.

On March 30th, these pages published a detailed economic framework mapping the distributional path of the US economy under the assumption that the Strait of Hormuz remained effectively closed through June or July — the worst-case kinetic timeline.

That framework projected Q2 GDP potentially contracting to -0.5%, Initial Claims spiking toward 320K by June, unemployment peaking at 4.9% in August, and core PCE hitting 4.4% YoY by September. It was explicitly called not a collapse, but the first real test of the post-Covid resilience thesis.

That worst case has not materialized — and the reason is instructive. The conflict evolved into a stalemate governed by ceasefire rather than sustained kinetic escalation. The most destructive scenarios in the March framework required continuous military action degrading infrastructure and supply chains beyond their current state.

The ceasefire interrupted that path.

• What we have instead is something more insidious and harder to trade: the shooting has largely stopped but the oil is still not flowing.

• The supply shock is real and persistent, but the acute demand destruction from $4.12 gasoline is being absorbed by the trillion-dollar capex cycle that has been a theme of these pages.

• The labor market, as this morning’s 189,000 Claims print confirms, has not broken.

• The March framework’s Okun’s Law mechanical linkage — GDP contraction feeding into unemployment — has not been triggered because the GDP contraction itself has not occurred.

The honest read of the data is that the economy navigated the acute phase of the shock better than the conditional framework anticipated. The current 2.3% annualized GDP print is not what a supply-shocked economy looks like. However, the inflation pipeline — fertilizers, food, healthcare, freight — is real and building.

The doom scenario required a war that kept escalating. What we have instead is a stalemate that keeps oil prices elevated without producing the demand destruction cascade. That is a different and more nuanced problem than what we mapped in March. It is also, as this note argues, a more investable one.

I. THE MACRO BACKDROP: THIS MORNING’S DATA IN CONTEXT

May 1, 2026 — A Morning That Confirms the Pinebrook Framework

Yesterday morning’s simultaneous release of PCE, GDP, Initial Claims, and the Employment Cost Index is the most important single data day for understanding the macro regime Pinebrook has been documenting since February.

The results confirm a call these pages made before most of the street had caught up: the US economy is simultaneously stronger than the consensus feared and more inflationary than the Fed’s projections allowed.

• GDP: +2.3% annualized QoQ, beating the 2.0% consensus. This follows Q4 2025’s 0.5% print — a sharp acceleration that validates the restocking cycle thesis identified in the January ISM Manufacturing note on February 3rd, when ISM New Orders surged from 47.7 to 57.1. The consensus was too bearish on growth. The GDP confirms that shift was real.

• Initial Claims: 189,000 for the week of April 25 — beating the 212,000 consensus by 23,000. This is an extraordinary print. The 4-week moving average has fallen to 207,500. Continuing Claims dropped to 1,785,000 from 1,821,000. The labor market is not in low-fire mode. It is actively tightening. Pinebrook first called the labor market’s immunity to recessionary pressure on January 20^th, claims were running near 210,000. Three months later, the data has tightened further.

Chart 1: US Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance — 189,000 print on April 30, 2026 confirms labor market immunity thesis.

• Core PCE: +3.2% YoY, +0.3% MoM — in line with consensus. The in-line print avoided the worst-case scenario and is generating a 10-year bond short cover bid this morning. But in-line at 3.2% is not benign — it is accelerating from 3.0% in February. In the March 1^st Signal & Noise Filter, these pages showed the base effects math explicitly: for the Fed’s prior 2.5% core PCE projection to materialize, month-over-month inflation would need to run at essentially zero for six consecutive months. Core PCE of 0% MoM would be a deflationary shock. The math was always going to force the FOMC to revise their inflation projections upward. It has.

Chart 2: US Core PCE YoY % — accelerating to 3.2%, well above the Fed’s 2% target and prior 2.5% projection.

• Employment Cost Index: +0.9% QoQ, beating the 0.8% consensus, up from 0.7% prior. The headline beat obscures the most analytically important detail: within the ECI, wages and salaries grew +0.7% QoQ while benefit costs grew +1.3% QoQ — benefits growing at nearly double the rate of wages. Healthcare benefits specifically are up 5.7% year-over-year, the fastest growth since the early 2000s. This distinction matters enormously for the forward-looking framework and is addressed in detail below.

Taken together, these four releases validate a framework Pinebrook established in real time. On February 3rd, these pages called the restocking cycle and said the consensus was too bearish on growth. On March 1^st, these pages officially called ‘None and done for 2026’ on rate cuts, identified healthcare and energy as the inflationary broadening mechanism, and flagged that Romer & Romer would be undermined by the strong labor market.

Today’s data is not a surprise to this framework. It is a confirmation of it.

II. SCYLLA — THE MONSTER ON THE CLIFF

The Hormuz Stalemate: Duration Is the Variable the Market Is Still Mispricing

Two months into the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the defining investment question is not whether the disruption is real — the physical market settled that argument in February — but how long it lasts.

Polymarket’s contract on Hormuz traffic returning to normal by end of June stood at 52% as of April 29^th, down from 88% on April 17th. That 36-point collapse in 12-days is the market repricing this duration in real time.

It still has further to go.

• The geopolitical architecture argues for a longer stalemate than consensus expects. Trump cannot frame a ceasefire as a win on current terms. Iran’s conditions have not materially changed. The GCC states, particularly the UAE whose OPEC withdrawal was announced this month, are repositioning around a post-Iran regional order that requires Iran to be structurally diminished.

• The physical infrastructure damage — an estimated -1.2 billion barrels of inventories lost through end of April, growing to -1.8 billion by end of June — is unforgiving arithmetic. Remediating a June-end inventory loss of that magnitude requires a surplus of +2 million barrels per day sustained for 900 days.

• The pre-war range of $55-$75 for Brent is gone regardless of ceasefire timing.

The Inflation Pipeline: No Longer Prospective

• The inflation pipeline described in February is arriving. Gas prices have moved from $2.94 per gallon the week before the Iran strike to $4.12 as of April 27th — a 40% increase in two months. Consumer surveys from the University of Michigan show households expecting gas prices to be 40-50% higher over the next five years.

• The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-third of globally traded fertilizers and 85% of Middle Eastern polyethylene exports. The disruption struck at the start of the Northern Hemisphere’s spring planting season. Lower fertilizer application this season means lower crop yields, which means higher food prices in H2 2026 and into 2027 — baked in regardless of when the war ends.

• Today, ISM Manufacturing Prices Paid printed at 84.6 in April — the highest reading since mid-2022 and a massive 4.3-point beat above the already-elevated survey of 80.3. ISM Manufacturing Employment simultaneously contracted to 46.4 — the K-shape in one data release: input costs surging while hiring falters.

• ISM Services Prices Paid surveyed at 73.5 for the May 5th print, pointing higher still.

• Rate cuts cannot fix either side of this equation.

The Warsh Head Fake: Rate Policy Is the Wrong Tool for This Problem

Today — with 189,000 Initial Claims, core PCE at 3.2% YoY, GDP at +2.3% annualized, and ECI benefits growing at nearly double the rate of wages — the no-cut call is no longer controversial.

But the more important forward-looking insight is not whether Warsh cuts. It is why rate policy is the wrong instrument for the problem he is inheriting.

• The ECI breakdown tells the story: wages and salaries +0.7% QoQ, benefit costs +1.3% QoQ. Healthcare benefits up 5.7% year-over-year — fastest growth since the early 2000s.

• The New York Fed’s Regional Business Survey confirms businesses reported double-digit percentage increases in health insurance costs and that wage growth would have been 0.9 percentage points higher if healthcare costs had held constant. Individual market benchmark silver plan premiums increased 21.7% in 2026.

• The mechanism is precise: healthcare functions as a head tax on employment. Rising employer-sponsored insurance costs suppress wages without raising take-home pay. Compensation costs increase, but the increase accrues to insurance companies and healthcare providers — not to worker paychecks.

And here is the critical point: lower interest rates cannot fix it.

• A rate cut does not reduce healthcare premiums.

• A rate cut does not lower gasoline prices.

The consumer being squeezed by $4.12 gasoline and a 21.7% increase in insurance premiums is not being squeezed because money is too tight. They are being squeezed by supply shocks structurally independent of monetary policy.

CME FedWatch gives 80.4% odds of no change through year-end — Pinebrook has held that view since March 1st.

Europe: Stagflation Without the Tools to Fight It

Stagflation has arrived.

• The Eurozone’s April composite PMI fell to 48.6 — the first contractionary reading in 16 months.

• Eurozone inflation accelerated to 2.6% YoY in March from 1.9% in February.

• Q1 GDP was revised down to +0.1% QoQ.

• The DAX has returned 7.98% on a total return basis (in local EUR currency) over the last 12 months during a global AI boom, compared to 29.44% for the S&P500.

• The 10-year Bund yield has risen toward 3.03% — its highest since 2011. The rise in isolation is not the issue. It’s the rise in a low growth context that has little buffer before contraction.

The structural dimension is more consequential than the cyclical. MSCI Europe forward earnings are 0.3% below their record high set in July 2008 — eighteen years of zero net earnings growth. Over the same period S&P 500 forward earnings have risen 350%.

US nonfarm productivity runs at +2.5% YoY versus Eurozone productivity at +0.5% YoY — a five-times wedge that is structural in origin.

Europe has no hyperscalers, no fabless champion, no model lab at scale. The MSCI forward P/E spread between the US and Europe is not irrational exuberance. It is the rational pricing of a structural earnings divergence. That spread widens further if Europe has no answer to the AI capital concentration driving US corporate profitability.

As discussed here and here over a year ago, it is now clear that European equity outperformance was simply a currency enabled mean reversion mirage that is now over.

III. CHARYBDIS — THE AMERICAN MACHINE

The Margin Record: Broad, Structural, and Explained by Kalecki

S&P 500 net margins are set to reach 13.4% in Q1 2026 — the highest reading since FactSet began tracking the data in 2009. The forward path: 14.1% in Q2, 14.6% in Q3 and Q4. But the more important analytical point is the breadth of the improvement. Six of eleven S&P sectors are posting net margins above their five-year averages: Technology (+3.8 pts), Financials (+2.2), Communications (+1.5), Industrials (+1.5), Utilities (+0.5), Consumer Discretionary (+0.4). Whenever you hear the margin improvement attributed solely to Tech, remember that data.

This breadth demands a macroeconomic explanation. Michal Kalecki’s fundamental insight is that aggregate profits are generated by aggregate investment — investment creates income creates consumption creates profits, circularly, across the entire economy.

The $1 trillion US AI investment cycle is not extracting profits from a fixed pie. It is generating them through the circular flow of spending. The hyperscaler infrastructure spending flows to NVIDIA for GPUs, to construction firms building data centers, to electrical utilities expanding grid capacity, to equipment manufacturers supplying cooling systems.

• Those revenues flow into wages.

• Those wages flow into consumer spending.

• That spending flows into the margins of Consumer Discretionary, Industrials, and Financials companies that have no direct AI exposure.

Chart 3: The Global Kalecki AI Investment Recycling Mechanism — How US hyperscaler capex generates economy-wide profit expansion.

The doomer scenario — AI concentrating profits in Tech while cannibalizing the rest of the economy — would produce sector divergence. The FactSet data shows sector convergence. This is the Kalecki recycling mechanism working precisely as the theory predicts. As long as the AI investment cycle continues generating the circular flows of income and spending, the margin improvement remains broad.

Is 13.4% the Ceiling or the Floor? A Three-Source Triangulation

Read more

Executive Summary

The Hormuz shock of 2026 is not 1997. But it rhymes. A major external disruption is sorting the global economy by structural architecture — and for the second time in thirty years, the United States holds the winning hand.

• Reserve currency status, energy self-sufficiency, and an AI investment boom that mirrors the late-1990s technology cycle are together providing insulation that Japan, South Korea, and Europe simply do not possess.

• The relative outcome is the same as 1997.

• The absolute experience is harder — and the gap between what financial markets are pricing and what physical markets are saying is where the next trade lives.

Where We Left Off

The last issue of this series asked a foundational question: Is the Hormuz Shock a Productivity Regime Shifter? The answer was careful — not yet, but the clock is running.

As mentioned in the same note, the United States entered the Hormuz shock in possession of something historically rare and fragile: a pro-cyclical abundance regime defined by three simultaneous pillars — supply chain abundance, a mature and productive labor market, and a fixed investment boom anchored by AI hyperscaler capital expenditure.

That combination, last seen in the late 1990s, had produced the first sustained episode of non-recessionary productivity growth in a generation: lower inflation, supply chain normalization, and expanding margins without policy tightening.

Two forks in the road were laid out:

• Path one: Temporary shock, productivity dips, supply chains normalize, abundance regime resumes.

• Path two: Persistent supply instability drives firms from optimization toward resilience investment, raises structural costs, and shifts the economy toward something more European in its productivity and growth outlook.

• The note was explicit that the 1970s stagflationary parallel was not the base case.

• A hybrid regime of moderate inflation, weaker productivity, and volatile growth was the risk scenario that mattered.

Six weeks on, the physical data and the activity indicators have done meaningful work sorting between those two paths. The general architecture holds but several specific calibrations need to change.

Thus, this note integrates that evidence and expands the framework to include its international dimension — because the global distribution of this shock is as important as its domestic transmission, and understanding who loses more is essential to understanding why the United States still comes out ahead – and what the trade is.

The macroeconomic risk of 2026 is not a pullback in GDP or a one-off price shock. It is the growing risk to the post-pandemic abundance regime itself — and the uneven distribution of that risk across the global economy is the 1997 playbook on repeat.

I. The 1997 Blueprint: Architecture, Not Accident

To understand why the United States is structurally better positioned than its peers in the current Hormuz shock, one must begin not with today’s oil markets but with a currency peg in Bangkok in the summer of 1997.

The Asian Financial Crisis is often taught as a story about contagion. That framing is technically accurate but analytically insufficient. The real story is about architecture — the lethal combination of fixed exchange rates, which led to a balance of payment problem, unhedged foreign-currency debt, and the absence of institutional buffers that separate a manageable shock from an existential one.

Thailand’s baht came under speculative attack in July 1997. The peg broke. Dollar-denominated debt became immediately and catastrophically more expensive. Banks went insolvent. Credit froze. Contagion spread not because of shared economic fundamentals but because investors searched for the same currency mismatch architecture elsewhere and found it.

Indonesia contracted by 13 to 14 percent in 1998. Thailand fell roughly ten percent. South Korea, six to seven. World economic growth slowed from roughly four percent in 1997 to 2.5 percent in 1998.

And yet the United States kept growing — at 4.5 percent in 1998 — not by accident but by architecture. The exorbitant privilege, floating exchange rate, deep capital markets, and a domestic technology boom provided insulation that no other advanced economy possessed.

Capital fled crisis countries and flooded into dollar assets. Falling commodity prices from the Asian demand collapse functioned as a tax cut for American consumers. The Okun transmission barely fired.

Figure 1. Real GDP growth, 1998. US grew 4.5% while crisis epicenters contracted 7–13%. Source: World Bank / IMF.

II. 2026: Same Architecture, Different Transmission

The Strait of Hormuz closed in late February 2026 following US and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military targets. Tanker traffic through the strait has fallen approximately ninety percent since March 1st. Baker Hughes told investors it assumes the strait will not fully reopen until the second half of 2026. A Dallas Fed survey found nearly eighty percent of oil and gas executives share that view.

This timeline is consistent with what was written here, which diverged from the OECD’s more optimistic reopening assumptions — a disagreement that the physical data has since resolved.

That’s said, reserve currency architecture remains intact and actively functioning. Global capital, frightened by the scale of the energy disruption, continues to seek the safety of dollar-denominated assets.

Foreign portfolio inflows into US Treasuries, corporate debt, and equities were at their strongest levels in over twenty-five years as of January 2026, and the conflict has reinforced rather than reversed that dynamic. The narrative of a Sell America trade has no basis in the flow data.

Figure 2.

One important precision note: the TIC data referenced runs through January 2026 because of the six-week publication lag. The statement holds but it’s worth knowing the January figure is the last available data point at the time of this writing, not a real-time reading.

Three differences from 1997 sharpen the analysis.

• First, in 1997 the United States was a bystander; in 2026, it is an active belligerent bearing military and diplomatic costs.

• Second, in 1997 the US consumer caught a tailwind from falling commodity prices; in 2026, the US consumer catches a headwind — an energy price spike that functions as a regressive tax.

• Third, the dollar story is more complicated than 1997’s clean safe-haven appreciation.

US economic activity makes the domestic transmission visible in a single data contrast.

• Nominal consumer activity registered 2.9 standard deviations above zero-percent real growth.

• Real consumer activity registered 0.3 standard deviations.

• That spread is the inflation tax made statistically legible.

Figure 3. Nominal vs. real consumer activity indices, Oct 2025 – Apr 2026 (est). The 2.6σ spread is the inflation tax: households spending more nominal dollars for less real consumption. Underlying Data Source: Employ America.

III. The Dollar: Exorbitant Privilege Meets Fed Politicization

The 1997 episode produced a textbook safe-haven dollar surge. In 2026, the initial phase of the Hormuz shock has produced a similar temporary pattern — risk aversion supporting the dollar as the conflict broke.

But the medium-term dollar trajectory looks materially different from 1997, and understanding why matters for portfolio construction and for interpreting the relative growth story.

The divergence comes from the Fed. Increasing political pressure on the Federal Reserve to ease policy ahead of midterm elections — pressure to cut rates even as core PCE runs above four percent — is the mechanism through which dollar weakness emerges not as a reserve currency crisis but as a conventional rate differential story.

When the Fed expectations and forwards guidance guide nominal yields below what the economic data would otherwise require, real rates fall relative to the rest of the world.

That is toxic for the dollar on a medium-term basis even if short-term risk aversion provides temporary support.

For this reason, Pinebrook maintains a short position in US duration, expressed by short ZN, the US 10-yr futures contract.

This creates an important distinction: reserve currency status and dollar direction are not the same thing. Reserve currency status — the structural demand for dollar-denominated assets, the exorbitant privilege — remains intact. Foreign portfolio inflows confirm it.

But the dollar can weaken on a trade-weighted basis while reserve currency status is perfectly fine. That is precisely what happened after the global financial crisis in the 2010 to 2013 period and is what the current rate differential structure implies for the year ahead.

Reserve currency status is a structural feature. Dollar direction is a cyclical one. In 1997, both pointed the same way. In 2026, they diverge — and that divergence is as important for portfolio construction as the growth story itself.

Figure 4. Illustrative USD index behavior: 1997 (continuous strengthening) vs. 2026 (safe-haven spike then gradual medium-term weakening driven by rate differential compression). Source: Pinebrook estimates.

USD price action below, since a negotiated settlement became the dominant strategic goal in US policy, reflects the above.

Figure 5. Dollar Currency Index. Source Bloomberg LP

IV. The Global Growth Map: Who Wins, Who Loses

Read more

Said Bob Dylan but performed better by Jimmy Hendrix, in this writer’s opinion.

The above reflects the disbelieve over a market that has had one of its strongest comeback streaks ever whilst in what is arguably the largest energy crisis, ever.

Make it make sense!

These pages will strive to do just that by focusing on frameworks, not predictions. That said, Destiny is still in play in the targets laid out last week – both in original form and revised.

We start by reminding readers of a framework these pages used to map out the 2025 post-taco trade last summer. After getting a reflexive spring bounce in May and June, the question investors were grappling with at the time was, what is the future impact of the tariffs on the economy? Wen Q3 or Q4 2025 recession?

These pages took the contra on July 19, 2025 and made a firm case for remaining bullish on the U.S. economy, and on risk assets, based on the forward looking probabilities that the market was pricing.

The model that was used was simple: a variant of the Monty Hall Problem. The relevant excerpt is shown below.

Suppose you are on a televised macroeconomic game show. You are given the choice of one of three doors. Two of the doors have a turd for a prize, symbolizing low or negative growth. Behind one of the doors is a Lamborghini sport car, symbolizing a bull market.

• You pick door one, not knowing what it is behind it of course.

• Meanwhile, the game show host – who has perfect information – opens door three and reveals a turd.

• You now have an option to stay with door one (the unknown turd), or switch to door two (the Lambo).

What do you do?

• Being the clever thinking person you think you are, you reason that left with two options, your choice is a fair value 50/50-coin toss of chance.

• You will either get a turd market or a bull market Lambo.

• Recall, you do not know that behind your initial choice of door one, lies a turd.

This is wrong way to think about the problem.

• The reveal of the turd behind door three introduced new information: the odds of the Lambo being behind door three fell to zero.

• The joint odds of the Lambo being behind door two OR door three were always 66% (1/3 + 1/3).

• Eliminating door three as a Lambo door concentrates the probability of the Lambo being behind door two to 66%.

Frederich Hayek, patron saint of free-market libertarians, emphasized that prices act as a form of information within an economy because they aggregate and transmit dispersed knowledge.

• Recent price action has informed market participants that the near-term probability of a recession is at or near zero.

• That is, door three has been opened and we know that a recession is off the table between now and calendar year end.

• Thus, the probability of a 2025 bull market has gone from 1/3 to 2/3.

• With improved future probabilities, economic agents (firms and consumers) are better able to re-consider their appetite for real, economic risk to the upside, and act accordingly.

For those with physics envy, think of the above as a slow motion Lévy Flight, which is a random walk characterized by small displacements and occasional very large displacements.

In market speak, this is a repricing of market expectations, from a turd to a Lambo.

/FIN

Markets find themselves in a similar place of price discovery and probability mapping as they did last year. With President Trump looking for an off-ramp, he has revealed new information:

• A quick resolution is the new strategic goal.

• Other considerations are taking a back seat; the red lines are fictional narratives. GTFO is the new political reality for an unpopular war no one wanted.

• The worst case is off the table.

By eliminating the economic turd of a recession due to an extended interruption of supply lines, the market is now probabilistically weighing a continuation of the bull market.

Markets Are Not Ignoring the Shock

Read more

An addendum at the end will provide an update.

Introduction

The prior note in this series laid out a framework for projecting Brent crude physical prices over the next three months, given the assumption of a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz and an extended interruption in oil flows.

• Since then, physical (“dated”) Brent has collapsed from the mid $120-levels on April 8th to a current $116-handle, after having tagged $144/bbl the day before.

• This movement was also reflected in paper (futures) markets, after President Trump mentioned peace talks in Islamabad, which promptly dumped soon thereafter.

The targets laid out still stand given the assumptions. Kill the assumptions, kill the targets. Hold the assumptions, hold the targets.

Readers can make up their own minds about the expected length of the interruptions based on their political, diplomatic, military, or strategic priors. In the meantime, markets will ebb and flow to price the relevant new expectations given changes in the information surface.

With two weeks to go until the April 30^th expiration of the June 2026 contract (COM6 <Commodity> GO on Bloomberg or BZM26 on the CME/ICE exchange), traders need to set aside such priors and focus on the upcoming reality of the June contract expiration: buy, sell, or roll the contract. There is no other option.

Shiny toy models are tired, skin in the trading game is wired.

Thus, this note is intended to frame the evolving structure of the crude oil market and to provide a probabilistic roadmap for the settlement of the June 2026 Brent futures contract.

The discussion integrates financial flow dynamics, physical market structure, arbitrage mechanisms, and refinery economics. The goal is not to predict a single price, but to define the range of outcomes and the conditions under which each outcome materializes.

Mind the Gap

As of April 16, 2026, the Brent market is exhibiting a quantamental fracture. The June 2026 (BZM26) paper contract is trading at $97.90, while physical dated Brent remains anchored at $116.74. This $18.84 gap is the battleground.

A conventional framework for pricing settlement price is simply the spread between physical and paper markets. Brent futures must converge to the physical market into expiry. This is not optional - it is enforced by arbitrage.

This isn’t wrong. But it is certainly incomplete and requires more nuance.

Futures do not converge to spot; they converge to the average physical price over the pricing window, which is itself influenced by various factors.

In effect, the June futures contract is a projection on physical tightness into June. More precisely,

Settlement ≈ ICE Brent Index ≈ f(Forward Brent, Dated Brent, CFD structure)

The appropriate way to approach the problem set is not by forecasting an oil price. We are solving for physical benchmark during pricing window, which requires mapping dated Brent (and forward Brent complex) into mid/late May → June.

What This Means Mechanically

Five elements are required to develop a projection for the June contract price at expiration.

• The price of physical dated Brent. Brent futures are not abstract gambling instruments. They are tied to a physical settlement mechanism, which is linked to the ICE Brent Index.

• Settlement is based on a basket of physical cargo pricing from the BFOET complex. BFOET stands for Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk, Troll, plus West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) from Midland, Texas, during the final trading days of the futures contract.

• The CFD market (contracts for difference), which tracks the spread between physical dated brent today and the forward month. It is the physical bridge in markets.

• In the North Sea market, the CFD swap allows traders to hedge the risk of physical oil prices changing between the time they buy a cargo of oil and the time it unloads.

• The DFL market, (dated to frontline swap), which represents the basis risk between physical and paper oil markets. It is the financial bridge in markets which allows traders to lock in the difference between physical and paper markets should they move in opposite directions.

· If one has physical cargo priced off dated Brent, but hedged with Ice paper futures, one is exposed to the risk these two benchmarks move differently. A DFL cancels this risk.

• Arbitrage and logistics, as the introduction of WTI in the settlement price of Brent introduces arbitrage. Logistics involves the carry associated with transportation costs (cargo leasing), cost of capital to fund an operation, insurance, and other costs that go with the physical movement of crude.

• Refining Margins and crack spreads, which reflect refiner willingness to pay for crude.

Never Go Full Macro

The $97.90 price is a financial barrel of oil. It is driven by macro hedge funds and algos trading the Pakistan Truce headlines. These participants are shorting the front-month, betting that a 14-day ceasefire will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and collapse prices at some point T + timeT in the future. They are trading expectations, not molecules.

The initial move in paper crude oil—from sub-$100 levels toward the $110 - 120 range - was not driven by physical scarcity alone. It was, instead, a classic financial convexity event, consistent with the framework outlined by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

The sequence unfolded in three stages:

• Macro Hedging Demand: Geopolitical escalation triggered large-scale call option buying from macro funds and real money investors. Oil was treated as a hedge against inflation and geopolitical tail risk.

• Dealer Gamma Feedback Loop: Dealers, short those calls, were forced to delta hedge by buying futures, creating a mechanical upward pressure on price. This is the point at which price becomes non-linear.

• CTA / Momentum Amplification: Systematic strategies and momentum funds entered the market, further extending the move. However, these players are volatility-sensitive, and as realized volatility increased, their position sizes began to shrink.

Read more