Individual Economists

Silver's Endgame: Almost Too Obvious

Zero Hedge -

Silver's Endgame: Almost Too Obvious

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

The case for silver is now almost too obvious.

Silver’s Fat Pitch

Like many Americans, I grew up playing a fair amount of baseball. Part of this involved trying to hit a little round ball with the equivalent of a modified, wooden stick.

Like asset prices and market forces, this little white ball, thrown by a pitcher 60 feet away, could sink, curve or speed by you in bewildering and often embarrassing ways.

Sometimes, however, we hitters of that ball would be blessed with what is called a “fat pitch”—that is, a ball thrown so comfortably straight, clear and trackable that it was effectively impossible to miss.

Below, I’ll show why the set-up we are currently seeing in the global silver market is precisely that: A fat pitch.

Prior Silver Curve Balls

Of course, silver markets, like baseball players, have also seen a lot of curve balls and crazy swings.

We saw recent versions of this in December of 2025, when the COMEX price-fixers, with a little help from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, or CME, raised margin prices to force a mass-selloff (i.e. price-fall) of the metal.

When that pitch failed, the COMEX threw another, far more effective margin hike (or “curve ball”) in late January of 2026 to openly engineer the single-worst silver price crash in 44 years.

The reasons for these tricky pitches at the COMEX were obvious. The big players (i.e., banks) going net-short silver were literally dying under the weight of silver’s rising price moves.

Not so coincidently, the CME/COMEX then initiated another, more effective, margin hike and thereby bailed the insider banks out of the mother of all short-squeezes.

There was no price discovery, but blatant price manipulation, as fixed/rigged as the 1919 World Series. (Ironically, both the CME and the cheating, 1919 White Sox hailed from Chicago…)

But as I argued in January, such a rigged game was nothing new. The COMEX has been playing it for decades, from defeating the Hunt Brothers’ silver bid in the 1980’s (with a sell-only trick) to crushing the “Reddit mob’s” attempt to bring honest demand (and pricing) to silver in 2021.

In short, the COMEX, and the banks who effectively self-regulate it, threw a lot of curve balls which were difficult to beat.

But as we enter the 2026 macro playing field, it is the COMEX itself which is about to strike out, and this bodes extremely well for silver.

Here’s why.

Silver: About to Hit a Homerun

The set-up for silver is now nothing short of extraordinary. In fact, it is unprecedented.

At 30,000 feet, the big picture remains the same. That is, as currencies are debased to monetize unsustainable sovereign debt levels, monetary metals like silver outshine dying paper currencies.

It’s really that simple.

But the more nuanced, and often misunderstood, tailwinds for silver are a bit more complicated, though entirely clear once you know where to look.

And the first place to look is at the COMEX itself, where silver (like gold) has been manipulated downwards for decades. We’ve covered the motives, means and symptoms of this COMEX price fix in greater detail elsewhere.

What is worth noting here, however, is critical. That is, once the physical silver leaves the COMEX, the artificial price-fixing charade ends, and silver naturally rips higher.

Paper Claims vs. Physical Demand

Traditionally, for example, paper claims on silver (and gold) never resulted in actual delivery out of the COMEX. Instead, the contracts were simply rolled over or cash-settled.

But those days are ending.

As of this writing, there are more paper claims (“open interest) on the COMEX silver exchange than there are actual ounces of “registered” silver to meet delivery. In fact, there’s only about 80 million ounces on hand to meet over 570 million ounces of delivery demand.

That’s a levered mismatch of 7:1 at the COMEX.

If we then consider the larger silver market itself, including ETF silver, derivative claims, futures contracts, etc., many analysts in the commodity space are quoting the number of paper silver claims to actual silver ounces at a ratio of 350:1.

Read that last line again.

No Chairs Left

If one were to think of the paper silver market as a game of musical chairs in which the “music” represents the actual amount of physical silver available and the “chairs” represents the number of paper claims on it, the supply & demand ratios above make it mathematically clear that once the music stops, there’ll be very chairs left standing with silver.

Or stated more simply, percolating physical silver demand is about to hit a supply shock, which means silver is poised to skyrocket.

And if you look at the COMEX silver flows, you’ll quickly discover that the music is slowing down.

January applications for silver deliveries at the COMEX, for example, came in at 40M ounces, which was 40X the normal delivery rate.

A more recent delivery took 20% off the COMEX inventory in a week. (I have no proof, but I’m guessing the buyer here was JP Morgan…)

Looming Delivery Failure

At this exit pace, it’s at least plausible that the COMEX could see a bald failure of physical delivery within 90 days.

In such an event, the COMEX silver trade would be reduced to a cash-only trade, a possibility I warned of in January.

But this, of course, would only happen if one assumed the COMEX wouldn’t declare some kind of emergency in the interim, which we can be almost sure they will…

Nevertheless, the screws are now undeniably tightening on this New York exchange in ways we’ve never seen before.

This classic mismatch of supply and demand in the silver space is unprecedented, and whether the price-fixers in New York like it or not, supply and demand forces still matter, and they can be powerful forces…

Supply Deficits Colliding with Rising Demand

For example, and as most silver investors know, this metal has seen five consecutive years of supply deficits at 200M ounces/year, now aggregating to a deficit of nearly 1 billion ounces. China’s recent export restrictions for silver, moreover, aren’t helping supply flows.

Meanwhile, in the silver future’s market, we are seeing backwardation, a fancy way of saying that current prices are higher than future prices, which is a screaming signal of high demand colliding with low supply.

These factors help explain why the current lease rate for silver is at 8% levels, whereas for the bulk of my entire investing career, the lease rate had never surpassed 1%– until now.

Combine such evidence of a supply shock with silver’s rising industrial demand (60% of silver’s demand is industrial) in everything from solar panels to the missiles now cris-crossing Middle Eastern skies, and we see all the makings of a historical price hike in the metal.

After all, the silver supply can’t be magically increased with just the touch of a button. 70% of silver production comes as a byproduct of other mining.

This means there’s no silver supply miracle on the horizon.

And Then There’s War…

What IS filling our horizon, however, is the fog of war and hence the fog of oil. Supply shocks matter to oil just as much as they do to any asset, including silver.

As crude oil rises thanks to tightening flows in the Strait of Hormuz, so does inflation, and for every $10.00 rise in oil, we see a 0.1% rise in even our otherwise openly bogus inflation scale.

And as inflation rises, as it will, the monetary profile of silver just gets another tailwind as an anti-fiat metal.

Back to Baseball

Which brings me back to my original point and metaphor.

When one combines silver’s monetary profile with its rising industrial demand in a backdrop of historical supply deficits, COMEX delivery failures, rising lease prices, futures market backwardation, and all that is inherently backward as to war and rising oil, we arrive at what comes to nothing more than an unprecedented “fat pitch” for silver.

Batter up.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 14:40

Marjorie Taylor Greene Tells CNN That MAGA Feels '100% Betrayed' By Iran War

Zero Hedge -

Marjorie Taylor Greene Tells CNN That MAGA Feels '100% Betrayed' By Iran War

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has become a big fan of CNN since her departure from Congress since, we're guessing, FOX and Newsmax aren't excited to give her a platform of late. On Monday, she appeared on The Situation Room to once again declare doom and gloom for the MAGA movement… with a little help from the host.

During the interview, host Pamela Brown asked what she’s hearing from Trump supporters in Georgia regarding Iran, playing up the Israel angle. 

Are you hearing from them that they believe President Trump is doing this on behalf of Israel?” she asked. “Bring us there.”

Greene, who has been a thorn in Trump's side since leaving office, painted a picture of a Republican base that is fractured and angry over the ongoing military operation in Iran, and 

It’s actually very split. And it’s split along generational lines,” she said.

Many of the older Americans from the Baby Boomer generation that watch Fox News all day long very much believe the talking points on Fox News, and they have spent decades of their lives convinced that fighting these wars is the right thing to do,” she explained.

She then pointed to the next wave of voters, who see the issue through a completely different lens. 

But the younger generations - I’m Gen X - millennials and Gen Z are very much against this war,” Greene continued. “And so, when you talk to people on the ground, that’s how it comes across. It’s very generational. And the younger generations are completely against it.”

That sentiment echoes something that has been brewing in conservative politics since Trump entered the political arena. Younger voters inside the America First movement tend to view foreign wars as expensive distractions from domestic priorities. Greene leaned straight into that argument.

We want world peace. We want good trade. We want a great economy. We want a lower inflation, lower the cost of housing,” she said. “And younger generations want to be able to afford their American lives, and they don’t want their taxpayer dollars shipped off to — and you can fill in any foreign country.”

She emphasized that the frustration extends beyond any one ally or region.

We will take Israel out of it. They don’t want their money sent overseas,” Greene said. “And you know what? They’re right for saying this.”

She even argued that the military operation in Iran is a betrayal of the movement that carried Donald Trump back into the White House.

“This is absolutely absurd,” she said. “And it’s 100 percent a betrayal to what MAGA was supposed to be when we voted in 2024, and it’s turned into some perverted, deranged version of MAGA now that nobody wants.”

“And a lot of people are just like, this doesn’t make sense,” she added.

Polling on Iran has been mixed.

A CNN poll earlier this month showed that while a majority of voters (59%) opposed military action in Iran, a whopping 77% of Republicans approved of the decision, which hardly suggests the party is divided. However, there may be some truth to what Greene said.

Within the Republican Party, there is a sharp divide between those who say they consider themselves part of the “Make America Great Again” movement and those who do not, a division that appears largely linked to trust in the president. MAGA Republicans are 30 points more likely than non-MAGA Republicans to say they strongly approve of the decision to take military action, 34 points likelier to say it will reduce the threat Iran poses to the US and nearly 50 points more likely to say they have a great deal of trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran.

However, more recent surveys show that Americans have been warming up to the Iran strikes. A Washington Post poll from last week showed the country was more evenly divided on the strikes, with a plurality, 42% supporting the strikes, 40% opposing them, and 17% indicating they were unsure - a stunning change from its previous survey when 52% were opposed, 39% supported, and just 9% were unsure. Republican support for continuing the strikes even increased by 12 points. Fox News similarly reported a more even split of 50% support and 50% opposition, with 84% of Republicans supporting.

Yet, a Quinnipiac poll revealed that support changes drastically when it comes to boots on the ground - which 2,200 Marines may (or may not) provide. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 14:20

America's Nuclear Fuel Chain Gains As General Matter Earns $4.2 Billion Of Support From Ex-Im Bank

Zero Hedge -

America's Nuclear Fuel Chain Gains As General Matter Earns $4.2 Billion Of Support From Ex-Im Bank

This past weekend saw a major announcement from the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Ministerial in Tokyo, with the U.S. Export-Import Bank issuing letters of interest for $4.2 billion of capital for Japanese and South Korean reactor owners to purchase low-enriched uranium (LEU) from U.S. enrichment company General Matter

The Ex-Im Bank will support up to $2.4 billion for Japanese utilities and $1.8 billion for South Korean utilities looking to purchase enriched uranium from the U.S. as opposed to their long-term supplier, Russia. 

This is part of a larger ongoing effort on two different fronts, with the U.S. looking to secure funding to start up the domestic nuclear fuel chain within its borders by securing foreign investments, as well as the U.S. and its allies looking to diversify from eastern suppliers of critical materials, including enriched uranium. 

The U.S. finally seems to be getting serious about supporting a significant build-out of fuel chain capacity within its borders, as we have well since documented the extremely restricted bottleneck that is the supply of nuclear fuel in America.

General Matter recently was awarded $900 million from the DOE to support capacity build-out for producing high-assay LEU (HALEU) at its planned facility in Paducah, Kentucky. The company has yet to make any serious progress at their site, but has initiated initial discussions with the regulator, the NRC, and has announced additional sites that will support centrifuge construction and potentially additional enrichment facilities.

The U.S. is pursuing more self-reliance on a supply of enriched uranium with three other major companies. The first is with the existing commercial facility in New Mexico, owned and operated by Urenco, a company supported by a consortium of European nations including the U.K., Netherlands, and German utilities.

The second is the only facility in the U.S. currently producing HALEU at roughly 1,000 kilograms per year, owned by Centrus Energy in Ohio. We've long detailed their progress with awards from the DOE and ongoing build-out of their enrichment facility. For comparison to the new funding support for General Matter, the backlog for Centrus's order book currently stands at $2.3 billion

The third is Orano, backed by the French government, with their future LEU production facility planned in Tennessee under Project Ike.

General Matter has come out of nowhere to take the U.S. enrichment landscape by storm, supported by Scott Nolan from Founders Fund, along with Peter Thiel sitting on the board. Company leadership was also notably present in the Oval Office as President Trump signed last year's set of nuclear executive orders. Observers should expect to find General Matter high on the list of leaders within the American enrichment space. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 13:45

SNAP Recipients Claim Trump Trying To "Destabilize Food Access", Sue Feds Over Junk Food Ban

Zero Hedge -

SNAP Recipients Claim Trump Trying To "Destabilize Food Access", Sue Feds Over Junk Food Ban

The Make America Healthy Again agenda just found its first serious legal challenger. This week, five food stamp recipients filed suit in Washington, D.C., federal court demanding the right to spend taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits on candy, soda, and energy drinks. 

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its growing list of "food restriction" waivers, which Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins began approving back in May 2025. Since then, 22 states have signed on, each with their own specific list of banned items — generally soda, energy drinks, candy, and pre-packaged desserts. 

Both Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have championed the waivers as a concrete step toward addressing chronic disease and redirecting taxpayer money toward genuinely nutritious food. 

“The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer,” Rollins said last year.

“Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”

The lawsuit claims they had no right to do this. 

The five plaintiffs. residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and represented by the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, argue in their complaint that the restrictions "destabilize food access" for SNAP participants in the 22 affected states.

They claim the USDA exceeded its legal authority by approving the waivers without soliciting public input, establishing proper evaluation metrics, or engaging those directly impacted by the waivers first, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit further contends that the relevant section of the Food and Nutrition Act only authorizes pilot projects designed to "enhance the efficiency" or improve the delivery of benefits — and that banning specific food items accomplishes neither.

“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of families and households, and Congress has established clear guardrails for how the program must operate across the country,” Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, claimed in a statement to Newsweek.

“The USDA is attempting to bypass those strict guardrails by empowering states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers. We urge the Court to halt this attack on SNAP, which threatens millions of individuals’ access to essential food assistance nationwide.” 

The plaintiffs claim they or their family members rely on the restricted foods to manage health conditions such as diabetes and allergies, or to obtain energy boosts for daily life.

The claim that sugary drinks and candy are medically necessary for diabetics runs directly counter to established dietary guidance. One plaintiff argues that her state's waiver would restrict her daughter to only three "safe" foods and beverages — one of which is bottled water. 

The plaintiffs also argue that confusion is another problem impacting SNAP recipients.

"We are focused on litigating the case we filed yesterday and securing relief for the plaintiffs already before the Court. At the same time, we remain open to expanding the case to challenge similar waivers in additional states. SNAP serves as an essential support system for millions of families,” added Meegan Hollywood, a partner at the firm.

“The waivers create confusion at checkout and force retailers to apply standards that are vague and unworkable. A program that millions of families rely on cannot operate amid confusion and uncertainty. Our complaint details how these policies are already harming recipients in multiple states and undermining the very families SNAP is meant to support."

That framing assumes junk food is a non-negotiable line item. Recipients who want soda and candy remain free to purchase them — with their own money.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 13:05

Transcript: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital

The Big Picture -

 

 

The transcript from this week’s MiB: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

 

~~~

 

Masters in Business — Matt Cherwin Interview

[00:00:02] Narrator: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in business with Barry Ritholtzl on Bloomberg Radio

[00:00:21] Barry Ritholtz: This week on the podcast, another extra special guest, Matt Sherwin, is co-founder and chief investment officer at Merrick Capital. He previously spent 16 years at JP Morgan Chase and then a bunch of years at Citigroup beforehand running all sorts of spread markets, head of securitized product, lots of CIO and risk management titles. I came to know Merrick through a live event we did at Bloomberg last year. I found that his approach to credit and trading is absolutely fascinating and what Merrick is doing is really quite interesting. I thought the conversation was brilliant and I think you will also, with no further ado, my conversation with Merrick Capital’s. Matt Sherwin. Matt Gerwin, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:01:20] Matt Cherwin: Thanks for having me. This is exciting. That was kind of, that was, that was a bigger windup than I was. I,

[00:01:24] Barry Ritholtz: I like a expecting, I like a big windup. Okay. ’cause it gives us an opportunity to roll back to the beginning and say, alright, bachelor’s in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. What was the original career plan? I, I don’t imagine people going to college and saying, I wanna be the head of global spread markets.

[00:01:43] Matt Cherwin: No, but that’s super interesting because our oldest is a sophomore in college now and he’s in the Business School of American. And I was just talking to him yesterday and he said, I’m now in, I think they call it like finance for business. I really like this new class. And I said to him, that reminds me so well of when I was in undergrad business school and I did the first couple semesters at econ and I hated it.

[00:02:08] Barry Ritholtz: And it was, I had a similar experience for that

[00:02:10] Matt Cherwin: Economics and it was like, you know, I, I shouldn’t have hated it as much as I did, but at the time it was ISLM curves, it was supply, it was demand, et cetera. And it just, it felt, it didn’t feel very practical to me and I didn’t do very well then. I didn’t go to class very often. I didn’t do very well. But then we got to kind of the next semester, right, which I think they called Finance 1 0 1, right. And was like, bond math, discounted cash flows. And I was like, oh this, I like right, okay, I am in the right place.

[00:02:39] Barry Ritholtz: Well, it’s much more realistic and you’re not dealing with homo economy ’cause that is this theoretical, although version of humans, you

[00:02:46] Matt Cherwin: Know, looking back on, I wish I had listened a bit more at some of those others, but you know, something I say maybe we’ll we’ll get to is like it just and recommendation I would give to other people. It took me a little while to realize what I was interested in, what I was interested in being interested in. And when I got into some of those classes, kind of the more financey kind of stuff, I was like this, I like this makes sense. I wanna learn more. And I think that’s kind of where it starts. I always wanted to get, I just like when there’s, you know, numbers on the page, it adds up to something you’re trying to make money. It’s hopefully positive at the end. It might be negative. It’s pretty clear cut. At least the goal is. And I always like that. I always gravitated

[00:03:26] Barry Ritholtz: Towards that. So, so economics way too abstract and academic, but business and finance, practical, applicable, real life usage. Yeah.

[00:03:36] Matt Cherwin: Which is interesting too. ’cause I also, I’m a little bit like a, this a little exaggerated, but I’m a little bit of like a history buff. So like it was interesting that, that what didn’t, didn’t appeal to me. ’cause I do like kind of the history of it. How did we get here? And I think that’s always something that I’m like in this form as well, going back to learn more about financial systems, how money works, how they thought it used to work, different schools of thoughts. And I think really helps you understand where you’ve been, where you are, where you’re going.

[00:04:08] Barry Ritholtz: So when you look back when you were group treasurer or chief investment officer at, at the JP Morgan division, you were, you were involved in, what sort of lessons did you take away from that? You’re, you’re in the real world managing real risk, real portfolios. How, how did that experience change how you perceive risk? Yeah, it’s

[00:04:28] Matt Cherwin: A great question and I’ll tell you. So like obviously I had a career with a background in trading, running, trading teams both on the buy side and the sell side. And it was really that experience that this next piece that was transformative for me and you know, really brought us to the point where my partner Derek Goodman and I decided let’s form Merrick. And you know, I’m sure we’ll get into that a bit. But what happened was I spent 20 odd years trading mortgages, rates, corporate credit, high yield products like that, working with specialty finance companies, some that I worked with, some I had a hand in running this kind of universe. And then in late 2019, the opportunity to move over. And this was a different building, different, you know, Waldorf key card, different team and be the CIO and the treasurer. So this is now buy side, running the capital of the firm, the investment of the firm, hedging and managing structuralists.

[00:05:27] Matt Cherwin: Lots of things wrapped up in there. But the real thing was, the point in time where this happened was late 2019, a few days later, was the repo crisis. If we remember that when all of a sudden if you wanted to borrow overnight against treasuries, it cost you 10%. Right? Okay. Six months after that pandemic breaks out. And why I bring that up is so much changed in dramatic size at rapid speed that I saw something I’d never seen before. And it was, how does the financial system really work and what does it mean and how does it apply to everything that I’ve done? And it was one of these moments where I felt like I just went from being the captain of the ship, you know, my own little thing, right? We’ll be a little expansive with it. I went from being a captain of ship to going to work in the engine room and seeing the actual gearing and how it works and how it doesn’t and what could stop it from working.

[00:06:26] Matt Cherwin: And you spend years, you know, you pull a lever, you think the boat goes faster, but you don’t know why and you don’t know what could stop it from doing that. And you don’t know what could make it work more efficiently. But now you go work in the engine room and you see it and you understand it. It was just this aha moment. Like, we’re two guys with glasses, right? So, you know, when you go to the the, you get a new prescription, you get your new glasses, you put ’em on, you’re like, oh my God, I can see, right? And by the way, how was I walking around the streets of Manhattan with that old prescription? But now I could see clearly and honestly 20 odd years into my career, that’s how I felt at that, that moment

[00:07:03] Barry Ritholtz: In 2019. Yeah,

[00:07:05] Matt Cherwin: I would say like in early 2020, about six months in, it was kind of like, oh my goodness, it’s coming together now. I wish, I wish I had known this for the 20 years that proceeded this, but I felt like now I know nothing and I’m starting to learn.

[00:07:20] Barry Ritholtz: So I have to ask. So my experience with 2019 was that wobble seemed to go by so quickly compared to oh 8, 0 9, where, you know, to me you saw a lot of warning signs first in housing and then in securitized product and then in construction. And then, you know, the market didn’t peak till October oh seven and the next 18 months were kind of fun if you were on the right side of it. But if you weren’t, I’m, it must have been a, a bloodbath. It sounds like you derived more out of the 2019 experience than you are on a desk in oh 8, 0 9. What sort of scar tissue did that leave? How, how, yeah. Informative was that Mom,

[00:08:05] Matt Cherwin: That’s really interesting the way you kind of put those together. And so to set the table a bit, oh 7 0 8 when I, I got to JP Morgan late oh 6, 0 7, 0 8, 0 9, I was in charge of head of team. We traded asset backed security, say credit cards, auto student loans, subprime mortgages, remember those? Yeah, CLOs. So really kind of like the center of what ended up happening after that. And I would say it was so overwhelming at the time. I mean we were there two in the morning hand marking bonds. Okay. Walking across the street between the two buildings. Like is there more information this company might buy that company before the market opens? What else can we do? The numbers were huge. It was almost like a bit more than you could process at the time. But I think each one of these became every step there was like, I understand what I’m doing better now because the first thing I ever did was I started, I was a cashflow structure.

[00:09:11] Matt Cherwin: And actually at that point in time, the guy who ran the department was a friend of mine named Bruce Richards, who went on to start marathon and has had a fantastic career. And we keep in touch and he said, I said, I wanna be a trader. And he said, well, I want you to be a structure because if you learn how the cash flow works, how the structure works, then you’ll be a better trader later on. I think each piece helped me understand the risk better and then the system it sits in and that helps you understand the risk better. And then when you understand the risk better, you understand the system, it sits in better and it builds and it builds on top of each other. So I would say in oh eight I learned more in oh eight we saw, we felt like we were the tip of the spear in like a bad way.

[00:09:55] Matt Cherwin: And we could see it was getting worse and it was accelerating and we could see that people were maybe even underestimating. And I remember some conversations around at the time that we were basically saying like, think bigger, think broader, think worse. That’s the context we’re talking about. But all of that helped me understand how does my product that I’m trading fit into an investment bank? How does an investment bank impact the system? I think when I went into 2019, obviously a lot time had passed, I’d had more experiences, et cetera. I remember sitting in a meeting, we’re in 7:30 AM traders meeting, this is with the CIO group. And we go around the table, my, you know, rates lead, my credit lead, et cetera. And the repo guys walk in and they say, Hey, we can lend against treasuries at 10%, should we do more? And I said, guys, I, this is my third day with this team. Okay, I’m the person in the room who knows the least about what you’re talking about. But if you need my authorization, you have it. ’cause that sounds pretty great.

[00:11:04] Barry Ritholtz: 10% yield begins with

[00:11:05] Matt Cherwin: Treasuries. That’s fantastic. My response to you is how much can we not, can we do more? Like how much can we do? Meaning more and more. And that just became the beginning of like, why did that happen? How did we get here? What’s the, where did it come from? Where does it go? And I found that certain people knew certain pieces, but not the picture. And then you’re like, it it, it was just starting to pull at

[00:11:30] Barry Ritholtz: And that was your job to know the whole picture.

[00:11:32] Matt Cherwin: It be, it became, it became the only, it became the focus of what I wanted to know. Because unpacking that would help me understand how do we get here, why does this happen? And by the way, what are the pieces that put this all together and how do we, how do we take advantage of that? How do we protect ourselves, but also how do we take advantage of that? So it it was this, the whole thing was this, one of those types of things you say, I opened up a door, three doors behind it and I wanna keep going that direction. And it felt to me like a pure and pure version of everything I’d done in my career getting closer and closer to the source and pricing really,

[00:12:11] Barry Ritholtz: Really fascinating. One of the things I think a lot of people don’t realize about JP Morgan Chase during the financial crisis, and I never doing the research for Bailout Nation, I never got this really sourced the way I would’ve liked to. But JP Morgan Chase had their own derivative scare a couple of years earlier. And the word was, Jamie just said, clear all this junk off of our balance sheet. We don’t, we can’t handle this. Risk doesn’t seem to be worth the potential upside. So heading into oh 8, 0 9, they weren’t dealing with the same sort of existential danger that Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo and go down the list all had, all had to go through. They, they were ended up being an acquirer of distressed assets, not a, a seller of distressed assets.

[00:13:09] Matt Cherwin: Well I think, I mean it was a tremendous place to work. I worked with incredible people, I learned a lot and I worked with great, great people that you’re just part of a terrific team. It’s fan, it’s fantastic place. I learned something that became transformative to everything I’d spent my career doing. So that’s why we set out to, and I said I want to do this. And that’s why we set out to build Merrick. When we said, you know, I recall Derek and I sat down one day and I said, let me just, here’s how I think about markets. I think about it in terms of money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation. That’s my thought. Money capital credit, liquidity regulation, M-C-C-L-R. How

[00:13:53] Barry Ritholtz: Do you separate money from capital?

[00:13:55] Matt Cherwin: So I think money to me is how do you make it, how do you destroy it? How does it move through the system? To me, capital is a little bit more of how much do you have, how do you measure it, how much do you have? Are you making more, you destroying it. Credit is really, how is it being formed? How is it moving through the system? The financial system is changing now. It’s very different than it was a few years ago. We actually, when we were, you know, really trying to get our ideas on paper, we wrote a paper that we outlined saying, we described what we thought was the new version of the financial system. We said the financial system is changing your defacto recreating glass stegel. You have gcis. If you come from some of this framework, you know, are the globally systema, systematically important banks, systemically important banks think JP Morgan, Wells, bank of America, et cetera.

[00:14:50] Matt Cherwin: We said they’re the new g sibs people like Apollo, Blackstone, KKR, BlackRock, these are Aries, these are the folks that are actually making credit extension decisions in this economy. Okay? You have the traders like Citadel Securities, jump, Jane, some of these other names everybody’s familiar with. This is disaggregating the financial system and putting it into different buckets. So basically we think about where’s it coming from, where does it go? Who wins? Who loses? What are the flywheels here? This is a process that we apply to everything we do. Some of the guys on the team call it mcle, M-C-C-L-R. It’s the lens that we look at because we believe money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation drives, economies, markets, and prices. And then you can really start to understand monetary policy, real estate, housing, the types of specialty finance companies we’ve talked about consumer. So this to me actually explains how it all works.

[00:15:57] Matt Cherwin: And we apply that. It’s a huge addressable universe. We trade rates, mortgages, securitized products, corporate credit related equities. It’s an enormous addressable universe with investors that have very narrow mandates that transact at different points in time and sometimes non economically and bound by potentially non-economic rules. Which means there are a lot of overlaps that people don’t take the advantage of and there’s a lot of gaps that they quite simply don’t bridge. And the setup for all of this, I think, and I’ve seen some stuff, a lot of your, your, your listeners have seen quite a bunch of stuff. We’ve seen things go right, we’ve seen things go wrong. This is one of the best setups we’ve seen in a long time. And so that’s why we went out to say I saw some interesting stuff, I learned some interesting stuff. There’s an opportunity set that we want to prosecute right now and it is an incredible time to do so. So we built a team. Sorry, go ahead. I was

[00:17:01] Barry Ritholtz: Fantastic team. I was just, no, I’m fascinated. Yeah, I, I I wanna roll back to something you said earlier, which was glass stegel is sort of being backdoor reapplied. Is that a function of people being risk averse or is that a function of people just specializing in their own silo? So you don’t have, you know, glass Eagle for people who aren’t economic and policy wonks separated the FDIC safe banks from the riskier investment banks. And once that was repealed in the late nineties, didn’t cause a financial crisis, but allowed all these banks to merge and get bigger. And maybe it made the crisis a little worse, but it, I don’t, I don’t think of it as the underlying cause, but the idea that the market is working its way back towards that is kind of fascinating. Right? So let’s address that

[00:17:59] Matt Cherwin: Right as you laid out, like Glass Sal to say, to oversimplify basically said like, you can hold deposits, you can underwrite securities, you can trade securities, things like that. And there were rules right? Now there are like some rules that say what you can and can’t do. But really there’s a lot more that has morphed into what people like to call private credit or we’re going to extend credit through these fashions, or some of the rules don’t apply to this group so we can trade the markets differently or we can make markets in a way that maybe the big banks can’t. And then the big banks say, well we’re viewed as super safe because I would argue we are. And that has its advantages also. So it’s like we recreated these artificial boundaries. What is great for us and the way we look at the world is we saw that, we see that, we understand that we also see and understand and think about all day long and put it into our portfolio construction and the, the, the risk that we build, it’s all up for grabs again, right?

[00:19:03] Matt Cherwin: So we’ve got Kevin Walsh nominated to be the Fed chair and Mickey Bowman is the vice chair for supervision. And they are, I dunno what, what the right adjective for it is, but they’re changing the rules and they’re pulling some of them down. And in my opinion, people just don’t understand which of them matter and which of them don’t. And the market moves to place on some that simply don’t matter. Like it’s lack of understanding of what SLR was and how that worked. And we don’t need to dive into that. But to simplify, they said we’re gonna remove this rule and it’s a big deal. And we at Marck said, you can take it off. It doesn’t matter. So everything the market’s doing in reaction to that is a potential opportunity for us vice.

[00:19:48] Barry Ritholtz: In other words, vice versa. People are overreacting to a regulatory change that is insignificant long term in

[00:19:54] Matt Cherwin: That example. Yeah.

[00:19:55] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up we can continue our conversation with Matt Sherwin, co-founder and chief investment officer at Merrick Capital, discussing why he launched the firm in 2024. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:20:22] Barry Ritholtz: I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is Matt Sherwin. He is co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital’s specializing in a variety of alternative credit and related private products. Previously he spent 16 years at JP Morgan Chase where he had a number of very important titles before that Citi Group. Are we, in all that unique a period of time, is the opportunity set that much greater than what we typically see in the normal? You know, this is a little more geopolitically volatile administration than, than even the previous Trump administration. Is that a driver or is it the deregulation and misapprehension of, of what these rule changes mean? I

[00:21:12] Matt Cherwin: Think it’s a combination of what’s going on. So we have, we just kind of use some little catchphrases among the team that help us sort of like, you know, gravitate around concepts or communicate quickly. We say this is an administration that’s in the business of being in business and that’s just a, there’s no opinion or or judgment one way or the other. It’s just a, it’s just a statement. What this environment is Also, we also came up with something that we thought was just made us chuckle. One, like it’s important to have a little bit of sense of humor. We found our investors actually do read the materials very closely and they tend to have a sense of humor, which is good. But we created this thing, we called the one big beautiful chart and we just said, you know what they really need, they need rates to get down and they needed to come down a lot more than what the market and the curve has already priced in because of how much debt the country has, what it costs, what they want to accomplish.

[00:22:08] Matt Cherwin: So here’s what they need to accomplish and they’re gonna do everything they can to, so, you know, we construct portfolio, we have a, we have an investment thesis, we have a narrative. Everything we put in the book has to fit that narrative has to contribute to what we’re trying to achieve. Has to be the best version of that or has to protect us from what could go wrong. So getting back to your question a little bit, we think it’s a very business forward environment, business forward administration. We think that it is one that needs rates to come down. We are going to have a new fed chair in the middle of June and there he’ll say all sorts of things in the confirmation hearing, but really it will be a catalyst potentially for change in the middle of the year. And then we have a bias within markets to strip back some of the layers of, of regulation and away from whether you support that or not, I can tell you ’cause I’ve been on the other side of it, the layers of process and bureaucracy and spending your time back solving instead of what could we do better.

[00:23:14] Matt Cherwin: When you change what your goal is and how you’re pointed, you’re gonna get different results. We think that combination is spinning flywheels in the market now that in our opinion people are just, they’re underestimating the power of some of these flywheels.

[00:23:31] Barry Ritholtz: Huh, really, really interesting. Last question before we talk a little bit about Merrick. In the old days, and I was never a big believer in this, but everybody else was, there was some constraints on deficits and ongoing government debt. ’cause the bond vigilantes would punish you. The bond vigilantes seem to have disappeared in part replaced by the stock vigilantes who, any policy they don’t like, they just sell off until they have their hissy fit, until they get their way. And then, okay, thank you very much and we’re off to the races again. What do you think of the, you know, eighties, nineties era bond vigilantes? Is that just ancient history? There’s no discipline on deficit spending anymore or, and by the way, I think deficits are not all that relevant. Look at Japan, look at the US history. We’ve been warned about deficits and they haven’t caused much of a problem, most of this history. Yeah,

[00:24:31] Matt Cherwin: I mean look, I love the term and I think we’ve seen some of those episodes last year we saw around the whatever we call liberation day in April, like there were a couple days where treasuries and mortgages said like, enough, okay, that’s it. And we’re either going to have one of those days where they are giving stuff away or you gotta pull back. And I think what we saw was the administration did pull back. So I think in some level it’s still there. But part of what we do at Merrick and what influences our thought process is big parts of this have been really broken down. The markets are so big now that it’s been broken into specific functions, like people have a thing to do and they do that in a narrow mandate. We have a more flexible mandate to us, the products, their widgets, their tools in the toolbox for us to achieve our goals and our investment thesis and the portfolio risk and construction and diversification that we’d like to have.

[00:25:33] Matt Cherwin: But the markets are hyper specialized in very, very large markets. So you get some of those episodes where it’s like, oh, crowded trade, we gotta get out. I think the question of does the administration react to the markets, does the markets react to the administration? It’s something that we’ve actually focused on quite a bit. We actually, you know, we wrote another piece in June of 2025 that we called the War Fed and it was just about what could happen. And we sort of went through to your point like the concept of risk-free rate and credit spread are completely intertwined and commingled now and they don’t exist separately. So I think that’s some of the concepts you’re getting at. Like, is this a problem for credit? Is it a problem for rates? Are those the same thing? Now one of the most interesting things, and I I would just say before we get back to your, your question is, what was really interesting observation to us was during the last government shutdown, whatever mini version of that we’re going through right now, it was almost in the data was not forthcoming and then vol went down.

[00:26:45] Matt Cherwin: So it was this sort of like a little bit like if we don’t know, maybe nothing’s happening, but what it also was, was a little bit to the, to what you were saying is when things were a little less hyper-focused, they actually were a little less jumpy around small moves. And that was a big takeaway, big takeaway for us. Hmm. It’s a big thing you’re gonna hear from Kevin Walsh. If he ends up in the chair seat, you’re gonna hear a long narrative from him for his time in that seat of we need to step back from the day to day and the minute by minute information and think about the big bigger picture and the trend and where we’re headed and be a little, be a little more forward looking. I think that’s the kind of guidance that you will get from that chair.

[00:27:34] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really interesting. So, so let’s just start out with why you left the comfort of a big shop to have the headache of your own firm. What, what’s the El elevator pitch? What problem does merit capital solve that couldn’t be solved at a large Wall Street bank?

[00:27:54] Matt Cherwin: Look, I think quite simply, there are some things that banks can do and some things that banks can’t do. There are some things that they can do and that they don’t want to do. In my career, I’ve always been involved in these types of markets being rates, mortgages, securitized products, corporate credit, the equities related to that around it, these types of specialty finance operating companies. And always felt that when you have, when you can apply the various lenses to these products being the trader lens, the structure lens, the operator lens, you understand it better and you get the gearing and the pieces. And when you learn about the financial system that it sits within, then you actually can understand, but take advantage of the risk and return in a more elevated and efficient way.

[00:28:47] Barry Ritholtz: I wanna address that. Is it that the big firms, the bigger banks were risk averse and didn’t want to take advantage of it where they were prohibited on a regulatory basis or when they’re just doing their macro risk assessment, Hey, we’ll go this far but no further.

[00:29:04] Matt Cherwin: I, I think it’s even simpler than that. We look at the world through our lens. We look at the world through the Merrick lens of money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation, which drives economies, markets and prices. That helps us understand the drivers of the capital markets that we sit within. Helps us understand monetary policy, housing, finance, commercial real estate, finance. Understand both the gearing of it, then you can look at something and you can say, okay, I’m looking at Citigroup, I could buy it, I could sell it, I could understand what they’re doing in the markets. They have a footprint in what that means for the markets. Do I wanna buy that? So like where are the flywheels? What does it spin to next? So everything we were doing was very much about what do we want to do because we see a very large addressable opportunity where we have a unique perspective, a defined lens, and a way of applying that to these big liquid markets that we think very strongly we can take advantage of in a way that people simply haven’t had the opportunity to learn about and to understand and apply to these products with the type of flexible mandate that we have.

[00:30:18] Matt Cherwin: Which boiled down means we look at the world a little differently. These are big addressable markets which have dislocations, volatility, and opportunity all the time. And we can use that combination to achieve what’s a very, very simple goal, improve the return a little bit while reducing the risk a little bit.

[00:30:38] Barry Ritholtz: That’s all anyone can ask for better returns at lower risk. I’m, I’m kind of fascinated by the overall Merrick investment philosophy we’ll get to, but let’s, let’s start with a little bit with structure. I think of you guys as an alt credit shop, but you also look a little bit like a multi-strat shop, like a, is it, so we’re kind of a hybrid, like tell us about the structure.

[00:31:05] Matt Cherwin: We just define what we do. Okay. We are who we are. We do it the way that we do. We run, we’re, right now we’re running a hedge fund which trades these products as like I said, tools in the toolbox as as widgets. We do it in one collaborative portfolio. So our setup, our structure, we’ve got an amazing team. We have specialists in rates, in mortgages, in non-agency mortgages and a BS in credit in CLOs. I am on the phone every day with traders and salespeople myself. We trade it as one book,

[00:31:42] Barry Ritholtz: One portfolio. So it’s really a multi-strat within a single expression.

[00:31:50] Matt Cherwin: It is what we think is the best expression of the trade.

[00:31:54] Barry Ritholtz: Well I shouldn’t call it multi-strat, it’s really multi-asset. It’s a variety of different credit assets all under one umbrella

[00:32:01] Matt Cherwin: Within our lane. Okay. Sticking to our knitting, what we believe we know very well, what we know we have a differentiated insight into and extracting from that. Okay. The team is phenomenal. They have a ton of buy-side and sell side experience. They work very well together. It’s very exciting to be, I mean, and additionally doing this together, like Derek and I doing this together, putting our name on the door like Merrick is Matt and Derek, right? Because we spent way too much time trying to think of what’s a clever name means

[00:32:40] Barry Ritholtz: They’ve all been taken. Good luck in New York,

[00:32:42] Matt Cherwin: You know, means, you know, alpha extraction in Sanskrit or some something, you know. And Derek’s wife one day was like, enough, it’s Merrick, Matt and Derek now go do some real work. And I think she said in a little bit more of a spicy way, but we were like, yeah, that could work. Alright, let’s do that.

[00:33:01] Barry Ritholtz: I, I think just a little footnote, if you’ve ever incorporated an LLC or any other entity in New York state, every Greek and Roman, god, every Babylonian god, every sebus na name, the creature from mythology, it’s either a fund or an LLC. Yeah. They’re all, they’re all taken. It’s astonishing.

[00:33:21] Matt Cherwin: But the real point I I, I wanted to make also that I don’t wanna lose is this was putting our name on the door. Okay, it’s our name, it’s our reputation ’cause and that really cemented it for us. That was something we really wanted. I took some time off and which was fantastic and I met some of the most amazing and interesting people in the world. When you’re unaffiliated, people speak to you in a different way. Huh. That’s interesting. Because they had no one to talk to. Okay. I sat down with the CEO of one of the world’s largest pension fund sovereign wealth funds. And we had, and I’d never met the person before, we had an hour long conversation because he just needed to talk to someone. And I learned a lot in that. And I met some of the most interesting people in venture cap, in alt, in private equity, et cetera.

[00:34:07] Matt Cherwin: And it was just more way of learning parts of the system. But it got to the point where after my, you know, academic wander through the wilderness, I was like, okay, you know what? ’cause at the time we had three teenagers living at home and it was an amazing time. I used to always say, you should be able to retire in your forties and go back to work in your fifties. Like that’s the way business should work. Obviously that’s a luxury that very few have, but I was getting to the point where I was like, okay, I feel great. I want to do this. I miss markets, I love this. I want to get back to it and I want to do it in the way that I want to do it. How

[00:34:41] Barry Ritholtz: Long of a gap was that between Jason

[00:34:42] Matt Cherwin: And that? Well, I took like about a year off. You know, it’s a, you know, it’s a riot. So in our deck we put a little timeline of my experience and Derek’s experience and just to help people understand who hadn’t met us, who we are. And at the very end I put, you know, this is my background, simple. I was here for 10 years, I was there for 16 years. And then we put like a level one year nugget on the end of the timeline that just said chilling. But no G, no G, just C-H-I-L-L-I-N. Right? I don’t remember,

[00:35:11] Barry Ritholtz: Which is a very un wall street sort of thing.

[00:35:15] Matt Cherwin: Well it was like our 900th version of the deck, right? And we were just getting a little punchy and we’re like, it made us laugh. Okay. Right. You gotta have a sense of humor. It made us laugh. So we were like, this is going in. Every investor brings it up, they bring it up and they love it. And you know what, to us it’s like, wow, you are reading every part of the deck. Right? And also, it’s nice to know you have a sense of humor, but getting back, getting back to it was like PE people,

[00:35:40] Barry Ritholtz: This is always shocking. People read the footnotes.

[00:35:43] Matt Cherwin: Oh yeah. That’s been a big learning for us. Yeah, they read it. So when we were doing all this, you know, my wife was like, yeah, why would you wanna do something for anybody else? And I thought to myself, exactly what are we gonna work hard at? What are we gonna make sure succeeds the thing that we put our name on the door, our reputation that we believe other people don’t get it, that we believe is the right way to approach these markets that we believe can extract from a setup is, which is one of the best that we’ve ever seen. So if you tick all those boxes, why would you do it for anybody else?

[00:36:24] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really, really intriguing. So it’s 2026. I’m legally obligated to ask how do you use artificial intelligence in research portfolio construction or operations at Merit Capital?

[00:36:37] Matt Cherwin: Sure. I would, I would sort of make two, two points. I’m an AI optimist, that’s not one of my two points. So that doesn’t count. We use it every day. We build stuff more quickly. We build our own tools and we build ’em more quickly than we ever could before. You know, the guys on the team, they’re building stuff at their desk in a week that would’ve taken a year Wow. To do somewhere else, literally. And I know because I’ve been in that, and then once you built it, it would’ve taken like six months to get approval to release it into your sys, et cetera. This is like Lightspeed versus what we used to do. Now, changing a little bit of how you frame that question, AI is a really, really interesting thing in financial markets as well. Okay? So I don’t think we’re there yet, but we’re gonna get to a place where people are using it for risk management, they’re using it for compliance, they’re using it for KYC. But put all that aside, the most interesting to me right now is we look at the AI CapEx boom and we say, here’s a product that is commercial real estate with securitization technology around it. You’re talking about where is it? Is it built? If not, how long is it gonna take to build it? Who are the tenants? How long are the leases? What are they paying? What’s it worth when it’s all done? Is there residual risk like you have in an auto lease?

[00:37:56] Matt Cherwin: Only some of it comes to the securitized market because it’s just not that, that market’s not big enough for it, right? So it comes to the corporate bond market. So that to us is like, that’s the type of opportunity that piques our interest where we say, this is something that looks like A, B, C, and it’s being wrapped up and put into a different market that is asking 1, 2, 3. And those are good questions, but it’s really like, put it all together, look at all the factors. What are the additional, are you getting more structure, are you getting less, are you charging for the risk? Are you paying away for it? So the AI CapEx boom to us is actually like a source of very cheap risk for us to look at. And each one has a little bit of different flavor and we’re very opinionated about which ones we like.

[00:38:45] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. It sounds, it sounds really fascinating. It also sounds like anytime there’s a novel area, the opportunity for mispricing seems to really,

[00:38:56] Matt Cherwin: There’s that, there’s that, we look at some of those first time issuers we have, like, we have some things in the book. We have something called the North Star Playbook, which is what are companies and bonds that have clear missions and objectives that they can execute on that are aligned with us with the instrument that we have or misaligned or that they’re not able to execute. But some of it, it’s actually not just about the novel structures. Let’s look at agency mortgage-backed securities. Those have been around for a long time, right? Okay. Couple weeks ago, tweet from the pre or whatever we call a, a post on truth social, right? 4:26 PM I’ve instructed my representatives to buy 200 billion of agency MBS boom bomb in the agency mortgage back market. This is a, there are, was it 12 billion, 12 trillion of these things outstanding in the agency. Mortgage market is 9 trillion, hundreds of billions of a trade every day. And that was a aftermarket post tweet that

[00:40:00] Barry Ritholtz: Set off. And

[00:40:01] Matt Cherwin: Do you do, when that happens, event, so then

[00:40:03] Barry Ritholtz: Are you out buying into that, that rise to take advantage? Are you, are you a price taker, a price maker? What are you doing when that that’s happening? It’s

[00:40:12] Matt Cherwin: Both. We look instantly at like, what does this mean? What was our expectation? Now in that instance, we expected the GSEs who will be the one to actually buy it. We expected the GSEs to be buyer. I think our view was a little bit at the high sider outta consensus even. We thought this is gonna be a support mechanism for this market over the course of the year. Fannie and Freddie are gonna buy a lot of this

[00:40:32] Barry Ritholtz: Stuff, assuming they haven’t already started two 10 million.

[00:40:34] Matt Cherwin: Well, they have been, and that’s a great point. They had been, but buying 200 billion with like an aftermarket tweet and nobody knew like, is it gonna be 200 and then another 200? Are you gonna start buying? You gonna buy 40 tomorrow? How’s this all gonna work? This exceeded even our expectations. And you saw right away, I think we were positioned for that type of event. We were positioned to take advantage of some of the policy risk as opposed to get hit by some of the policy risk. You could see that there was a massive short covering rally right after that. And you could see that that wasn’t necessarily people’s expectations in how they were, how they were set up for it.

[00:41:14] Barry Ritholtz: I, I have, I have a mortgage related question to this. Okay. But I’m gonna save it to the next segment. Coming up, we’ve continue our conversation with Matt Gerwin, co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital, discussing credit and risk in today’s markets. I’m Barry Riol, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:41:48] Barry Ritholtz: I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Matt Gerwin, co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital. Previously he spent 25 or so years running credit and various types of risks at JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. So we were talking earlier about the Trump tweet directing the GSEs to buy $200 billion worth of agency paper. You would’ve thought that should have sent yields plummeting and mortgage rates down, which would stimulate the housing market. I assume part of the motivation for that tweet and for that purchase. What, what’s going on in that market and why does it seem so difficult to drive rates lower?

[00:42:36] Matt Cherwin: Right. That’s a great question. And as silly as it sounds like 200 billion, it’s just not enough

[00:42:41] Barry Ritholtz: Pocket cash, right? Walking around money,

[00:42:45] Matt Cherwin: That’s one way. I

[00:42:46] Barry Ritholtz: Mean in a $12 trillion market, sure. 12 trillion, it’s not even 1%.

[00:42:50] Matt Cherwin: Yeah. If you’re, if you are, if you’ve got 35 trillion in treasuries, outstanding and yeah, yeah, it’s a big number and it moves the needle. But what they, they really want to move it. They keep it there. Like that’s a little bit of the hard part because don’t forget that the Fed owns 2.2 trillion, so they’re gonna buy 200 billion. Didn’t give a lot of information. And that sort of helped them in that moment. The lack of information after probably led some of it to kind of like bleed out and unwind a bit. But the Fed owns 2.2 trillion and those are paying off and that’s approximately 180 billion a year. So then you start to think about like, well if the rate moves and mortgage prices go up, or some of the money managers going to sell a a hundred billion over time and do you kind of neutralize it?

[00:43:43] Matt Cherwin: So I think it’s helpful. It’s indicative, here’s the real takeaway for us. Okay, so at that moment it’s how do we trade this? What’s the price? What’s the next step? But then we’re really thinking from there, like what does this mean? What’s going to happen next? And sort of coming full circle, what it really does is show you how hard they’re gonna try to drive the mortgage rate down to drive rates down overall to sign up for an agenda and a plan to get rates down. Okay. So some of it is what do we do in that specific market? And some of it is, how’s it informing our view of the bigger picture.

[00:44:23] Barry Ritholtz: So you guys have two i i, I don’t wanna say conflicting, but somewhat different risk factors you’re juggling with, obviously when you buy paper you’re thinking long term and we wanna watch this play out to our broader thesis, but at the same time you’re actively trading on the short term. How much do these complement each other? Or do you ever find yourself long in one duration of the portfolio and short in another? How do you, how do you balance this out?

[00:44:55] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, I mean we have longs and shorts across the book within mortgages within credit we, there’s we’re, you know, long what we like and short what we don’t to keep it super simple or long, what helps contribute to our thesis or prote and vice versa. And you know, protect the convexity profile that we’re looking to achieve. We are, we trade every day. We are active in these markets. It’s part of more of a sort of a medium term thought process, how they’re gonna play out. But every day is iterating on that. Is this still what we think? Are we positioned with the best version of it? Do we have the bonds that are going to contribute to what we are trying to achieve? Like right now we’re very focused on the flywheels that exist within financing markets. And if you think about what does that mean?

[00:45:46] Matt Cherwin: Okay, so rates come lower, we talk, we rates go lower. We talked about that a little bit, but credit spreads are also really tightening. And when rates are lower and credit spreads are tightener tighter, your cost of borrowing has gone down. Means you can refinance all sorts of assets. It means some assets are even at that point in time worth more valued highly. Now that it’s worth more, you’ve got a lower LTV loan that you could take out an even tighter credit spread on. And how did these spin and what is it? So this is very much what we’re thinking about now. I think the market completely underestimates the power of those flywheels and what it can be achieved. So we, that is one of, we look at our portfolio and say we want to have about 20 trades in it. And the trade is not one line item.

[00:46:33] Matt Cherwin: A trade could be 30 line items, but the flywheel is a trade. It’s a little bit of a, maybe even a bigger higher order one. But we look at what is happening at that moment. Is there something to take advantage of? But also what are the ripple effects of what’s happening in that moment? And what does the market need to do? What is it going to do? Does it understand this? And then we unpack it and say like, where, where’s the opportunity? So coming back to what we talked about, we believe, when you look at the world through this lens, we look at markets through the Merrick lens that the lack of connections made through these markets and the lack of extracting from some pretty obvious pockets are an opportunity. And I would like we talked about to improve your return and reduce your risk.

[00:47:26] Matt Cherwin: And it’s a process. So it’s just as much a process in a machine through which you’re extracting alpha from from the market. We have our views, we hope to be right. It’s also, it’s a process through which you work through these markets that you extract all the time. And the mandate is pretty clear. Like, as I think of it, the mandate’s very clear. You need to make money when markets go up and you need to make money when markets go down every day, every month, every quarter, every year. And you probably won’t. But that’s the mandate. That’s what, and that’s you’re going for. And it’s, it’s quite simple when you frame it out that way. You

[00:48:04] Barry Ritholtz: Mention in 2019 there was a sea change in how you perceived what was happening in the market and how different that had become. How does that affect how you look at and define risk? It, it risk definitions have obviously changed over your career, but 2019 was such a sea change. What’s different about managing risk today?

[00:48:27] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, I think, I believe managing risk at scale is a skill. Okay. You have your numbers and you want to know what those are and those are indicators and those are starting places. VAR is a number and a starting place and an indicator stress is un numbered DV oh one CS oh one, these are we, I like to look at the world in a stress-based framework and we create a bunch of different stresses. Some are quite simple. Rates go up, rates go down, credit crunch, a flight to quality. Some we had our little like, you know, we’re getting a little punch drunk. We have one we call QE forever and ever. And looking at these, it’s really about, like, it’s a starting place for a conversation. Okay. Because you do need to know where it’s coming from and what’s the attribution, what’s the return attribution, where’s it, where are you hoping it comes from and what’s the risk attribution and very importantly what could go wrong. Understanding that what you’re trying to achieve, but knowing where the exits are, like, I think it’s really like a philosophy to, to risk and to managing risk to make sure you’re pointed to achieve your goals while managing your risk properly and knowing what you would do if things changed. Right? You have a plan and then things change.

[00:49:49] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really interesting. What, when you’re looking out at a variety of different opportunities, what do you think today presents the best risk opportunity looking at structured credit corporates relative value? What, what, what is really drawing your attention? Yeah,

[00:50:06] Matt Cherwin: We really thought that one of the places to extract from the flywheel is in securitized markets. Actually as an example, like we’ve been very focused on trophy quality office in gateway cities. And this goes back a little ways,

[00:50:20] Barry Ritholtz: These are the super A residential, yeah, commercial real co office

[00:50:24] Matt Cherwin: Commercial, right? So that all came to be from us pulling it, the thread of how the financial system works. We talked a little bit about the new Gs Cs and what you had was everybody was going back to work back to the office, but took longer than we kind looking back on it, that took a long time. The part of the financial system that was changing were those new Gs, CS, Apollo, Aries, KKR, Blackstone, BlackRock. And they were coming back to the office and they were growing and they were finding that two things. One, they needed nice offices to kind of, you know, get everybody where they want ’em to be. But also they were growing and they outgrew what they had and then they went looking for more. And what they found was there’s actually not that much trophy real estate out there. And so like our view on the evolving financial system led us to have very strong conviction about a supply demand imbalance in commercial real estate when applied correctly. And then we just looked for what’s the best place. And it’s tightened a lot, but actually it think it continues to and has been because it’s like the, it’s continued to be one to two steps behind the fundamentals. So what that really means, the way we think about, to wrap it up in a nutshell, this is a triple B bond that we think is a double a

[00:51:35] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really in, because everybody’s painting with a broad brush of, hey, forget bs, even a buildings are 60% occupied in terms of staff, but

[00:51:45] Matt Cherwin: They’re not, they’re a hundred percent occupied with the waiting list.

[00:51:47] Barry Ritholtz: I mean in terms of staff returning to office. Yeah, so it’s fully leased, but the, what is it? Castle key cards are running 60% of pre pandemic levels in a lot of cities. But the a plus the bigger shops, the JP Morgans, they want everybody back in the office, as does Goldman Sachs, as does a lot of these places. And they’re all in trophy properties.

[00:52:08] Matt Cherwin: And it’s not just New York, it’s Miami, it’s actually San Fran has come a long way. There’s certain buildings there that we like. We actually, I would say a little bit outta consensus, we like DC certain po not the government buildings, but nice offices, like we said, this is administration that’s in the business of being in business, which means you gotta go see ’em and make your case. You want to get some business done, which means you need lawyers with a nice conference room that need a decent office and et cetera, et cetera. I mean, like, it sounds a little glib, but it’s

[00:52:37] Barry Ritholtz: True. It’s the cost of doing business. It’s

[00:52:39] Matt Cherwin: True. Yeah, absolutely. And so you can see there are certain companies that are buying buildings, knocking them down in DC and building brand new ones. And there are buildings that are being taken offline to convert to resi. By the way, everything we wrapped up in what we said, the conversion from office resi is actually spinning faster now in dc some buildings are being con and just outside DC some buildings are being converted to data centers. Interesting. So actually like interesting stocks being removed all the time anyways, it’s just an example of how, like we’re pulling on threads and we’re finding where we can best take advantage of it and like what are the next couple steps? And ultimately we’re looking for what’s something that’s already gotten better except the price hasn’t changed yet.

[00:53:22] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? That, that’s really, that’s really interesting. You, you’ve mentioned stress scenarios a couple of times. We know that correlations have a tendency to go to one and liquidity disappears.

[00:53:35] Matt Cherwin: Well, I think I’ve seen that personally, right? Liquidity enough times over your career liquidity disappears. Yeah, I think I would just wrap that up. We, I make two comments to people. I say like, one, you don’t go outta business ’cause of your assets, you go outta business because your liabilities.

[00:53:49] Matt Cherwin: And when you start looking at that side of the balance sheet first, then you understand things a little bit better. And then also, you know, with, with my traders and all the people I work for, and it’s really great. ’cause some of the people I hired a long time ago, they’re MDs at places now. They’re all, it’s, I actually take a lot of pride in the people I’ve worked with who have gone on and done fantastic things. I really, really hate the phrase money. Good. Okay. I don’t think anybody should be allowed to say it. It is this like false crutch. I also, in many, many conversations have said to people, I think you’re right. In fact, you’ve convinced me, I believe you are right. I’m just saying, you know, you’re gonna get fired long before we know the answer to this question. Okay, let’s take everything we thought, everything we’ve known, and let’s put it into the context of how do we apply this in markets? What’s gonna happen, what’s everybody else doing? And how do we take advantage of that?

[00:54:40] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really, really fascinating. Last question before I get to my favorite questions, what do you think investors? I

[00:54:47] Matt Cherwin: Thought those were your favorite

[00:54:48] Barry Ritholtz: Questions. Oh no, though you’ll, you’ll, oh, okay. You’ll see the favorite questions. All right. What do you think investors in the credit and alt space are not talking about, but perhaps should be? What topics, assets, geographies, data points are getting overlooked, but really shouldn’t.

[00:55:05] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, so it’s a great question. We touched on a little bit. They’re underestimating the power of this flywheel. Like with, with the background I’ve had, and we’ve talked about and I’ve seen a lot of things blow up. Like we could come up with a lot of examples of things that could go wrong. I think they’re underestimating the things that could go right or what the power of financing and the mechanics around financing and the provision of liquidity and credit, credit spreads when they’re good and when they’re tight and when the machine is flowing. What that financial engineering can really do to both un recover value and create value. I think they’re underestimating. Huh? Really, really. The other quick thing is in the middle of the year, if Kevin Wars ends up sitting in that seat, and if we get a little bit of the, the setup that he’s looking for. He’s gonna change everything, right? So he believes we’re gonna have a big productivity dividend from ai, and we’re gonna have a big productivity dividend from deregulation. And then that would allow you to have lower rates and a smaller Fed Balance sheet at the same time. And if he gets a little bit of what he needs to craft that argument, we’re gonna have a very different second half of 26th than the first.

[00:56:21] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. All right. Right. Let’s jump to our favorite questions, our speed round. We’ll get you guys outta here at a reasonable time. Starting with, who are your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:56:33] Matt Cherwin: Oh, I’ve worked for some pretty amazing people, and I tried to learn from everyone. I’ve just had the, the bosses that I’ve had are, you know, legends in this industry, whether it’s Bruce Richards, T and Perlow. Oh, Jimmy DeMar, Ziems, Daniel Pinto. I mean, these are guy, these are people who defined these markets. And they all had a huge impact on my career.

[00:56:56] Barry Ritholtz: Huh, really interesting. Let’s talk about books. What are you reading now? What are some of your favorites?

[00:57:02] Matt Cherwin: Oh, you know, but like I am in front of a computer screen and reading so much, and I read so much analytics, research, et cetera. When I get home, it’s a little bit more like, hang out with my wife and kids. And it’s a little tv.

[00:57:14] Barry Ritholtz: Well, that’s my next question. What are you listening to or streaming? Oh, give us your favorite next. Netflix, Amazon Prime, whatever.

[00:57:22] Matt Cherwin: I will watch pretty much anything. Taylor Sheridan. You know, like

[00:57:26] Barry Ritholtz: We spent season two of Landman. It’s so good. Like

[00:57:29] Matt Cherwin: Landman, all the Yellowstones, everyone. 19 80, 18, 23, 19. All of those lion, any of those, I’m suckers.

[00:57:36] Barry Ritholtz: Linus was also great. This should be a new season of that coming out one of these days.

[00:57:41] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, there is. I mean, I think I’ve watched both seasons like a hundred times.

[00:57:45] Barry Ritholtz: Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a college grad interest in a career in investing, credit trading, what have you?

[00:57:54] Matt Cherwin: I just think it’s not, you know, it doesn’t have to be a commitment for life. Just look at it as what’s something I’m interested in being interested in. I think you can pick the kind of people you work with and you want to be around good people who will teach you, who will support what you’re doing. And just say, I’m gonna give this a spin for three to five years, and if I like it, I love it, maybe I’ll sign up for another five. But you know, you have an opportunity to try something out and see if it’s for you.

[00:58:22] Barry Ritholtz: And our final question, what do you know about the world of trading credit, investing in alternative sources of, of liquidity and other products that would’ve been helpful 25 or so years ago when you were just getting your legs on? Do you

[00:58:38] Matt Cherwin: I wish I knew a fraction of what we are applying at Merrick. Any point before we did this, if I knew a drop of what we’re doing when I sat in other seats. Yeah, I’ll put that all in the I wish I knew bucket.

[00:58:55] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really absolutely fascinating. Matt, thank you for being so generous. Thanks for having me with your time. We have been speaking with Matt Sherwin. He’s co-founder and chief investment officer of Merri Capital. If you enjoy this conversation, well be sure and check out any of the previous 600 or so we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the correct team that helps us put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ol. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital appeared first on The Big Picture.

"Problem Is Solvable": Airline CEOs Urge Congress To End Shutdown, Pay TSA Workers

Zero Hedge -

"Problem Is Solvable": Airline CEOs Urge Congress To End Shutdown, Pay TSA Workers

The Department of Homeland Security's social media team on X spent the weekend blaming Democrats for the travel chaos unfolding at airports nationwide, as TSA agents failed to report to work during a funding lapse caused by Senate Democrats' refusal to fund the DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol.

"Thanks to the Democrats' shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning," DHS said on X on Saturday. "The Democrats' political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and refuse to pay our heroic @TSA officers."

DHS said Sunday that "Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats' DHS shutdown."

A reader on Sunday evening sent ZeroHedge Tips a photo showing, he said, roughly 200 travelers stuck in line at BWI Airport's international customs, with only two CBP agents staffing the booths while at least a dozen booths sat empty. He added that the Global Entry line had only a handful of passengers, who were waved through quickly, while non-Global Entry travelers were left waiting in what seemed like an hours-long line.

Last weekend, similar travel chaos unfolded at some airports, with TSA lines taking hours just to enter terminals. The disruption prompted ten U.S. airline and aviation heads to pen an open letter to Congress on Sunday, urging lawmakers to resolve the DHS funding dispute.

"That comes as no surprise. Americans—who live in your districts and home states—are tired of long lines at airports, travel delays and flight cancellations caused by shutdown after shutdown. Yet, once again air travel is the political football amid another government shutdown," the chief executive officers of Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, American Airlines, Alaska Air Group, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and United Parcel Service wrote in the letter.

The executives continued, "It's past time for the government to make sure that TSA officers, U.S. Customs clearance officers at airports, and air traffic controllers are paid for the job they do."

The current political battle has persisted for nearly a month after Senate Democrats refused to fund a DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol. Democrats are frustrated that Trump is using the federal government to deport illegal aliens (whom they consider a potential future voting bloc). Democrats would like to see ICE significantly reformed or eliminated, as they view its power as an existential threat to their political party's survivability.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 12:25

DOJ Asks Boasberg To Reconsider Quashing Powell Subpoenas

Zero Hedge -

DOJ Asks Boasberg To Reconsider Quashing Powell Subpoenas

Update: DOJ lawyers on Monday asked Boasberg to reconsider his order that quashed grand jury subpoenas of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Fox News reports. Prosecutors argue that the subpoena should be allowed when there is even a "reasonable possibility" that the category of materials the government seeks will produce info "relevant to the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation," even when the recipient of said subpoena "proposes a plausible theory of an ulterior motive."

We're guessing Boasberg is just buying time and knows this will eventually be overturned. . 

*  *  *

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last week, Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. Boasberg declared the investigation overtly political and coercive, without any criminal predicate. The decision is a rare rejection of a duly issued grand jury subpoena at this stage of an investigation. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. U.S.

I have previously expressed skepticism about the investigation into Powell and share concerns about the alleged use of the criminal justice system to pressure the Federal Reserve Board. However, the question is when a court can make such a judgment at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors are generally entitled to make their case and these subpoenas sought potential evidence of waste or corruption.

Boasberg has long been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump on the bench, including a series of orders to stop the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador and, recently, an order for their return. He was also the subject of an ethics complaint by the Administration over statements made at a judicial conference that portrayed President Trump as a threat to the rule of law. (For the record, I opposed the effort to impeach Judge Boasberg).

In the latest controversy, Boasberg rejected the premise of the criminal investigation of Powell:

“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”

Judge Boasberg quotes Trump’s personal attacks on Powell after he continued to refuse to lower interest rates. These include signature all-caps attacks from the President:

“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS …. Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!”

Boasberg noted over 100 such postings, including “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government …. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!”

He also noted a menacing statement by the President that, if the Fed does not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”

This is not the first time that the President’s social media postings have been used as evidence against Administration policies in federal cases.

Many of us have criticized the President over personal attacks on judges or other officials.

However, courts generally do not impute an unlawful motive to criminal investigations or prosecutions if there is an otherwise valid purpose or allegation.

Judge Boasberg dismisses any such possibility of a valid purpose, writing:

“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.

On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash. It will also grant the Board’s Motion to Partially Unseal the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion….”

Once again, I do not fault the court for skepticism, but I do have serious concerns over his timing and his own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.

The Administration has an active but still early criminal investigation into the massive spending on renovations to the Federal Reserve building. To that end, the Justice Department served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, seeking records about the renovations of the Board’s buildings as well as Powell’s prior congressional testimony on those renovations. The Board filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are a raw play to force Powell to resign or to bend to the will of the President.

After reading the Boasberg opinion, my concerns only increased. At every juncture, Judge Boasberg ends his analysis with conclusory statements about his perception of the real motivation behind the case. That is a dangerous propensity for an Article III judge who must separate the politics from the merits in such challenges. In this case, Boasberg simply concluded that politics was the merits.

The court notes, correctly, that there are prior cases where grand jury subpoenas have been found improper if they are simply “fishing expeditions” or targeting “targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.” They can also be quashed if prosecutors are seeking to meddle with an official’s duties. Such cases are very rare and the cited cases do not seem dispositive or even particularly helpful in the instant case.

The problem is that the main precedent relied on by the court suggests that this opinion is not just premature but itself an example of bias.

The court relies on Trump v. Vance to support the authority to quash an indictment. However, that case involved state prosecutors using grand-jury subpoenas financial records of President Trump and his businesses. Without actually ruling on whether the subpoenas were proper, the Court warned that state DAs cannot use grand-jury subpoenas to “interfer[e] with a President’s official duties.”

That case presented a threshold problem of state officials using the grand jury to target a president with obvious concerns over the Supremacy Clause. Judge Boasberg rightly noted that the clear import is that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly ….”

However, this is not something that the Justice Department is “barred from doing directly.” It has stated that the over-budget renovations raise concerns over fraud and wrongdoing. That is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

Judge Boasberg cited cases such as NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024) as an example of the bar on doing indirectly what you are barred from doing directly. However, like Vance, that case only makes this opinion stand out more. The case involved a New York state official using her powers to pressure banks and other companies not to do business with the NRA. That is manifestly different from the context in which prosecutors seek to enforce duly issued subpoenas to investigate possible fraud or waste in the criminal system.

Judge Boasberg then veers significantly from these cases with a series of conclusory remarks. He virtually mocks the suggestion that the Administration is acting in light of the massive costs and overruns, noting “buildings often go over budget.” Yet that does not mean federal officials are therefore barred from launching investigations into such matters.

The court further stresses that budget overruns “standing alone, hardly suggests that a crime occurred.” The question, again, is whether the required threshold is showing. The costs of the federal building are breathtaking and arguably unprecedented in terms of square foot expenditures. The court does not explain what showing is necessary to commence a criminal investigation. This is an early subpoena seeking basic documentary evidence.

The court notes that inspectors general have authority to investigate overruns and waste, adding that there was no such finding in this case. However, once again, the question is why that is relevant to the question before the Court. The IG may indeed be a better avenue for investigation, but there is nothing legally that forestalls an investigation by the Justice Department.

Once again, Judge Boasberg has voiced concerns shared by many on the basis of this criminal investigation. However, that is speculation in commentary. Judge Boasberg is not a talking head. He is a federal judge who must decide whether, despite such personal suspicions or inclinations, the court can bar otherwise valid grand jury subpoenas issued in an early stage of investigation.

The irony is that, while castigating the prosecutors for a lack of evidence, Judge Boasberg relies on dubious evidence to establish that political harassment is the dominant motivation. Quoting all-caps postings of the President does not offer evidence of a sole or dominant motive in an investigation. It is itself speculative and presumptive.

While Judge Boasberg notes that, “[w]ith varied improper purposes popping up on different occasions, it is clear that such purposes cannot be reduced to a fixed and exhaustive list,” he does not offer any clarity on when an investigation into fraud or waste would be demonstrably valid in its earliest stages. The court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held there is no need for the Government to establish probable cause as the basis for issuing a grand-jury subpoena.

So that is the standard here other than Judge Boasberg’s suspicions based on public statements from the President?

The court merely states

“What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”

That dominant purpose is far from evident. There is no evidence that Powell will yield to the pressure to lower rates, and many of us have noted that this would be a particularly ham-handed effort to get him to do so. From what we have seen, Powell has little to fear from this inquiry on a personal level. If anything, the improper purpose would seem like raw retaliation. However, there is also the pesky claim in the grand jury and captured in these subpoenas that the Administration believes that there is fraud or waste – and the possibility of false testimony. How would the court know at this stage that such claims are meritless or fraudulent? More importantly, what would stop future courts from rendering the same inferential judgment on presidents that they oppose?

Rather than answer that question, Boasberg returns to all-caps posts about how much the President despises Powell and wants him gone. The problem is that both positions could be true. The President could want Powell gone while the Justice Department could want to investigate waste and fraud.

For example, Boasberg quotes Trump as saying “we’re thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, what’s called a gross incompetence lawsuit, it’s gross incompetence, against Powell . . . I’d love to fire him. Maybe I still might.”

The problem is that Trump could believe that Powell is grossly incompetent and that he allowed massive overruns on this project. Boasberg just assumes that Trump wants Powell gone and even makes a veiled analogy to King Henry II signaling to his henchmen to kill Thomas Becket:

“In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair.” 

(In this modern remake, apparently the murderous King is Trump, the saintly Becket is Powell, and the henchman is Pirro).

What is particularly disturbing is how the court dismisses the independent ethical duty of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to have a good-faith basis for seeking such subpoenas. 

Judge Boasberg writes:

“True, most of the evidence above speaks to the motives of the President, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Yet judges ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 785 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). The U.S. Attorney was appointed by the President and can be fired by him. Her peer one district over was recently pushed out for refusing to prosecute the President’s opponents.”

This, for me, was the final abandonment of objectivity where assumptions become reality. By dismissing Pirro’s independent motivation, Boasberg leaves the weight of his own evidence as a string of social media posts. He ignores a major push by the administration to seek out government waste and fraud, which began with the DOGE efforts and was recently followed by the appointment of a “tsar” to root out fraud in federal programs. There is no serious debate that this Administration has made combating fraud and waste a priority and has taken unprecedented steps to investigate and prosecute such wrongdoing. Yet the court suggests that Pirro is merely clinging to her job by blindly carrying out the President’s demands.

None of this means that the court would lack the authority or a possible basis to dismiss this action at a later stage. My primary concern is the timing and the court’s presumptive analysis at this early stage. I fail to see a discernible standard in this case that would inform future courts or officials … other than presidents should not post in all caps or troll officials. While Judge Boasberg chastises the Justice Department for yielding too readily to its impulses, this opinion seems strikingly impulsive in critical aspects.

The Justice Department is appealing this opinion. We may see greater clarity on the underlying standard as the case works toward the Supreme Court.

Here is the opinion: Boasberg Opinion

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 11:45

The Wrath Of Kharg

Zero Hedge -

The Wrath Of Kharg

By Ben Picton, Senior Market Startegist at Rabobank

Brent crude is bid again this morning as markets digest the dump of news over the weekend relating to the Iran war. On the bullish side for crude was the US decision to bomb Iranian military assets on Kharg Island – the Persian Gulf port where up to 90% of Iranian oil exports are typically loaded onto tankers. Announcing the strikes via Truth Social, President Trump was at pains to be clear that oil infrastructure was not targeted, but the implicit threat that it could be is an unsubtle one. Trump later said that the US may conduct further strikes on the island “just for fun”. 

News also emerged over the weekend that the USS Tripoli has been redeployed from the Western Pacific to the Persian Gulf. The Tripoli is a light aircraft carrier with a complement of 2,500 marines and an F35B stealth fighter air wing. Speculation is rife that the marines could be used to secure oil infrastructure on Kharg Island, or perhaps to help clear the mountains north of the Strait of Hormuz of Iranian belligerents (the latter seems less likely). Either would be a case of ‘boots on the ground’ and interpreted as a major escalation. Iranian officials have said over the weekend that they would respond in kind to any attacks on their oil infrastructure. Indeed, there were further limited attacks on oil assets of US-aligned Gulf states over the weekend, which may explain the bid tone in Brent this morning and a lift in the forward curve since this time last week.

A bizarre intervention in the war came from Hamas, who called for Iran to cease attacks on regional neighbors. Hamas is well-known as an Iranian proxy, so there is some speculation circulating that this may be an attempt from the Iranian side to begin to engineer an off-ramp. Coupled with news last week that Iran had struck agreements with India and Bangladesh to allow crude cargoes to pass, and comments from the Iranian Foreign Minister over the weekend that the Strait was not closed to anyone other than the US, Israel and their allies, there appears to be some cautious optimism in markets this morning that glimmers of hope for an end to hostilities are emerging. AUD and NZD are both trading higher, spot gold is down to almost $5,000/oz and bitcoin is catching a bid.

However, ‘glimmers’ is the operative word. While Hamas was calling for Iran to end strikes on neighboring states the Houthis (another Iranian proxy) were giving signs that they are ready to escalate against shipping being diverted into the Red Sea to load crude cargoes at the Saudi port of Yanbu. Disruptions to Red Sea shipping – which the Houthis have proven adept at over the years – would close off the release valve of the Saudi East-West pipeline that is capable of redirecting 5-7mn bbl/day to offset the ~18-20mn bbl/day supply interruption.

There is also the fact that South Korea and Japan – both major destinations for Gulf energy cargoes – would likely be considered US allies and therefore not allowed to receive crude shipments under the terms of the Iranian toll road. Trump himself has rebuffed suggestions of a ceasefire over the weekend, saying that he is not yet ready to end the war because the terms offered by Iran are not good enough. Iranian officials deny that any terms have been offered at, beyond the US’s withdrawal from the Middle East and payment of reparations. No wonder Trump isn’t keen. Prediction markets are this morning implying odds of a ceasefire before month end of just 14%, down from 21% on Friday.

There are glimmers of hope in other areas. The Wall Street Journal is this morning reporting that the United States is set to announce the formation of an international coalition to provide naval escorts to tankers transiting Hormuz. Some commentators on X have already observed that this would run counter to Donald Trump’s recent shot at UK PM Starmer, where he said that the US doesn’t need allies who only turn up after the war is won (the British might have their own thoughts on allies who arrive late to wars). Nevertheless, there does seem to be a plan developing, though both South Korea and Japan have signalled caution about deploying warships to the Gulf as China resumes military exercises around Taiwan after a 10-day hiatus.

Speaking of China, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are currently meeting with Chinese officials, including Vice Premier He Lifeng, in Paris to discuss trade. The talks come ahead of a much anticipated Trump-Xi summit in Beijing on March 31st and are expected to lay the groundwork for that meeting. Early reports suggest that the American side asked China to buy more Boeing aircraft, and US coal and gas. With Qatari liquified natural gas exports currently out of the market, and the Chinese economy approximately 50% dependent on imports for its domestic needs, it should be an easy sell. Japan’s Industry Minister has also recently reached out to Australia to urge a ramping up of LNG production, though this will take time and is sure to face opposition from environmentalists in Australia.

The timing of the Trump-Xi meeting is interesting. Trump will be headed to Beijing with Chinese influence having recently been ejected by America power in Venezuela, Cuba and the Panama Canal. The strikes on Kharg Island – which is the main port of origin for a large slice of China’s oil imports – also raises the prospect of Chinese influence in central Asia being severely curtailed. The US is a mostly self-sufficient net energy exporter who suddenly occupies several key maritime chokepoints for Chinese energy imports. The message to Beijing couldn’t be more clear: if you attempt to leverage rare earth supply chains against US interests, the US will leverage energy supply chains against Chinese interests. Regular readers would be aware that we have argued the logic of this for the last 18 months.

So, again we see that economic statecraft is employed to create supply chain pressure to get what you want. To appreciate this disruptive power fully, it must be recognised that the Iran crisis goes far beyond energy and the supply shock will reverberate through everything from petrochemicals, to agriculture to pharmaceuticals and beyond. China’s industrial dominance therefore becomes an Achilles heel in a global economic shock. For a comprehensive accounting of the likely impacts, see this excellent piece produced by the RaboResearch Food and Agribusiness team.

Trump wants Hormuz open again. Xi wants guarantees that Gulf oil will continue to flow to Chinese refineries, Chinese industrial producers will have markets to sell to, and Chinese consumers will have food to import. Trump thinks he has the upper hand in this negotiation and so on Sunday night he told media that he could seek to delay the Beijing summit and that he expected China to help open the Strait of Hormuz. He is playing hard to get, and trying to put all of the pressure on Xi to force a resolution. To paraphrase Nixon’s Treasury Secretary John Connally: “it’s our war, but it’s your problem.”

So, could the upcoming summit be the moment where we see Beijing issue the directive to its allies in Tehran to end the blockade? For Xi it may be a choice between that, or suffering the wrath of Kharg on the Chinese industrial economy.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 10:45

Nano Nuclear Progresses HALEU Transport Package

Zero Hedge -

Nano Nuclear Progresses HALEU Transport Package

Nano Nuclear released a notable update this morning for achieving conceptual design milestones on its proprietary, optimized High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) transportation package, developed in partnership with German nuclear logistics heavyweight GNS.

Through subsidiary Advanced Fuel Transportation (AFT), the company has nailed down two optimized payload baskets capable of hauling multiple advanced fuel forms including uranium oxide, TRISO, uranium-zirconium hydride, uranium mononitride, and even molten salt reactor fuel. All of it was run through an NRC Quality Assurance program, with initial analyses indicating full regulatory compliance. Next up is full regulatory engagement and certification.

The tech builds on Nano’s exclusive license for a high-capacity basket originally designed by Idaho National Lab. Jay Yu, founder and chairman, called it “an important step toward building the infrastructure needed to support the deployment of advanced reactors”.

As we covered last year, Nano broke ground on its Kronos microreactor facility at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, complete with state backing and a manufacturing/R&D site announcement from Governor Pritzker. We followed up with coverage of their engineering firm partnerships and the founder’s Shawn Ryan Show appearance touting laser enrichment ambitions. The Illinois project has been the headline (and only) act, until now.

It’s a mild surprise: while the reactor side hogs the press and investor imagination, the transport business segment has been making tangible development progress. In an industry starved for HALEU shipping solutions, this could become a revenue driver years before any microreactor fires up commercially.

Nano’s vertical-integration bet with enrichment, fuel fab, transport, and reactors, looks a touch less aspirational today.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 10:20

BYD Shares Soar Most In 13 Months As Chinese EV Push Into Americas Accelerates

Zero Hedge -

BYD Shares Soar Most In 13 Months As Chinese EV Push Into Americas Accelerates

Shares of Chinese EV maker BYD surged the most in 13 months after a report that its factory in Bahia, Brazil, a former Ford Motor plant, secured export orders for about 100,000 vehicles from Argentina and Mexico. This development suggests BYD's strategy to localize production in South America is still in its early stages and set to flood the continent with Chinese EVs.  

Bloomberg quoted Macquarie Capital analyst Eugene Hsiao, who said the local Chinese media report about BYD's Brazil factory receiving large orders from Argentina and Mexico suggests that "this is positive for the broader BYD thesis, which is that overseas sales will become the core growth and profit driver over time."

Brazil is BYD's largest market outside China. The factory in Bahia is critical to the Chinese company's overseas expansion plans in the Americas. The plant has a capacity to make 150,000 EVs per year.

In BYD's home market of China, overall sales for the first two months of the year slumped 36% to 400,241 units. Competition in China has intensified as rivalry among domestic brands grows fiercer. However, exports have gained solid traction, with the company now planning to sell 1.3 million cars abroad.

"A higher gas price would potentially drive demand in the European market, which would benefit Chinese automakers that export to that market such as BYD," Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said, adding, "For Chinese market, gas bill is not as big a driver to EV demand as in overseas market."

BYD shares in Hong Kong surged 8% on Monday, marking the largest gain in 13 months, as news of overseas expansion lifted investor sentiment.

The stock was a top performer on the Hang Seng Tech Index, with trading volume doubling to 35.7 million shares. Peers including Nio and Xiaomi climbed more than 5%.

Top BYD headlines (courtsey of Bloomberg):

  • The Brazil plant has annual capacity of 150,000 vehicles and will increase production to 600,000 vehicles in phases

  • BYD will launch the premium Denza Z9GT electric vehicle in Europe on April 8, offering up to 800 kilometers range

  • The new vehicle can charge from 10% to 70% in about five minutes using BYD's latest fast-charging system

  • BYD unveiled its second-generation Blade Battery on March 9, promising to charge EVs from 10% to 97% in under nine minutes

  • BYD is exploring entry into Formula 1 and endurance racing to boost global brand appeal

  • BYD is actively considering building a manufacturing plant in Canada and keeping options open to acquire a global automaker

For readers heading to Mexico for spring break, one of the first things you may notice after stepping outside the airport terminal is how many BYD vehicles are already on the road. The flood of Chinese EVs is shifting into hyperdrive, and in the Americas, the invasion is already underway.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 10:00

Key Events This Week: Central Banks Galore, PPI, And The War In Iran

Zero Hedge -

Key Events This Week: Central Banks Galore, PPI, And The War In Iran

After Friday's revelation that it was the first consecutive monthly Friday 13th for 11 years, DB's Jim Reid writes that today's nearly-as-impressive revelation is that this week sees the Fed, ECB, BoJ and BoE all meet in a single calendar week for the first time since December 2021. So a "super week" for central banks. All of them will have a very complex backdrop to deal with, shaped by geopolitical risk, volatile energy prices, and unsettled inflation dynamics.

Clearly the Middle East is the center of attention for markets right now, with oil prices fluctuating rapidly depending on the mood of the moment, which in turn is set by rapid burst headlines which are stale by the time the next flashing red headline hits. And since every asset class now reacts to any up or down tick in oil, it leads to cross-asset chaos, to say the least. The bigger problem, of course, is that the longer the conflict lasts, and the higher oil prices rise, the more hawkish central banks will have to be no matter the AI-driven bloodbath in the labor market. 

Indeed, while the Iran war is set to dominate the week ahead, we do still have those four big central bank meetings, where all eyes will be on their reaction functions to the war’s impact and the latest oil shock. Starting with the Fed, DB economists expect them to keep rates unchanged this week and think they’ll emphasize elevated geopolitical uncertainty. They only expect minor statement tweaks, including smoothed language on recent labor data (especially given January and February’s conflicting payrolls) and a nod to geopolitical risks, highlighting uncertainty and near-term upside pressure on inflation. Then at the press conference, they think Chair Powell is likely to stress that recent events mainly transmit through financial conditions—particularly oil prices. For now, however, economists think he’ll avoid signalling any meaningful shift in the near term policy outlook.

For the Fed, an important consequence of the conflict is that higher energy prices have begun to feed into inflation assumptions. So DB's economists have nudged up their headline inflation estimates for this year, and they expect Fed officials to reflect a similar adjustment when they publish their updated Summary of Economic Projections. Indeed, core PCE inflation has registered back-to-back 0.4% monthly increases now, pushing the year-on-year rate to 3.1%, the highest since early 2024. For the dot plot, economists are still expecting it to signal one rate cut this year, although it wouldn’t take much to shift the median dot for 2026. Clearly though, the outlook is going to remain heavily dependent on the oil price. For example, our economists have found that a sustained oil price around $100/bbl would still see the projected tax benefits to consumers from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act outweigh the drag from higher effective energy costs. However, a move toward $150/bbl would pose a more material risk to consumer spending and the broader outlook.

Beyond the Fed, this week’s incoming data is unlikely to materially alter the tone of the meeting. February’s industrial production today is expected to rise by 0.3%, slower than January's 0.7%, largely due to softer utility output, though oil and gas extraction will be worth monitoring. Otherwise, the regional manufacturing surveys from New York and Philadelphia could reflect some drag from geopolitical uncertainty, with particular attention on capital spending components. And given the recent labor market volatility, Thursday’s initial jobless claims will take on added importance as they fall within the March employment survey window.

Away from the US, this Thursday will bring the ECB, BoE and BoJ meetings, with DB economists expecting all three to leave rates on hold, with the emphasis firmly on guidance rather than action. At the ECB, expect the Governing Council to acknowledge heightened uncertainty and near-term upside risks to inflation, while stopping short of explicitly flagging medium term risks. Also expect a strong reiteration of policy flexibility and a clear message underscoring the ECB’s unwavering commitment to price stability, with officials keen to signal that they stand ready to act to avoid a repeat of the 2022–23 inflation episode. 

Then in the UK, DB thinks the MPC will lean into a dovish wait and see stance amid a more clouded outlook following the Iran related energy shock. Expect a less divided vote than in February, with the majority favoring an unchanged Bank Rate, while two members continue to favor a cut. Although DB economists still sees two rate cuts this year, recent developments have pushed back the expected timing.

Over in Japan, the BoJ is expected to maintain its current stance, with attention focused on Governor Ueda’s press conference. While underlying fundamentals could justify an early hike, elevated oil prices and growth risks are likely to temper near term action, and sustained crude prices above $100/bbl would reduce the likelihood of an April move. Meanwhile, other central banks making decisions this week include the RBA (Tuesday; expect a hike), the BoC (Wednesday), the SNB and the Riksbank (Thursday). The latter three are widely expected to see no change in rates.

Finally this week, notable data includes Germany’s Zew survey for March tomorrow and UK labor market data due Thursday. In the geopolitical sphere, President Trump and Japanese PM Takaichi are meeting in Washington, with defence cooperation expected to be the primary topic (see more in our Chief Japan economist’s week ahead here). In Europe, this week’s events include an EU leaders’ summit (Thursday to Friday). And on earnings, the lineup includes Micron, FedEx and Lululemon in the US as well as Tencent and Alibaba in China. See the day-by-day calendar of events at the end as usual for more.

Courtesy of DB, here is a day-by-day calendar of events

Monday March 16

  • Data: US March Empire manufacturing index, NAHB housing market index, February industrial production, capacity utilisation, China February retail sales, industrial production, home prices, investment, Italy January general government debt, Canada February CPI, housing starts
  • Earnings: Standard Life
  • Other: EU foreign affairs council meeting

Tuesday March 17

  • Data: US March New York Fed services business activity, February leading index, pending home sales, Germany March Zew survey, Eurozone March Zew survey, Canada February existing home sales
  • Central banks: RBA decision
  • Earnings: Lululemon, Oklo
  • Auctions: US 20-yr Bond (reopening, $13bn)

Wednesday March 18

  • Data: US February PPI, January factory orders, total net TIC flows, Japan January Tertiary industry index, February trade balance, Canada January international securities transactions
  • Central banks: Fed decision, BoC decision
  • Earnings: Tencent, Micron

Thursday March 19

  • Data: US March Philadelphia Fed business outlook, January new home sales, wholesale trade sales, initial jobless claims, UK January average weekly earnings, unemployment rate, February jobless claims change, Japan January core machine orders, capacity utilisation, Eurozone January construction output, Q4 labour costs, Australia February labour force survey
  • Central banks: rate decisions from the ECB, the BoJ, the BoE, the SNB and the Riksbank
  • Earnings: Alibaba, Accenture, Enel, FedEx, Vonovia
  • Auctions: US 10-yr TIPS (reopening, $19bn)
  • Other: Leaders of US and Japan meet in Washington, European Council meeting (through Friday)

Friday March 20

  • Data: UK February public finances, Germany February PPI, Italy January trade balance, current account balance, ECB January current account, Eurozone January trade balance, Canada January retail sales, February industrial product price index, raw materials price index
  • Central banks: China 1-yr and 5-yr loan prime rates, ECB’s Nagel speaks

* * * 

Finally, looking at just the US, the key economic data release this week is the PPI report on Wednesday. The March FOMC meeting is on Wednesday. The post-meeting statement will be released at 2:00 PM ET, followed by Chair Powell’s press conference at 2:30 PM.

Monday, March 16 

  • 08:30 AM Empire State manufacturing survey, March (consensus +3.9, last +7.1)
  • 09:15 AM Industrial production, February (GS flat, consensus +0.1%, last +0.7%); Manufacturing production, February (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.1%, last +0.6%); Capacity utilization, February (GS 76.1%, consensus 76.2%, last 76.2%): We estimate industrial production was unchanged in February, reflecting strong auto production but weak electricity production. We estimate capacity utilization edged down to 76.1%.
  • 10:00 AM NAHB housing market index, March (consensus 37, last 36)

Tuesday, March 17

  • 10:00 AM Pending home sales, February (GS flat, consensus -0.7%, last -0.8%)

Wednesday, March 18 

  • 08:30 AM PPI final demand, February (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.5%); PPI ex-food and energy, February (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.8%); PPI ex-food, energy, and trade, February (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.3%); 10:00 AM Factory orders, January (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.1%, last -0.7%) : We forecast that factory orders increased by 0.1% in January, driven by a rebound in commercial aircraft orders.
  • 02:00 PM FOMC statement, March 17-18 meeting: As discussed in our FOMC preview, we expect the FOMC to leave the funds rate unchanged at 3.50–3.75%. We expect Governors Bowman, Miran and Waller to dissent in favor of a 25bp cut. The Committee is likely to note in its statement that the war in Iran has increased uncertainty about the outlook and will likely raise inflation and weigh on economic activity in the near term. The Summary of Economic Projections is likely to show changes to the 2026 forecasts in line with our own, including higher core (+0.2pp to 2.7% Q4/Q4) and headline (+0.6pp to 3.0%) inflation, lower GDP growth (-0.2pp to 2.1%), and a higher unemployment rate (+0.2pp to 4.6%). We expect little change in the dot plot, where the median is likely to continue to show one cut in each of 2026 and 2027. We recently pushed the two additional rate cuts in our forecast back to September and December. 

Thursday, March 19 

  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended March 14 (GS 210k, consensus 215k, last 213k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended March 7 (consensus 1,850k, last 1,850k): We expect initial jobless claims to decline by 3k. Initial claims remain below their average level in 2025H2 and the layoff rate edged down in January, suggesting that nationwide layoffs remain low despite the increase in alternative layoff measures in Q4 of last year. 
  • 08:30 AM Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index, March (GS 7.0, consensus 10.0, last 16.3)
  • 10:00 AM New home sales, January (GS -2.0%, consensus -2.7%, last -1.7%): We estimate that new home sales fell by 2.0% in January, reflecting a drag from winter storm Fern.

 
Friday, March 20 

  • There are no major data releases scheduled.

Source: DB, Goldman

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 09:50

Israel Expects Iran War To Continue At Least Into April, Lebanon Conflict Longer

Zero Hedge -

Israel Expects Iran War To Continue At Least Into April, Lebanon Conflict Longer

The White House has struggled to present the American public and the world with a clear timeline or precise strategy on Operation Epic Fury, but Israel has seemed clearer on signaling it is settling in for a longer war.

Israel is bracing for its war with Iran to stretch well into April, even as officials quietly concede the government in Tehran is unlikely to collapse, according to Israeli media.

Damage from the June war which lasted 12 days, in Bnei Brak, Israel. via Reuters.

This has Israel has expanded its attacks not just to Iran's oil and energy sites, but more broadly to its defense industrial sector, wanting to see even Tehran's ability to manufacture new missiles utterly destroyed.

And according to Ynet, "At the same time, the idea of encouraging public unrest inside Iran has not been abandoned, though officials acknowledge uncertainty about how effective such efforts might be."

"We continue to strike regime targets, mainly in Tehran. We are entering the decisive phase. We are aiming to bring the people out into the streets. It’s not only us - the Americans are also working toward that," an Israeli official stated.

"Not everything can be controlled, but everything possible is being done to make it succeed. The regime must be weakened as much as possible, including the Basij," the official added. "We are striking them and killing them in the thousands."

Israeli officials have further made clear they have assets on the ground, or Iranians who have helped spot IRGC/Basij checkpoint and security locations. Israel's military has publicized some instances of active strikes on these locations.

As for whether targeting information is actually being communicated by anti-regime Iranians, this could just be Israeli propaganda intent on sowing discord and suspicions among the Iranian populace.

Still, Israeli officials have admitted they are skeptical that street protests alone could topple the Iranian government. Over in Washington, President Trump apparently thought 'decapitation strikes' would quickly result in some kind of rapid uprising in the streets and change of government, but that didn't appear even close to happening.

On the White House's series of miscalculation as this war is in week three with no signs of an off-ramp, Robert D. Kaplan has written in Foreign Affairs:

The biggest U.S. foreign policy fiascos happened because policymakers were obsessed with regional and global consequences they often could not properly manage, and thus ignored critical conditions on the ground. In Vietnam, U.S. leaders overlooked the history and nature of Vietnamese nationalism; in Iraq, it was sectarianism. Tuchman has encouraged leaders to trust area specialists more than grand strategists or democracy promoters. Sophisticated and specific cultural knowledge, she has observed, is much more useful than metrics and shadowy schemes.

Middle-sized wars often stem from misunderstandings about the place intervention is meant to help. The key, then, is for the intervening country to know what it is getting itself into. This may seem easy, but it can be the hardest part of policymaking. Bringing up cultural matters and differences is tricky because it can easily be misconstrued as prejudice, which pushes people to avoid critical conversations about realities on the ground. But it is such discussions that can keep a superpower out of trouble.

Meanwhile, as far as a timeline, Israeli leaders have admitted that it's renewed war with Hezbollah is expected to outlast the conflict with Iran. Hezbollah has been launching missiles on northern Israel, while IDF ground forces have moved in, also as Beirut continues to get pounded from the air.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 09:45

Florida Passes Voter ID Bill Modeled After SAVE Act

Zero Hedge -

Florida Passes Voter ID Bill Modeled After SAVE Act

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

The Florida Legislature passed new election legislation modeled after President Donald Trump’s proposed SAVE America Act.

House Bill 991, sponsored by state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, passed along party lines by a vote of 83 to 31.

“We are the Election Integrity State!” Persons-Mulicka wrote on X after the vote.

Sponsors of the bill moved the effective date to appease critics who feared the new identification requirements would discourage some voters from participating in midterm elections. The new laws won’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2027.

The bill requires Floridians to show proof of citizenship to register to vote, requires a valid photo ID to vote, makes paper ballots the primary method of voting, and bans student IDs as an acceptable voter ID.

Nearly all Florida driver’s licenses and ID cards are Real-ID compliant—a process that already verifies citizenship.

Once in place, the new regulations will also make it a felony for political parties, committees, organizations, and candidates to accept or solicit contributions from foreign nationals for any state elections.

Florida state Democrats voted against the bill, dubbing it the “Show Your Papers Act.”

Rep. Anna Eskamani, a Democrat representing Orlando, said the measure would restrict “all kinds of IDs Florida voters can use.”

“Student IDs and retirement center IDs would no longer be valid; driver’s licenses, state ID cards, military ID, and licenses to carry concealed weapons would still be accepted as proof of voter identity,” Eskamani said in a Facebook post.

The ACLU’s Florida Chapter condemned the measure’s passage, calling it an anti-voter bill.

“These changes are not neutral or harmless—they would fall hardest on low-income voters, students, seniors, women, and Black and brown Floridians,” said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU Florida chapter.

"This wave of anti-voter legislation is advancing amid ongoing abuses of power that pose unprecedented threats to American democracy.”

 

Florida State Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers. Courtesy of the Florida House of Representatives

A similar effort by congressional Republicans has stalled for months in the U.S. Senate.

Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd encouraged Congress to move forward with the SAVE Act after Florida’s bill passed.

“Florida leads the nation in election integrity because we don’t rest on our laurels and are always looking to improve,” Byrd posted on X. “It’s now time for Congress to act on critical election integrity measures.”

Republican Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has been unable to advance the SAVE Act, despite growing pressure from the public and within his party.

Thune told colleagues on March 10 that he didn’t have the votes to pass the act by employing the talking filibuster. He plans to bring the bill to the Senate floor next week.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 09:30

US Industrial Production Rises For 4th Straight Month In February

Zero Hedge -

US Industrial Production Rises For 4th Straight Month In February

After a strong gain in January, US Industrial Production continued to expand in February, rising 0.2% MoM (better than expected +0.1%) - the fourth straight month of gains with Production up 1.44% YoY...

Source: Bloomberg

Manufacturing output also beat expectations, rising 0.2% MoM in February.

  • Durable manufacturing output edged up 0.1 percent, with mixed results across categories; the index for motor vehicles and parts posted the largest gain, and the index for machinery posted the largest loss.

  • Nondurable manufacturing output rose 0.2 percent, with gains in the production of chemicals, of plastic and rubber products, and of paper products outweighing declines in the output of petroleum and coal products and of food, beverage, and tobacco products. The output of other manufacturing (publishing and logging) rose 1.3 percent.

  • Mining output increased 0.8 percent in February, following a 0.9 percent increase in January. The output of utilities fell 0.6 percent in February, reflecting no change in the index for electric utilities and a 4.7 percent drop in the index for natural gas utilities.

Source: Bloomberg

Capacity Utilization printed 76.3 (better than expected)...

...maintaining the positive trend since Trump's second term began.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 09:23

China-US Trade Talks End In Paris As Doubts Grow Over Trump-Xi Summit

Zero Hedge -

China-US Trade Talks End In Paris As Doubts Grow Over Trump-Xi Summit

Update (0911ET): 

The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post has published an update on the sixth round of U.S.-China trade talks, which concluded moments ago in Paris.

SCMP's title for the update is rather ominous: "China and the US end trade talks as doubts form over Trump visit."

The report states that both sides discussed a possible extension of existing tariff and non-tariff measures, as well as bilateral investment.

China's top trade negotiator, Li Chenggang, said the two sides held "deep, frank, and constructive" talks and agreed to "continue to maintain the stability of tariffs."

Earlier, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC's Brian Sullivan in Paris that any delay in the Trump-Xi meeting later this month would not be due to Beijing declining to assist the U.S. in reopening the Strait of Hormuz with a naval coalition, but rather because of logistics: "If the meeting, for some reason, is rescheduled, it would be rescheduled because of logistics."

"I don't think the meeting is in jeopardy, but it's quite possible the meeting could be delayed," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News moments ago.

Leavitt said, "These are leader-to-leader conversations that are currently taking place," adding that if the trip is delayed, the White House will provide the new dates very soon.

SCMP quoted the Chinese foreign ministry as saying both sides at the negotiating table were in contact over Trump's state visit.

*   *   * 

Update (0800ET): 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent joined CNBC TV to counter narratives from U.S. MSM outlets overnight that claimed President Trump would delay the Xi summit later this month if Beijing did not help form a naval coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

"If the meetings are delayed, it wouldn't be delayed because the president demanded that China police the Strait of Hormuz," Bessent told CNBC's Brian Sullivan in Paris. "If the meeting, for some reason, is rescheduled, it would be rescheduled because of logistics."

Bessent headlines from the interview:

  • FALSE TO SAY IF CHINA DOESN'T OPEN HORMUZ, TRIP DELAY

  • US-CHINA TRADE MEETINGS IN PARIS' VERY GOOD'

  • IF TRUMP DELAYS CHINA, WOULD BE DUE TO PROSECUTING WAR

  • MARKETS SHOULD 'ABSOLUTELY NOT' REACT TO TRIP DELAY

It's clear that Iran-US conflict adds yet another layer of tension ahead of the Trump-Xi summit. Bessent warpped up talks in Paris with the Chinese today, with reports earlier stating potential areas of agreement in tariffs, agriculture, energy purchases, fentanyl, and Taiwan.

*   *   * 

Brent crude futures are trading around $103 a barrel early Monday morning amid U.S. strikes on Iran's Kharg Island oil export hub. Concerns about tanker congestion in the Strait of Hormuz, however, appear to be easing.

A flurry of weekend headlines suggests that the Trump administration is racing to reopen the Hormuz chokepoint and avert a further energy shock in global markets. According to a new Axios report, plans for a multinational naval coalition could be unveiled as soon as this week.

Hormuz Tanker Traffic

In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump said the U.S. and allied countries would send warships to the Hormuz area to reopen commercial shipping lanes. He called on China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the U.K. to help.

On board Air Force One later that day, he told reporters he "demands" that NATO countries and other nations heavily dependent on Gulf crude oil and other product imports help with the naval operation.

"We are talking to other countries about policing the straits. It will be nice to have other countries policing with us. We will help. We are getting a good response," Trump said.

In a Sunday interview with the Financial Times, the president warned that he could delay his upcoming summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping if Beijing does not participate in the naval coalition.

Trump told FT, "It's only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there."

"If there's no response or if it's a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO," he added.

While Beijing has yet to publicly respond to Trump's request, the state-run Global Times rejected Trump's plan to spread the risk "of a war that Washington started and can't finish." GT explained on Sunday night why Beijing wouldn't join the naval coalition.

"Crowding a volatile waterway with warships from multiple nations doesn't create security. It creates flashpoints. If any single vessel were struck, the consequences could rapidly spiral beyond anyone's control," GT said. This is "more a carefully structured transfer of risk."

Bloomberg noted, "A delay to the summit could suit Beijing. China had previously proposed that Trump arrive at the end of April to allow more time for preparations, according to a person familiar with the matter," adding, "Such a postponement would allow for more discussion on security and diplomatic issues, including self-ruled Taiwan, which have so far not featured prominently on the planning agenda."

The Iran-US conflict adds yet another layer of tension ahead of the Trump-Xi summit. Both sides are expected to wrap up trade talks in Paris on Monday, with potential areas of agreement in tariffs, agriculture, energy purchases, fentanyl, and Taiwan.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 09:11

Starmer Vows UK Won't Be Drawn Into Wider War In Middle East, Hormuz Crisis 'Not A Simple Task'

Zero Hedge -

Starmer Vows UK Won't Be Drawn Into Wider War In Middle East, Hormuz Crisis 'Not A Simple Task'

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to President Trump on Sunday night, with Starmer on Monday describing that the two leaders discussed events "in the way that you would expect between two allies and two leaders" and he had a "good relationship" with the US president.

His articulation of an apparently positive and frank talk comes while he trying to dismiss suggestions the relationship with Britain's key ally had been damaged due to the Iran war.

President Trump has been very clearly making the case that European and NATO countries must back his effort to unblock global oil transit in the Strait of Hormuz

However, Starmer has made clear to his domestic population that the UK won't be dragged into a wider war with Iran, even as London tries to figure out what role in might play in any US-led Hormuz plan.

"Ultimately, we have to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the (oil) market. That is not a simple task," Starmer told reporters.

"So we're working with all of our allies, including our European partners, to bring together a viable collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impact," he added.

Below is a key line of Starmer's:

"While we are taking the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war," he said.

But it seems he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, acknowledging that Britain is on board with trying to piece together a multinational security effort - and yet Starmer has stressed it would not be a NATO-led mission.

According to more of his comments at a Downing street press conference:

The prime minister said the UK, which is considering sending ships and mine-hunting drones to the Middle East, was working with allies on a “viable plan” to reopen shipping lanes. Otherwise energy prices would remain high.

“It’s a discussion; we’re not at the point of decisions yet. It’s obviously a difficult question, that goes without saying, in relation to how you safeguard maritime traffic … But we are discussing that with the US, with Gulf partners and with Europeans,” he said.

He said that while the UK would take “necessary action” to defend itself and allies “we will not be drawn into the wider war”, as concern mounts at home over the prospect of a drawn-out conflict.

“I want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the worse it is for the cost of living back here at home,” he said.

The British leader also rolled out the first domestic relief package tied to the US and Israeli-initiated war's economic fallout, announcing a £53 million ($70 million) support plan for vulnerable households that rely on heating oil after fuel prices surged.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 09:00

Allies Balk As Trump Pushes Joint Military Action To Reopen Hormuz - Iran Says No Ceasefire On Table

Zero Hedge -

Allies Balk As Trump Pushes Joint Military Action To Reopen Hormuz - Iran Says No Ceasefire On Table

Summary:

  • Trump declares 'victory' while simultaneously urging coalition help: President Trump claimed the US has "essentially defeated Iran" and vowed "we will finish the job," while pressing NATO allies and other countries to join a naval coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

  • Iran rejects ceasefire and signals escalation: Iranian FM dismissed any truce, saying Tehran wants the war to end in a way that ensures enemies "never again think of repeating these attacks," adding Iran has "sent no messages and do not request a ceasefire."

  • US weighing major escalation at Kharg Island: The White House is considering seizing Iran’s main oil export hub on Kharg Island, a move that would require US boots on the ground.

  • Europe reluctant to join Hormuz operation, Germany outright rejects it alongside Italy and Greece: Trump warned of a "very bad" future for NATO if allies don't help reopen the strait. UK also says it won't be 'NATO-led'.

  • Regional attacks and oil shock intensify: Iran continues missile and drone strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure and US-aligned states, while Israeli forces launched "wide-scale" strikes. Saudi Arabia, Dubai continue to get hit.

* * *

President Trump and his top officials spent the weekend on the one hand touting the Iran campaign a decisive military win and supposed success, while on the other racing to assemble a naval coalition to force open Tehran's chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, all the while imploring other countries for help. Europe appears deeply reluctant, with some key NATO countries already slamming the door on this prospect.

"As far as I’m concerned, we have essentially defeated Iran," President Trump said in some of latest remarks aboard Air Force One. "They want to negotiate badly, as they should, but I don't think they're ready to do what they have to do... We will finish the job," he claimed.

But then on Monday Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected calls for a ceasefire, insisting Tehran intends to impose steep and bloody costs on the aggressors. "The reason we say we do not want a ceasefire is not because we are seeking war, but because this time this war must end in such a way that our enemies never again think of repeating these attacks," Araghchi said at a press conference.

Site of airstrikes on an oil depot in Tehran, AFP/Getty Images

"I think they have already learned a good lesson and understood what kind of nation they are dealing with." He also dismissed reports that Iran had quietly sought negotiations: "As we have said many times and I reiterated last night in an interview with an American network, we have sent no messages and do not request a ceasefire."

Still, Trump is pressing forward on plans for NATO to send allied ships. According to US officials cited in The Wall Street Journal, there are plans for as soon as this week to announce that multiple countries have agreed to join a coalition escorting ships through the strait. All of this, and especially a timeline, still seems up in the air.

And separately per Axios, the White House is simultaneously considering the far more aggressive option of seizing Iran's main oil export hub on Kharg Island, after much of it has been subject of heavy US bombing, which started overnight Friday, but reportedly left oil terminals and vital export infrastructure in place.

There remains widespread speculation that this is what the multi-thousand strong Marine Expeditionary Force currently en route is all about, raising the states even higher. A direct Kharg Island seizure would require American boots on the ground -  already as Iran's retaliatory blockade of the narrow strait has sent oil and gas prices climbing as a major share of global crude supply remains effectively frozen.

This is apparently what's behind Trump's growing urgency - and some might day desperation - for allies to step up, with the US president having told European leaders there could be a "very bad" future for NATO if member states fail to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to Financial Times. But by the looks of it most of Europe wants to avoid what's looking like a recipe for another quagmire in the Middle East. Ironically, Iran is bordered by two countries which were subject of over two decades of US-led war and occupation.

For example, after Italy had earlier made very clear it will have no involvement, Al Jazeera reports:

The ⁠war ⁠in Iran has nothing to do with NATO, ⁠a German government spokesperson says, adding that Germany ‌would not take part in the war nor in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open through ⁠military means.

"As long ⁠as this war continues, there will be no participation, ⁠not even in ⁠any effort ⁠to keep the Strait of Hormuz open by military ‌means," the spokesperson said. Greece ⁠also will not ⁠engage in ⁠any military operations ‌in the Strait of Hormuz, ⁠Greek government spokesman ⁠Pavlos ⁠Marinakis said.

And Britain too while signaling openness says it won't be NATO-led:

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday Britain would not be drawn into a wider war in Iran but would work with allies on a "viable collective plan" to reopen the key Strait of Hormuz, though he acknowledged that would not be a simple task.

...Starmer told a press conference that reopening the strait was the only way to stabilize energy markets, and that he was talking to allies in Europe, the Gulf and the U.S. on a plan to secure freedom of navigation. He said it would not be a NATO-led mission.

Iran meanwhile continues to send missile and drones on America's gulf allies and energy infrastructure, with Saudi Arabia saying it intercepted 61 drones over its territory since midnight, though potential impact sites of projectiles what got through weren't immediately disclosed.

Flights at Dubai International Airport have been suspended after a fuel take went up on flames. "An Iranian drone attack ignited a fuel tank at Dubai International Airport early Monday, authorities said, as Tehran continued to strike civilian infrastructure across the Persian Gulf," Washington Post reports. Fujairah has also been hit again.

The Israeli military has said Monday it has begun “wide-scale wave of strikes targeting infrastructure” in the Iranian cities of Tehran, Shiraz, and Tabriz simultaneously. It has vowed to keep hitting Iran "as long as needed" - suggesting no quick end amid the war's third week.

But Israel also faces unprecedented bombardment by Iran's sophisticated missile and drone arsenal. Israel’s Health Ministry has newly announced that at least 3,369 people, including civilians and military personnel, have been wounded and injured - with many hospitalized - since the war's start. At least a dozen people have been killed, but the true numbers could be significantly higher as Israel's military has censored a lot of wartime information.

Fresh US-Israeli strikes on Tehran.

Below is a running death toll via Turkish media as of Sunday:

IRAN - The most recent death toll, reported by state media on Monday, was at least 1,270 people. But Iran's ambassador to the U.N. said on March 6 that at least 1,332 ⁠people had been killed since the war began. There has been no clarification of the discrepancy. It was not clear if those figures include at least 104 people that the Iranian military said were killed in a U.S. attack on an Iranian warship off Sri Lanka's coast on March 4.

LEBANON - At least 850 people have been killed in Israeli strikes, according to Lebanese authorities. The World Health Organization said at least 98 of those killed were children.

IRAQ - At least 30 people have been killed, according to Iraqi health authorities. Most of those were members of the Shi'ite Popular Mobilization Forces. One foreign crew member was killed in an attack on tankers near an ⁠Iraqi ⁠port, according to port security officials.

ISRAEL - Twelve people have been killed, including nine people in an Iranian missile strike on Beit Shemesh near Jerusalem on March 1, according to Israel's ambulance service. The Israeli military said two of its soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon.

UNITED STATES - Thirteen service members have been killed. Six were confirmed dead after a U.S. military refueling aircraft crashed over Iraq, the U.S. military said, while seven others have been killed in action during operations against Iran.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - Six people have been killed in Iranian attacks, according ⁠to the UAE's defense ministry.

KUWAIT - Authorities have reported six deaths - including two people killed in Iranian attacks, two interior ministry officers and two army soldiers.

SYRIA - Four people were killed when an Iranian missile struck a building in the southern Syrian city of Sweida on February 28, state news agency SANA said.

OMAN - Two people were killed in a drone strike on an industrial zone in Sohar province, marking the first fatalities inside the country, which has been hosting mediation talks between the U.S. and ⁠Iran. One ‌person died ‌earlier when a projectile hit a tanker off the coast of Muscat, ⁠the vessel's manager said.

SAUDI ARABIA - Two people were killed ‌when a projectile fell on a residential location in Al-Kharj city, southeast of the capital Riyadh.

BAHRAIN - Two people were killed in two separate Iranian attacks, with ⁠the most recent hitting a residential building in the capital Manama, according ⁠to the interior ministry.

FRANCE - One French soldier was killed and six others were wounded after ⁠a drone attack in northern Iraq, where they were providing counterterrorism training.

The Trump White House has been angered by media headlines and reports saying the war is expanding and escalating across the region, but the above widening casualties point to this precisely being the case, as Washington continues to struggle to define objectives, timeline, or even what 'winning' looks like.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 08:50

Futures Jump, Oil Slides On Fresh Hormuz Hopes

Zero Hedge -

Futures Jump, Oil Slides On Fresh Hormuz Hopes

Stock futures are higher AS energy prices dip modestly even as the war in the Middle East enters a third week, with Trump’s endgame unclear amid requests for international help to reopen the SoH.  As of 8:00am ET, S&P futures are up 0.8% and and Nasdaq futures gain 1.0% with all Mag 7 names higher in premarket trading led by Meta which is reportedly planning layoffs that could affect 20% or more of the company. The bounce in futs and the slide in oil coincided with comments from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the US has already learned a good lesson. However, he did also note that the nation is not requesting a ceasefire and has not messaged the US.  Cyclicals outperform Defensives in what appears to be a relief rally. As JPM writes this morning, "it is unclear if futures are following the recent trend of a higher Monday into a sell off for the balance of the week, or if the market is pricing a pivot despite the likelihood that oil production curtailments will approximately double this week." Bond yields are lower by 1-2bp as the curve bull steepens, and USD is lower. Commodities are weaker ex-Energy. Initially oil jumped at the start of futures trading on Sunday night following a second attack in three days on Fujairah, a vital port in the UAE that’s just outside the Strait of Hormuz, but has since turned red. And while shipping through the Strait has been all but halted since the war started, several Iranian tankers as well as a vessel controlled by have made the journey. Today’s macro data focus is on Industrial Production, home prices, and regional activity indicators. The Fed meeting (plus other major CBs) and PPI are the other major releases this week.

In premarket trading, Mag 7 names are all higher: Meta rises 2% after Reuters reported that the social media giant is planning layoffs that could affect 20% or more of the company (Nvidia +1%, Tesla +0.9%, Apple +0.3%, Microsoft +0.6%, Amazon +0.5%, Alphabet +0.1%).

  • Micron Technology (MU) climbs 4% — lifting other memory and storage companies — as analyst optimism grows ahead of the chipmaker’s results later this week.
  • Nebius shares jumped 15% in premarket trading after Meta said it will pay as much as $27 billion over the next five years for access to artificial intelligence infrastructure from the cloud provider
  • National Storage Affiliates Trust (NSA) rises 25% after agreeing to be purchased by Public Storage Operating Co.
  • Sable Offshore Group (SOC) rises 6% after the energy company said it restarted oil transportation at its California pipeline after the Trump administration invoked the Defense Production Act.

While attacks on oil facilities kept crude trading well above $100 a barrel, prices slipped about $4 off levels hit earlier in the day. Following the transit of two vessels on the weekend, India is attempting to get six others to cross, while several other nations are trying back channels to Iran to ensure safe passage for their tankers. 

“The market is trying to stabilize, but it is not one that has turned optimistic,” said Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo Markets. “Equities may welcome any sign that Hormuz could be reopened, but with further strikes still being threatened and diplomacy still patchy, conviction is low and positioning is likely to stay very twitchy.”

On tech, after the Mag-7 entered a technical correction on Friday, investors will turn attention to Nvidia’s annual AI conference this week. CEO Jensen Huang is giving a keynote speech at 2 p.m. ET today. In other AI news, Nvidia partner Hon Hai reported 4Q net income below consensus. Helping the tech space, the US Commerce Department withdrew ​its planned rule on ​AI chip exports, Reuters reported.

Turning to the broader market, several strategists are calling the bottom for equities: Morgan Stanley’s Michael Wilson says the market’s correction phase is nearing its end, and JPMorgan’s Mislav Matejka recommends buying the dip, while on the other side Goldman warns that in a severe oil shock the S&P could fall to 5,400. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank strategists write that inflows to equity funds (+$13.2b) picked up last week, with the biggest inflows into Japan (+$6.3b) since May 2013 and record Korea inflows (+$8.9b) while China saw outflows (-$7.8b).

As we noted last night, Goldman predicts that the AI investment boom should offset the drag from modestly weaker economic activity for corporate earnings in the US, reiterating a forecast for 12% EPS growth for the S&P 500 in 2026. Global equities are at risk of a correction, though probably not a bear market, according to other strategists at the bank. On the other hand if the oil crunch extends, the S&P could drop as low as 5,400 in a worst case scenario according to Goldman.

Wild swings in oil have led to an unusual range of moves across rates, commodities and equities, fueling significant trading activity in exotic options by hedge funds. Financial stocks are off to their worst start to a year since the Covid pandemic, with investors expecting more pain ahead as worries over everything from private credit to the Iran war roil the troubled sector.

Attention will also focus this week on a slew of central bank meetings, including at the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan and the Bank of England. Those will be crucial to gauge policymakers’ thinking on how the oil shock will impact economy and the prospect for interest rates.

While oil near $100 a barrel fanning inflation fears, it’s also likely to dampen economic growth, casting uncertainty on how policymakers will respond.  “Every day that goes by with the Hormuz Strait closed is another bad news for the global economy,” said Francois Rimeu, senior strategist at Credit Mutuel Asset Management. “If the crisis continues there will be at some point some kind of trigger that will make investors realize the scale of the supply shock that’s building up.”

European stocks bounced off the day’s lows as Brent crude futures have pulled back from earlier highs. The moves have coincided with comments from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the US has already learned a good lesson. However, he did also note that the nation is not requesting a ceasefire and has not messaged the US. The Stoxx 600 is down a fourth session, falling 0.2%. Energy stocks rally after fresh attacks on oil infrastructure in the Middle East caused Brent prices to surge, while automakers lag.  Here are some of the biggest movers on Monday:

  • GN Store Nord shares jump as much as 42%, the most on record, after Amplifon agreed to buy its hearing-aid business. Amplifon shares drop as much as 13%.
  • Commerzbank shares climb as much as 5.3% after UniCredit made a €35 billion for the lender that will allow it to increase its shareholding beyond 30%, easing the path for a potential future acquisition.
  • MTN shares surge as much as 7.4%, the most in two months as Africa’s largest wireless carrier returned to profit, declared a dividend that beat estimates and said it plans to buy back shares.
  • Tecan shares drop as much as 6.3% to the lowest level in more than a decade after the Swiss maker of laboratory equipment provided guidance for 2026 which analysts said will spur downgrades to estimates.
  • Idorsia shares fall as much as 18% to a six-month low after the Swiss pharma company said Srishti Gupta will step down as chief executive officer and from the board of directors by mutual agreement.
  • Standard Life shares drop as much as 3.6% after 2025 earnings with analysts noting that, while results were broadly as expected, IFRS numbers were below forecasts.

In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot index falls 0.4%, with the greenback down versus all majors. USD/JPY has continued to back away from 160 following comments from the Japanese Finance Minister.

In rates, 10-year yields slipped two basis points, after rising for five straight sessions with globaL bond yields are generally softer heading into a busy week for G-10 central banks as traders weigh how policymakers will weigh the inflation and growth implications from rising energy prices. The US Treasury market has erased all its gains for the year amid concerns about both inflation and growth risks. A batch of rate decisions are due this week, including the Fed on Wednesday. It’s expected to hold rates steady, though not without dissent. Bloomberg Economics expects the central bank to signal an extended pause ahead and add two-sided language around the rate path — flagging upside risks to inflation as well as downside risks to employment.

As Wall Street dialed back its bets on rate cuts for this year, bonds from the US to Japan and Australia have dropped. A gauge of global debt has also ceded its year-to-date gains. Gold traded below $5,000 as high oil prices threaten Fed rate cuts. Still, analysts at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. expect Treasuries and most other government bonds to edge higher by year-end, seeing growth risks outweighing the inflation pulse.

In commodities, spot gold and silver are down 0.7% and 3.3% respectively. Bitcoin continues to climb, up 2.2%. WTI drops 2.5% to $96.25 after rising as high as $101 early in the session.

Looking at today's calednar, Empire manufacturing for March is due at 8:30 a.m. New York, followed by February readings for industrial production and capacity utilization at 9:15 a.m. The Fed’s external communications blackout continues. 

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 mini +0.7%
  • Nasdaq 100 mini +0.9%,
  • Russell 2000 mini +0.6%
  • Stoxx Europe 600 -0.2%,
  • DAX -0.2%,
  • CAC 40 -0.4%
  • 10-year Treasury yield -2 basis points at 4.26%
  • VIX -1.2 points at 26.03
  • Bloomberg Dollar Index -0.3% at 1213.82,
  • euro +0.3% at $1.1449
  • WTI crude +0.6% at $99.34/barrel

Top Overnight News

  • Donald Trump demanded other countries, including China, help secure passage for ships in the Strait of Hormuz. He told the FT his planned summit with Xi Jinping may be delayed if Beijing doesn’t assist. Iran’s foreign minister denied it’s seeking talks or a ceasefire after Trump told NBC he’s willing to make a deal but wants better terms. BBG
  • Top U.S. and Chinese economic officials were due to conclude talks in Paris on Monday, with potential areas of agreement in agriculture, critical minerals and managed trade that could be taken up by U.S. President Donald ‌Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. In the talks, the Chinese side showed openness to potential additional purchases of U.S. agricultural goods. RTRS
  • Japan’s defense minister said the nation has no current plans to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz. Separately, the finance minister said officials are prepared to respond boldly to currency market movements. BBG
  • Volodymyr Zelenskiy said a drone deal with the US is still possible despite Trump’s public rejection. BBG
  • American oil executives delivered a bleak message to Trump officials in recent days: The energy crisis the Iran war has unleashed is likely to get worse. Exxon CEO Darren Woods said that oil prices could rise past current elevated levels if speculators unexpectedly bid up prices and that markets could see a supply crunch of refined products. WSJ
  • China's economy began the year on a firmer footing as factory output quickened while retail sales and investment rebounded in January-February, offering early relief for policymakers as the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran injects fresh uncertainty for growth. China saw retail sales (+2.8% vs. the Street +2.5%) and industrial production (+6.3% vs. the Street +5.3%).  RTRS
  • Socialist Emmanuel Gregoire led the first round of Sunday’s Paris mayoral election. Runoffs for the municipal polls will be held March 22. BBG
  • Wealthy individuals have sought to pull more than $10bn from some of the largest private credit funds in the 1st quarter, prompting investment managers to limit withdrawals and threatening to stall one of Wall Street’s most important sources of growth. FT
  • Meta will pay up to $27 billion over the next five years for access to AI infrastructure from neocloud firm Nebius, as it seeks to compete with the industry’s top frontier models. Meta shares rose premarket after Reuters reported it’s planning layoffs that may affect 20% or more of its workforce. The cuts are aimed at offsetting costly investments in AI. BBG

A more detailed look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

APAC stocks mostly declined amid cautiousness at the start of a busy week of central bank activity and following the continued conflict after the US struck military targets in Iran's Kharg Island oil export hub, but left oil infrastructure intact. ASX 200 was led lower by mining, materials, resources and tech, while the RBA kicked off its two-day policy meeting, where the central bank is widely expected to hike rates for the second consecutive meeting amid inflationary pressures. Nikkei 225 retreated amid losses in utilities and electric names due to the ongoing energy-related uncertainty, despite Japan beginning its emergency oil release, while the Japanese data calendar is quiet to start the week, but begins to pick up on Tuesday, and the BoJ are also set to conduct a policy meeting later in the week. Hang Seng and Shanghai Comp were mixed as participants digested stronger-than-expected activity data for China, and with US-China trade talks in Paris on Sunday said to be constructive and will resume today. However, there were also comments from US President Trump, who called for China to help open the Strait of Hormuz and suggested a potential delay to the Trump-Xi summit scheduled later this month.

Top Asian News

  • China's stats bureau's spokesperson expects consumption to rise steadily this year as policy measures gain traction, but noted that more support is needed.
  • Japanese Finance Minister Katayama said prepared to take decisive steps on FX.

European bourses are mixed to start the week as the Middle East conflict remains the dominant macro theme. The FTSE 100 outperforms as oil majors gain with crude above USD 100/bbl, while the FTSE MIB lags after Amplifon declines on news it will acquire GN Store Nord’s hearing unit for DKK 17bln. European Sectors are also mixed. Energy leads as Brent holds above USD 100/bbl, with Real Estate also firmer as Segro gains following a broker upgrade and UK Rightmove house prices rise M/M. Basic Resources initially underperformed as spot gold dips below USD 5,000/oz, while Banks remain pressured.

Top European News

  • Swiss Sight Deposits (w/e 13th Mar), CHF: Domestic 433.5bln (prev. 428.8bln), Total 454.4bln (prev. 454.07bln).
  • UK Rightmove House Prices YY (Mar) -0.2% (Prev. 0.0%).
  • UK Rightmove House Prices MM (Mar) 0.8% (Prev. 0.0%).

FX

  • DXY is marginally softer as the index takes a breather after reclaiming the 100.00 level, while traders brace for a heavy central bank week and monitor Middle East tensions. US President Trump is reportedly seeking a coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and weighing the seizure of Iran’s Kharg Island, while also warning NATO and calling on China to help secure the waterway. DXY trades in a narrow 100.18–100.48 range after Friday’s 99.59–100.54 band. The FOMC is widely expected to leave rates unchanged at 3.50–3.75% on Wednesday, with markets not pricing a cut until Q4 2026.
  • EUR/USD rebounds from around a seven-month low amid the softer dollar but remains below 1.1500 (1.1414–1.1456 range) amid quiet Eurozone newsflow and geopolitical uncertainty. The pair remains within Friday’s 1.1411–1.1530 range. The ECB is expected to keep rates unchanged at 2.0% on Thursday, though higher energy prices have pushed market pricing slightly more hawkish, with a 25bp hike now fully priced by year-end.
  • GBP/USD edges higher alongside the weaker dollar after recently hitting a year-to-date low. UK ministers are set to announce a GBP 50mln support package for households facing the energy shock from the Iran conflict, while the UK is also exploring an EU tuition fee cut to reset post-Brexit relations. The BoE is expected to keep the Bank Rate at 3.75% on Thursday, though energy-driven inflation risks have prompted a more hawkish repricing.
  • USD/JPY is choppy in the absence of Japanese data, with comments from Japanese Finance Minister Katayama stating authorities are ready to take decisive FX steps if needed. The pair trades within 159.17–159.75, inside Friday’s 159.01–159.76 range. The BoJ this week is expected to keep rates unchanged at 0.75%, although markets still price a possible hike by June.
  • Antipodeans outperform. NZD/USD leads gains despite mixed domestic data, while AUD/USD reclaims the 0.7000 level ahead of the RBA decision tomorrow, where the central bank is widely expected to deliver another rate hike.

Fixed Income

  • USTs are slightly firmer as Treasuries digest the weekend’s modest geopolitical escalation and higher energy prices. Futures trade in a narrow 111-12+ to 111-21+ range, but remain near recent lows at the bottom of March’s 111-11 to 114-06 band and close to the January and February troughs of 111-06+ and 111-08+ as markets await a busy central bank week.
  • Bunds edge higher in quiet trade, with gains of around nine ticks in narrow sub-20 tick ranges. Focus in Europe centres on energy-related meetings this week, including a press conference later today that could discuss EU-wide measures to stabilise energy markets and updates on proposals for a “coalition of the willing” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Gilts outperform after gapping higher by 26 ticks and extending gains to an 88.84 peak, leaving futures up just over 30 ticks at best. The move reflects partial recovery after Gilts had previously underperformed peers during the Middle East-driven energy shock.

Commodities

  • Crude Futures extend gains as markets digest weekend escalation in the Iran conflict and fresh risks to regional energy infrastructure. WTI trades above USD 100/bbl within a USD 96.74–102.44/bbl range, while Brent hovers around USD 105/bbl (USD 102.04–106.50/bbl), however WTI narrowly underperforms Brent futures on news US called for oil producers to increase output to combat surging global energy prices. The US conducted strikes on military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island, from where most Iranian oil exports originate, though oil infrastructure was left intact. Prices also rise after reports the UAE’s Fujairah port was struck with loadings suspended, while Saudi Crown MBS reportedly urged Washington to maintain military pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, Trump says China should help reopen the Strait of Hormuz ahead of a planned Beijing visit.
  • Nat Gas is firmer alongside the broader energy complex as geopolitical risks underpin prices, with front-month Dutch TTF near EUR 52/MWh.
  • Spot Gold is flat in choppy trade within a USD 4,967.77–5,036.01/oz range as the metal tracks USD movements while traders monitor oil-driven inflation risks ahead of a heavy central bank week.
  • Base Metals are softer across the board. Copper recovers from Friday’s lows but upside is capped by cautious risk sentiment. Meanwhile, Aluminium Bahrain begins a phased shutdown of Reduction Lines 1–3 (around 19% of its 1.62mln-tonne annual capacity) in response to the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Senior US administration official acknowledges that prices will continue to rise but admits there is little the government can currently do at the moment, according to a CNN reporter.
  • Oil executives warned the Trump administration the energy crisis will likely worsen and that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz might push up oil prices further, according to WSJ.

Trade/Tariffs

  • US and Chinese officials held candid and constructive talks in Paris on Sunday and agreed to enhance stability in the trade relationship, according to sources familiar with the talks, while the sides met for six hours and will resume talks on Monday. US Treasury Secretary Bessent and USTR Greer raised the need for China to buy more Boeing aircraft, US coal, oil and gas, while US and Chinese officials discussed solutions to difficulties faced by some American firms in obtaining rare earths. Talks will continue on a technical level on Monday.
  • China responded to US allegations of forced labor in the Section 301 probe and has lodged a formal representation with the US over the investigation.
  • Indian Trade Secretary said the US-India trade deal will be signed when the US re-establishes global tariff rates. The US is working on recreating global tariff architecture.
  • Indian Trade Secretary said exports to West Asia have been impacted by the Middle East situation; India is considering measures to support exports to the Middle East.

Geopolitics

  • US President Trump said he ordered a strike that wiped out every military target on Kharg Island, which is where Iran exports nearly all of its oil from, but left the oil infrastructure intact which he would reconsider if Iran interferes with the safe passage of ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
  • US President Trump said he is hearing that Iran’s new Supreme Leader Khamenei may be dead, and that it is not clear if Iran has laid mines in the Strait of Hormuz, while he also stated that he is not ready to make a deal with Iran because the terms aren’t good enough yet. Furthermore, Trump said recent strikes on Kharg Island demolished most of the island and commented that they “may hit it a few more times just for fun”.
  • US President Trump posted that they have destroyed 100% of Iran’s military capability and that many countries will send warships to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open and safe.
  • US President Trump said they have had strong results in Iran and he does not believe Iran is ready to negotiate, but will be ready to negotiate at some point. Trump also said the US is talking to other countries about policing the Strait of Hormuz and cannot say which countries will help yet, while a few countries would rather not get involved. Furthermore, he called on NATO to help and thinks China should come in to help on the Strait of Hormuz.
  • US President Trump seeks a Hormuz coalition and is weighing seizing Iran's critical oil depot on Kharg Island — a move that would require US boots on the ground — if tankers remain bottled up in the Persian Gulf, according to US officials cited by Axios.
  • US President Trump warned that NATO faces a very bad future if US allies fail to assist in opening up the Strait of Hormuz, according to FT.
  • US lawmakers have begun talking about a supplemental funding bill for the Iran war, Punchbowl reports; package could have a USD 100bln or greater price tag, according to sources.
  • Israel's IDF has launched a focused ground operation in southern Lebanon, including a build-up of forces in order to capture more forward lines, N12 reported.
  • Israeli Home Front notifies of a missile attack from Iran targeting areas in central Israel.
  • Iran's Foreign Minister Araqchi says no messages have been exchanged with the US and that Tehran has not asked for a ceasefire as the "war needs to end in a way that ensures it does not happen again".
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Baghaei says parties not involved in the war have had vessels pass through Hormuz with coordination and permission from Iran's military. The Strait of Hormuz is only closed to the enemies of Iran.
  • The Iranian Army Spokesperson said the support centre of the USS Ford in the Red Sea are considered as targets, Al Arabiya reported.
  • Iran's media operations centre warns residents in specific areas of Dubai and Doha of possible attacks in the coming hours, while it stated that US military personnel are hiding in locations in Doha and Dubai and urges residents to evacuate immediately.
  • Oil loading at UAE's Fujairah suspended after the port was hit, Bloomberg sources report.
  • UAE's Fujairah port was hit and the damage is being assessed, Bloomberg reported citing sources.
  • Multiple locals are said to confirm smoke rising in the vicinity of Dubai International Airport, but it is unclear what has been targeted, according to Faytuks News.
  • Explosions heard in Bahrain's skies as air defences intercept an Iranian attack, according to Sky News Arabia.
  • Missile bombardment targets US military base for logistical support at Baghdad airport, according to Al-Haddath.
  • The meeting of European foreign ministers will discuss the protection of sea lanes and the Strait of Hormuz, Al Jazeera sources report.
  • Russia's Kremlin says we are open to continuing Ukraine negotiations and that US President Trump has not lost interest, instead he recommended Ukrainian President Zelensky make a deal

US Event Calendar

 

DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

After Friday's revelation that it was the first consecutive monthly Friday 13th for 11 years, today's nearly-as-impressive revelation is that this week sees the Fed, ECB, BoJ and BoE all meet in a single calendar week for the first time since December 2021. So a "super week" for central banks. All of them will have a very complex backdrop to deal with, shaped by geopolitical risk, volatile energy prices, and unsettled inflation dynamics.

Clearly the Middle East is the centre of attention for markets right now, and as we go to press this morning, the market turmoil is showing no sign of easing. Brent crude oil prices are up another +1.65% to $104.84/bbl, building on their +42% rise over the previous two weeks since the strikes began. Moreover, that’s actually beneath the overnight highs, as Brent had been as high as $106.50/bbl when markets reopened on Sunday night.

The latest gains for oil follow the news late on Friday (after the US close) that the US had conducted bombing raids on Kharg Island. That’s particularly significant because around 90% of Iran's crude exports are shipped from there. For now, Trump said in a post that he’d chosen not to destroy the oil infrastructure, but he also said he’d reconsider that if Iran interfered with ships’ passage through the Strait of Hormuz. So markets are still concerned about further escalation, and with each passing day investors have moved to price in a more protracted conflict. For instance, 6-month Brent futures are up another +0.33% this morning at $85.94/bbl.

In the meantime, there’s also been no sign of the two sides moving towards negotiations. For instance, Trump said to NBC on Saturday that “Iran wants to make a deal, and I don’t want to make it because the terms aren’t good enough yet”. However, on the Iranian side, their foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said “We don’t see any reason why we should talk with Americans”. So the rhetoric has only added to the fears about an extended conflict and a sustained period of high oil prices.

When it comes to oil prices, all eyes are still on the Strait of Hormuz, and when that will begin to reopen. Interestingly, the WSJ reported last night that the Trump administration would announce plans this week about a coalition of multiple counties that would escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz. However, the report also said it was still under discussion whether it would start before or after the hostilities actually ended. So clearly that’s one we need to get the details on.

Overnight in Asia, we’ve seen a mixed performance across the major equity indices. Most have fallen back, including the Nikkei (-0.45%), the Shanghai Comp (-0.32%), the CSI 300 (-0.25%) and the S&P/ASX 200 (-0.39%). However, South Korea’s KOSPI is up +0.72%, and in Hong Kong the Hang Seng is up +1.30%. Looking forward as well, futures on the S&P 500 are up +0.50%, signalling a pickup from Friday’s close, when the index hit its lowest since November.

Meanwhile, the Chinese activity data for February has also been stronger than expected overnight. For instance, industrial production is up +6.3% on a year-on-year basis over the first two months of the year (vs. +5.3% expected), and retail sales also beat expectations at +2.8% (vs. +2.5% expected). However, given the strikes on Iran began on February 28, we’ll have to wait for the March and April releases to get a better sense of how that’s impacting the data.

Whilst the conflict is set to dominate the week ahead, we do still have those four big central bank meetings, where all eyes will be on their reaction functions to the war’s impact and the latest oil shock. Starting with the Fed, our economists expect them to keep rates unchanged this week (see their full preview here) and think they’ll emphasise elevated geopolitical uncertainty. They only expect minor statement tweaks, including smoothed language on recent labour data (especially given January and February’s conflicting payrolls) and a nod to geopolitical risks, highlighting uncertainty and near-term upside pressure on inflation. Then at the press conference, they think Chair Powell is likely to stress that recent events mainly transmit through financial conditions—particularly oil prices. For now, however, our economists think he’ll avoid signalling any meaningful shift in the near term policy outlook.

For the Fed, an important consequence of the conflict is that higher energy prices have begun to feed into inflation assumptions. So our economists have nudged up their headline inflation estimates for this year, and they expect Fed officials to reflect a similar adjustment when they publish their updated Summary of Economic Projections. Indeed, core PCE inflation has registered back-to-back 0.4% monthly increases now, pushing the year-on-year rate to 3.1%, the highest since early 2024. For the dot plot, our economists are still expecting it to signal one rate cut this year, although it wouldn’t take much to shift the median dot for 2026. Clearly though, the outlook is going to remain heavily dependent on the oil price. For example, our economists have found that a sustained oil price around $100/bbl would still see the projected tax benefits to consumers from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act outweigh the drag from higher effective energy costs (see here). However, a move toward $150/bbl would pose a more material risk to consumer spending and the broader outlook.

Beyond the Fed, this week’s incoming data is unlikely to materially alter the tone of the meeting. Our economists expect February’s industrial production today to rise by 0.3%, slower than January's 0.7%, largely due to softer utility output, though oil and gas extraction will be worth monitoring. Otherwise, the regional manufacturing surveys from New York and Philadelphia could reflect some drag from geopolitical uncertainty, with particular attention on capital spending components. And given the recent labour market volatility, Thursday’s initial jobless claims will take on added importance as they fall within the March employment survey window.

Away from the US, this Thursday will bring the ECB, BoE and BoJ meetings, with our economists expecting all three to leave rates on hold, with the emphasis firmly on guidance rather than action. At the ECB, our economists expect the Governing Council to acknowledge heightened uncertainty and near-term upside risks to inflation, while stopping short of explicitly flagging medium term risks. They also expect a strong reiteration of policy flexibility and a clear message underscoring the ECB’s unwavering commitment to price stability, with officials keen to signal that they stand ready to act to avoid a repeat of the 2022–23 inflation episode. See their full preview here.  

Then in the UK, our economist thinks the MPC will lean into a dovish wait and see stance amid a more clouded outlook following the Iran related energy shock. He expects a less divided vote than in February, with the majority favouring an unchanged Bank Rate, while two members continue to favour a cut. Although our economist still sees two rate cuts this year, recent developments have pushed back the expected timing. For more info, see the full preview here.

Over in Japan, our economist expects the BoJ to maintain its current stance, with attention focused on Governor Ueda’s press conference. While underlying fundamentals could justify an early hike, elevated oil prices and growth risks are likely to temper near term action, and sustained crude prices above $100/bbl would reduce the likelihood of an April move. His full preview is here. Meanwhile, other central banks making decisions this week include the RBA (Tuesday; our economists expect a hike), the BoC (Wednesday), the SNB and the Riksbank (Thursday). The latter three are widely expected to see no change in rates.

Finally this week, notable data includes Germany’s Zew survey for March tomorrow and UK labour market data due Thursday. In the geopolitical sphere, President Trump and Japanese PM Takaichi are meeting in Washington, with defence cooperation expected to be the primary topic (see more in our Chief Japan economist’s week ahead here). In Europe, this week’s events include an EU leaders’ summit (Thursday to Friday). And on earnings, the lineup includes Micron, FedEx and Lululemon in the US as well as Tencent and Alibaba in China. See the day-by-day calendar of events at the end as usual for more.

Recapping last week now, the market moves were clearly dominated by events in the Middle East, with oil prices jumping as the conflict showed no sign of ending. So that left Brent crude up +11.27% (+2.67% Friday) at $103.14/bbl, whilst WTI was up +8.59% (+3.11% Friday) at $98.71/bbl, even as the highs for the week actually happened early Monday morning in Asia. Investors were particularly concerned by an extended closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and there were notable rises for oil futures further out the curve as well, as investors increasingly priced out a swift end to the disruption. So the 6-month future was up +12.31% (+1.47% Friday) to $85.66/bbl, marking its biggest weekly jump since 2022. However, there was a bit of pullback in natural gas prices, with front-end European futures down -2.82% last week (+0.57% Friday) to €50.75/MWh.

Although the most direct moves were in the oil price, the effects cascaded across other asset classes as investors priced in a stagflationary shock. For instance, there was a clear reaction in central bank pricing, as speculation mounted about a hawkish response. So by the end of the week, markets were pricing 47bps of ECB rate hikes by the December meeting, with a rate cut fully priced in by the July meeting.

Meanwhile for the Fed, the amount of cuts priced by December’s meeting fell from 44bps to just 24bps.
That repricing had a clear effect on sovereign bonds, which suffered steep losses. In fact, the 10yr bund yield was up +12.2bps (+2.3bps Friday) to 2.98%, marking its highest level since July 2011 during the Euro crisis. Moreover, the 2yr German yield rose +13.1bps (+2.4bps Friday) to an 18-month high of 2.43%. It was a similar story for the US as well, where the 10yr Treasury yield rose +13.8bps (+1.5bps Friday) to 4.28%, its highest level since January.

All this proved a tough backdrop for risk assets, with equities losing ground around the world. So the S&P 500 fell -1.60% (-0.61% Friday) to its lowest since November, whilst Europe’s STOXX 600 fell -0.50% (-0.47% Friday), and Japan’s Nikkei was down -3.24% (-1.16% Friday). There was also a decent move wider for credit spreads, with US IG spreads up +9bps last week, marking their biggest weekly jump since the Liberation Day tariffs were announced last April. Meanwhile US HY spreads were up +15bps, Euro IG up +7bps, and Euro HY up +22bps.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 08:38

This Polycrisis Is Unique

Zero Hedge -

This Polycrisis Is Unique

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

When understood as a wave, the current Everything Bubble is not sustainable.

The problem with predictions based on the past is the analogies we discern are interpretations which means if we like one interpretation more than the alternatives, we stretch the present crisis and past crises to fit our preferred interpretation.

Two round pegs pounded into square holes? No problem.

Past eras are never perfect analogies because Things Change (March 3, 2026) If we're not trying to force an analogy that fits our pre-selected preferred interpretation, then we have to be open to the possibility that the present crisis has no historical analog of predictive value.

Consider the remarkable confluence of cycles and waves in the present era. Richard Bonugli and I discussed this confluence in our podcast Current Waves and Cycles: Energy, Commodities, Inflation (38 min). Such a confluence generates a polycrisis, a series of overlapping, inter-connected, mutually reinforcing crises that are immune to simplistic solutions.

Even if you're skeptical of cycles (for the reason stated above, that timelines seem shoehorned into a model that doesn't actually fit), it's noteworthy that so many cycles have reached crisis points in this historical moment.

1. The Fourth Turning cycle of 80 years / four generations. (1781, 1861, 1841, 2021)

2. the 18-year stock market cycle. (1973, 1991, 2008-09, 2026-27)

3. Peter Turchin's 50-year cycle (which occur in 50-year increments in long-wave cycles).

There are other cycles that might in play: sunspots, etc. These three are representative, not comprehensive.

These cycles identify the present as a period of unavoidable, transformative crisis / resolution / dissolution. This confluence alerts us to the possibility that analogs from the past will mislead rather than enlighten.

If you're skeptical of cycles, then the difference between cycles and waves is worth studying. Author David Hackett Fischer (The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History) described the difference between cycles and waves:

"Cyclical rhythms are fixed and regular. Their periods are highly predictable. Great waves are more variable and less predictable. They differ in duration, magnitude, velocity, and momentum. One great price wave lasted less than ninety years; another continued more than 180 years. The irregularities in individual price movements make them no more (or less) predictable than individual waves in the sea.

Even so, all great waves had important qualities in common. They all shared the same wave-structure. They tended to have the same sequence of development, the same pattern of price relatives, similar movements of wages, rent, interest rates; and the same dangerous volatility in later stages. All major price revolutions in modern history began in periods of prosperity. Each ended in shattering world crises and was followed by periods of recovery and comparative equilibrium."

Examples of waves range from rogue waves in the sea to bond yields / interest rates which arise and decline over periods of time that vary too much to qualify as cycles but match the dynamics of waves described by Fischer. After declining for roughly 40 years, bond yields have recently turned up in what looks like a change in long-term trend.

In other words, the business cycle, the Kondratieff credit cycle, the Debt Super-Cycle, etc. are defined not by the calendar but by their internal dynamics and measurable qualities. Credit/debt, for example, builds up in a wave of speculative excess that then crashes.

As Fischer observed, waves of human history share characteristics with ocean waves, which can accrete energy and become giant rogue waves that cannot be predicted even as they can be foreseen as recurring phenomena.

Both waves and cycles tend to follow the dynamics of S-curves in which a trend takes off in a boost phase, matures into a peak and then decays or reverses.

Perhaps the closest analogous period was the 1970s, an era characterized by external energy shocks that raised the cost of energy to a higher plateau, unleashing inflationary pressures throughout the economy, and stagnant productivity. These two dynamics generate stagflation, which when exacerbated by an institutional tropism to "run the economy hot," embeds self-reinforcing inflationary expectations that push enterprises and households into risk-off frugality or insolvency.

The net result of these dynamics was a massive erosion of the purchasing power of wages and currency. As this chart shows, everyone who held on to their stock portfolio from 1966, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) topped 1,000 for the first time, until 1982 when it finally rose above 1,000 and continued higher, might have cheered the restoration of their stock portfolio's value, but adjusted for inflation, their wealth had shrunk by 2/3rds as every dollar of their portfolio had fallen to 34 cents by 1982.

When understood as a wave, the current Everything Bubble is not sustainable. Energy, commodities, currencies, inflation, credit, interest rates, risk, "growth" and every other aspect of the socio-economic system will be in flux, and cycles and waves offer us a useful context / orientation as things become, um, dynamic.

The confluence of cycles, waves and conditions of the present may well be unique, and historical analogies may be misleading while instilling us with false confidence in our projections. Every analogy from the decline of the Western Roman Empire to the 1640s to the 1970s to the 2008-09 Global Financial Crisis may illuminate human psychology, but offer little in the way of predictive value in the decade ahead.

This bubble is hyper-normalized, a gigantic wave that's cresting and about to crash.

A few fortunate surfers will get the ride of a lifetime, the rest of us will experience wipeout. How bad it gets will depend partly on luck and partly on how well we've prepared ourselves for events we don't control. As this unprecedented wave breaks, the only thing we can control is our response.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free). Check out my updated Books and Films. Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 08:25

Pages