World News

We go to print in the midst of a chaotic day of news flow and just ahead of an important deadline. President Donald Trump set a cutoff of 8 pm ET Tuesday April 7, 2026, for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or face destruction of major bridges and power plants. And once again, President Trump’s word choice, saying he might “destroy a whole civilization” is dominating headlines, instead of the importance of the 8 p.m. deadline. More importantly, an Iranian official, part of a regime that has perpetually cried “death to America” responded to Trump’s threat by issuing a video calling for all young people, athletes, students, and professors to form “human chains” around power plants. Once again, Iran demonstrates a strategy that preys on Western morality while showing a complete lack of respect for any and all, including Iranian, lives. On a more positive note, the Iranian-backed Iraqi militia Kataib Hezbolla said it released the kidnapped American journalist, Shelly Kittleson. Some hope this might be an indirect peace offering.

In the background, an investigation is underway to determine who leaked to the press that an American airman was missing after his fighter jet was shot down over Iran on Good Friday. Sadly, this is another example of a lack of morality and respect for human life here. This leak clearly put an American pilot’s life and the lives of all in the mission to rescue him, at great risk.

A Bahrain-led resolution aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz failed at the UN on Tuesday due to opposition from Russia and China. Breaking news suggests US-Israel was already striking Iran’s oil, rail, and bridges ahead of the deadline. Overall, there was great uncertainty regarding what may happen overnight as another Iranian official told Reuters News that Iran was ready for peace and war. But in the last few minutes, at the end of the trading day, financial markets reacted to news that Iran was responding favorably to a Pakistan request to secure more time for diplomacy. Reports are that President Trump has agreed to a two-week ceasefire as long as the Strait of Hormuz is immediately opened. Equity indices closed higher, oil ratcheted lower in late trading, and the 10-year Treasury bond yield eased to 4.3%.

Economic News

There were several important economic news releases this week. The most important of these was the employment report for March. The headline of the report indicated an increase of 178,000 new jobs in the month and a decline in the unemployment rate from 4.4% to 4.3%. But there was a lot to discover beneath the surface. Although the report was a positive surprise showing more than three times the consensus estimate, revisions eliminated 45,000 jobs from previous reports. The unemployment rate fell from 4.4% to 4.3% but this was due to a decline in the civilian labor force. The household survey, which is the source of the unemployment rate, revealed a decrease in both the number of people employed (a decline of 64,000) and a decrease in those unemployed (a decline of 332,000), the sum of which is the civilian labor force. Note in the table on page 3, that while March showed an increase of 178,000 jobs in March, employment grew only 260,000 from a year earlier. This suggests that 2026 is a relatively flat and/or weak job market. Our favorite jobs indicator is the year-over-year change in total jobs. In March there was a mere 0.16% year-over-year increase in jobs in the establishment report and negative 0.4% year-over-year change in the household survey. This is important to monitor since negative growth rates in jobs are indicative of a recession!

When we look at a long-term monthly chart of job growth in the establishment survey it shows that employment recovered from the decline seen during the pandemic but has grown very little since 2023. The 6-month rate of change in both surveys displays how volatile the household survey can be compared to the establishment survey, but it also shows the deceleration in job growth in both surveys since 2023. See page 4. The introduction of AI is expected to reduce job growth and may already be impacting the employment environment. On the other hand, the deportation of many illegal migrants may be an offset for a weak job environment. Nevertheless, the employment landscape is languishing and that is an economic risk.

The ISM manufacturing index inched higher to 52.7 in March from 52.4 in February and marks the third month in a row that the index has been in expansion territory above 50. It was also the fifth month in a row that the production index remained above 50. These are by far the best readings since manufacturing weakness began in early 2022. But unfortunately, the biggest increase in the manufacturing survey was seen in prices paid, a jump from 70.5 to 78.3. See page 5.

The ISM nonmanufacturing index was 54.0 in March down from 56.1 in February but still showing an expansion. Yet, the report was mixed with business activity declining and new orders rising. The employment index has been weak in the manufacturing survey since 2022 and has been erratic in the nonmanufacturing survey. Combining the two ISM employment indices, we can find a read on the overall economy and after March’s weakness this indicator is right at the bottom edge of neutral. It too is signaling a warning of job weakness. See page 6.

Retail sales for the month of February grew 3.7% YOY, the best pace in five months. Retail sales less autos and gasoline increased 4.1% YOY versus 4.5% YOY in January. In the month of March, total auto sales were 16.67 million units, up 3.4% for the month but down 9.1% YOY. In March, imported car unit sales were down 15% YOY, domestic car sales were down 16.5% YOY and domestic truck sales were down 4.8% YOY. The peak for auto sales was 18.6 million units in April 2021, during the pandemic when airlines were practically shut down. See page 7.  

Fundamentals

Many investors wonder why the equity market has performed as well as it has in the face of the Middle East conflict and a huge jump in energy prices. Our answer is earnings! This week the LSEG IBES consensus estimate for 2026 S&P 500 earnings rose $0.28 to $323.02 and the 2027 forecast rose $0.23 to $377.35. IBES also initiated a 2028 forecast of $425.95. The S&P Dow Jones consensus forecast for 2026 rose $0.65 to $320.40 and the estimate for 2027 jumped $1.33 to $374.36. This means the market is trading at 20.5 times the IBES 2026 earnings estimate and 17.5 times the 2027 estimate, one of the lowest multiples since April 2025. Although interest rates have been rising, the forward earnings yield of 5.1% and dividend yield of 1.2% compare well to a 10-year Treasury bond yield of 4.35%. Plus, the 12-month sum of operating earnings shows a gain of 17.1% YOY, far better than the 75-year average of 8.1% YOY. These solid fundamental underpinnings are supporting equity prices despite the uncertainty of the Iran conflict. Technical indicators are little changed this week. The NYSE cumulative advance/decline line has not made a new high in five weeks, indicative of a correction and the 25-day up/down volume oscillator is at negative 1.25, little changed from last week. The AAII 8-week bull/bear spread fell to negative 10.3, the first positive reading since September 2025. In sum, we remain cautiously bullish.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

US equities had an impressive rally on the last day of the quarter, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumping 1125 points, boosted by reports that President Trump may be willing to end the military campaign against Iran without reopening the Strait of Hormuz. However, there were conflicting reports from the Wall Street Journal and CBS News regarding this issue. There were also rumors that Iran’s president is prepared to discuss a process to end the conflict. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, told Al Jazeera TV he is exchanging direct messages with US envoy Steve Witkoff, but denies this constitutes “negotiations.” (Smoke and mirrors?) But behind the scenes, the US targeted a huge Iranian ammunition depot in Isfahan and Iran responded by threatening to attack Americans on Saudi Arabian soil listing 18 American businesses, including Microsoft Corp. (MSFT – $370.17). The US State Department warned Americans in Saudi Arabia to shelter in place since hotels and other gathering points including US businesses and US educational institutions could be potential targets. In the background, Israeli military reports it has struck a senior Hezbollah commander and a senior fighter in separate attacks in Beirut. And OPEC announced that oil output plunged by 7.3 million barrels per day in March to 21.6 million barrels per day, the lowest output level since June 2020, during the pandemic.

All in all, it was a busy and confusing day of news with both the US and Iran issuing threats. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the next few days could be decisive (we agree) and he warned Tehran that the conflict would intensify if it did not make a deal. Equity prices rose on hopes that an end to the conflict was within reach, but it is important to note that energy markets were less enthusiastic. The key issue for the financial markets is the price of energy and here prices actually moved higher. The Brent crude May contract (LCOc1 – $118.31) closed up 64% and WTI intermediate crude contract (CLc1 – $101.93) rose 53% for the month of March. Not surprisingly, the average price for a gallon of gasoline soared over $4 in the US. Clearly, energy prices are reaching pressure points not only in the US but globally.

Economic and Political Pivot Points

Not only did energy prices not celebrate along with equities, but long-term Treasury yields declined, not because inflation is declining, but because the risk of recession increases the longer crude oil prices remain high. Without a resolution of Middle East turmoil this week, expect more talk about recession, not only for the US but globally. Pressure from higher oil prices is also straining US relations with NATO nations as seen by Spain closing its airspace to US jets, Italy denying military aircraft to land at a base in Sicily and Poland retracting plans to relocate its Patriot batteries to the Middle East.

Technical Pivot Points

In our view, equity prices may have been boosted less by rumors and more by end of the quarter window dressing of portfolios by institutional investors. Several technical indicators are also at interesting pivot points. Our 25-day up/down volume oscillator is currently at negative 1.22, down from last week, and one of the lowest readings since early April 2025. See page 6. Another parallel to April 2025 is seen in the AAII sentiment survey where bearish sentiment hit 52% on March 18, 2026, the highest bearish sentiment since April 30, 2025. In short, the stock market entered the week revealing several extremes that suggested it was ready for an oversold bounce. Our only concern is that while the market resembles the extremes seen in the April 2025 tariff panic, the Iran conflict may be less easy to manage than tariffs. This is the risk.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Nasdaq Composite Index, and the Russell 2000 all fell into correction territory in recent sessions and were down at least 10% from their record highs in late March. The S&P 500 did not register a decline of 10% or more, but more than half of its sectors did reach correction territory. Nevertheless, the end of the quarter bounce reversed some of these losses and the year-to-date performances of the indices ended more mixed than negative. Year-to-date, i.e., quarter-to-date results were losses of 7.1%, 4.6%, and 3.6% in the Nasdaq Composite, S&P 500, and Dow Jones Industrial Average, respectively and gains of 0.6%, 7.2%, and 8.5% in the Russell 2000, the Dow Jones Transportation Average, and the Dow Jones Utility Average, respectively. There was clearly a wide range of performances among the indices with losses concentrated in high PE and technology-based stocks.

And the underlying action of sectors was also mixed. This is seen on page 10 where S&P 500 year-to-date sector performance shows six sectors outperforming the index and five underperforming. The range of performance reveals the dichotomy in the marketplace with the energy sector up over 37%, followed by materials up 9.3% and utilities up 7.5%. While at the bottom, the financial sector is down 9.8% year-to-date, followed by consumer discretionary down 9.3%, and technology off 9.3%. To date, 2026 has been a year that underscores the lesson that a diversified portfolio is the best long-term strategy.

Fundamentals Also Rhyme

The LSEG IBES consensus earnings estimate for 2026 rose $2.26 this week to $322.74 and the 2027 forecast rose $4.62 to $377.12. The S&P Dow Jones consensus forecast for 2026 rose $0.16 to $319.75 and the estimate for 2027 fell $0.47 to $373.00. On March 30^th, the market was trading at 19.7 times the IBES 2026 estimate and 16.8 times the 2027 estimate, the lowest multiples since April 2025. Although interest rates have been rising, the forward earnings yield of 5.25% and dividend yield of 1.2% compare well to a 10-year Treasury bond yield of 4.3%. Plus, the 12-month sum of operating earnings shows a gain of 16.7% YOY, far better than the 75-year average of 8.1% YOY. See pages 4 and 5. This is the main reason that we remain bullish about the longer-term outlook.

Still, the risk of a recession is rising, and this could make Friday’s employment report for March a market moving event. There are already signs that the residential housing market continues to decelerate, and a weak job market would add to the problems that higher energy prices present. Given the fluidity of the conflict in the Middle East, and the possibility that the jobs report could be less than the consensus expectation of a modest rebound of 60,000 to 80,000 jobs in March, we remain near-term cautious. Separately, The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index rose from a revised 91 in February to 91.8 in March, yet it continues to linger below the long-term average of 96. March’s increase was led by the present situation index, which rose slightly from February’s 5-year low. The expectations index was 70.9, down from 72.6. The University of Michigan sentiment survey was 53.5 in March, down from 56.6 in February with weakness concentrated in the expectations index, which was 51.7, down markedly from 56.6. The report said that about one-third of all responses came in before the start of conflict in the Middle East and since energy prices have increased dramatically it is normal to expect that sentiment has deteriorated. However, we would not rely on sentiment indices because they have been forecasting a recession for four consecutive years. In sum, they have been of little use for investment decisions or for predicting the economy. See page 3.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

The Middle East conflict, surging energy prices, President Trump’s five-day bombing pause, his announcement of discussions with Iranian leaders followed by Iran’s denial of discussions are just a few of the factors whipsawing stock prices this week. And though many financial gurus are currently forecasting WTI crude will rise above $100 a barrel and stay there, President Trump is predicting oil prices will soon fall like a stone. Neither forecast has been nor apt to be accurate. Neither are the headlines indicating that President Trump “is losing the war.” A Bloomberg News story suggests the conflict is escalating with Gulf States contemplating military options; meanwhile, The Jerusalem Post writes that the US has sent Iran a 15-point plan to end the war. In truth, there is very little that is predictable about this situation; but we would be wary of biased headlines.

But, as we stated last week, there is one obvious fact. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, and Kuwait – countries with more modern thinking leadership than Iran — are lining up on the side of the US and Israel, which leaves Iran more isolated than ever before. This collaboration of countries, and the fact that Pakistan is offering to broker a peace deal, leads us to believe there will be some resolution of this conflict in coming days. Still, we do not expect a smooth transition. The Iranian-sponsored Islamic terrorist group has always been purposefully decentralized with autonomous offshoots which allows individuals, or small groups, to survive and carry on even without traditional leadership. This will make any negotiations difficult and perhaps impossible to enforce. We are hoping for peace but fear it may be a difficult road even after the bombing stops.

Plus, the private credit problem continues to unfold. This week two of the biggest names in private credit, Apollo Global Management Inc. (APO – $111.25) and Ares Management Corp. (ARES – $106.04), moved to restrict withdrawals from funds in response to withdrawal requests. Many are concerned that a liquidity squeeze may materialize in the illiquid private credit market. In our view, the risk is substantial, but to the extent that it remains in the private credit market and does not impact the banking system means the risk is not systemic and is unlikely to trigger a larger financial crisis.

Separately, under the state’s consumer protection laws a New Mexico jury found Meta Platforms, Inc. (META – $592.92) liable for failing to protect young people from online dangers. The verdict included $375 million in civil penalties and will be appealed. In Washington DC, in an effort to reach an agreement with Democrats after a more than month-long standoff, and after travelers suffered ridiculously long check-in lines at airports, Senate Republicans offered to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except for ICE.

Technical Indicators

There was surprisingly little deterioration in our technical indicators this week. The 25-day up/down volume oscillator was slightly lower at negative 0.88, this week, but still neutral. See page 8. The 10-day average of daily new highs fell to 104 this week and new lows were higher at 181. This combination of daily new highs and lows above 100 keeps this indicator at neutral but tilting negative. See page 9. Last week’s AAII survey showed bullishness fell 1.5% to 30.4% and bearishness jumped 5.6% to 52.0%, its highest reading since April 30, 2025. The 8-week bull/bear index is negative 2.9% and neutral. It was last in positive territory in late September. See page 10. Our biggest concern is that the S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and the Nasdaq Composite index have all closed below their 200-day moving averages for four consecutive trading sessions. The longer this breakdown continues, the greater the risk to the major bullish trend and the more likely these moving averages shift from being support to being resistance. Note that the Russell 2000 index is the only major index to remain above its 200-day moving average. We remain cautious since technical indicators as well as negotiations in the Middle East appear to be at pivotal junctions this week; but we remain bullish for the longer term.

Earnings

Bullishness is supported by a fundamental backdrop that remains bright. As fourth quarter earnings season ends, we find there has been a big reassessment of 2026/2027 earnings. This week the LSEG IBES consensus earnings estimate for 2026 rose $2.83 to $320.46 and the 2027 forecast rose $2.08 to $372.50. The S&P Dow Jones consensus forecast for 2026 jumped $5.16 to $319.59 and the estimate for 2027 rose $7.34 to $373.50. This means the market is trading at 20.5 times the IBES 2026 estimate and 17.7 times the 2027 estimate. These are some of the best market valuations seen in a long time.

Economic Roundup

With WTI crude oil prices up nearly 30% YOY, it is the risk of an inflation surge that has investors understandably worried. The final demand PPI index was up 3.4% YOY in February, up from 2.8% YOY seen in January. PPI for finished goods was still modest at 1.7% YOY, but this is apt to rise as higher energy costs trickle down through the economy. Core PPI for finished goods was 3.7% YOY in February and has been above 3% YOY since October 2025. See page 3. Inflation numbers are troubling because while PE multiples have come down to attractive levels, higher inflation goes hand in hand with lower PE multiples. Therefore, the market will remain captive to the price of oil for at least several months.

The residential real estate market continues to weaken. Pending home sales are based on properties that go under contract and this index typically leads existing home sales by two months. The index was down 0.8% YOY in February, with most of the weaknesses in sales centered in the Northeast. In the month of January private residential construction spending fell 0.8% to $933 billion (SAAR) but was up 2.3% YOY. Among the components of construction, outlays for new single-family homes fell 0.2% in January and were down 5.8% on a year-ago basis. Spending on new multifamily homes fell 0.7% but was 0.4% higher than in January 2025. Spending on home improvements dropped 1.4% in January but increased 12.5% over the year. Overall, the data shows households are improving their homes versus trading up. See page 4.

New home sales were down 11.3% YOY in January, with the greatest weakness seen in the Northeast. Inventories rose to 9.7 months of supply. The median home price fell 7% YOY and average home price fell 3.6% YOY. Data shows that YOY home price increases peaked in early 2024 and have been steadily decelerating. Meanwhile, Fed data shows that household net worth rose $2.2 trill in the fourth quarter to $184.1 trillion, up 8.5% YOY. Household debt ratios rose fractionally, but the broad debt service ratio ended 2025 at 11.32%, up from 11.26%, but still below the long-term average of 11.84%. In sum, the average household with a stock portfolio did well in 2025, but homeownership remains out of reach for many.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

News of the war in Iran, the blockade in Strait of Hormuz, Brent crude oil at $103.52 a barrel, and the average price for a gallon of gasoline rising from $2.84 to $3.86 in a month, dominates the headlines this week. And while President Trump stated that the conflict should be over in a few weeks, there are risks to this timing. As we wrote two weeks ago: “recent acts of desperation by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could prove fatal, but this retaliation will make the next few days (weeks?) dangerous and unpredictable. We doubt most members of the IRGC have been or will be willing to negotiate and would rather fight to the death. This exemplifies a culture many in the Western world do not truly understand, and it is possible that the conflict could escalate, the number of participants in the war zone could increase, and this turmoil would hurt the production and flow of oil to the world.”

Although we understand that in geopolitical terms short term pain — even in a mid-term election year – can be worth the long-term gain of ridding the world of a nuclear-powered sponsor of death and terrorism, we cynically believe many in our society seek immediate satisfaction and are susceptible to social media to drive their views and emotions. Moreover, despite this week’s news of the elimination of Iran’s leadership including security chief Ali Larijani force commander Gholamreza Soleimani, we expect the remnants of the IRGC will continue to do as much damage as possible, and the war will take longer than President Trump expects. The media may attack the administration for this conflict, but it is a near sighted opinion, in our view. Ironically, this war appears to be moving much of the Middle East closer in line with President Trump while much of Europe stands stoically in distant disagreement. Yet, as every good analyst knows, you should follow the money, or in this case the strength of the economies, to see where the trend leads. A unified US/Middle East creates a powerful force.

And again, we must reiterate that as a net exporter, the US is in a far better position economically than much of the world in terms of energy. Not only has crude oil risen, but so has the dollar, making energy more expensive around the world. And as an exporter of petroleum products, the energy sector and much of the US stand to benefit from higher prices as seen by the outperformance of the energy sector, up over 30% year-to-date. See pages 11 and 12. But this conflict is triggering economic and financial issues around the world, including in the Middle East. We were surprised to read that S&P placed Iraq on CreditWatch negative (the risk of a downgrade) due to the sharp fall in oil production which could put pressure the country’s fiscal and external debt responsibilities. S&P did note that Iraq has significant buffers to meet its foreign debt repayments and this mitigated the risk of a full downgrade.

And though the rising price of crude oil makes another round of inflationary pressure a huge risk, newly released data shows the US economy was in good shape in February before the conflict began. The CPI report for February showed headline inflation was unchanged at 2.4% YOY and core CPI was unchanged at 2.5%. This was positive news but given current crude oil prices, it is old news. The underlying data for February was more interesting since it showed food inflation at 3.1% YOY, up from 2.9% YOY in January, and the broad energy index up fractionally at 0.5% YOY, versus negative 0.14% in January. Within core CPI the price index for goods increased 1.0% YOY, down from 1.1% YOY, and services rose 2.9% YOY, unchanged from a month earlier. See page 3. Wages rose 4.3% YOY in February, well above the 2.4% increase in the CPI, which suggests the typical household is keeping up with inflation. But this makes upcoming data more important. See page 4. The PCE deflator for January rose 2.8% YOY down from 2.9% YOY and the core PCE deflator was up 3.1% YOY, up a notch from 3.0%. All in all, inflation remained stable and well below the long-term average of 3.4% YOY.

Personal income rose 4.4% YOY in January, down from 4.6% a month earlier, but the important number was real personal disposable income which rose 1.8%, up from 1.2% in December. The savings rate was 4.5%, up from 4.0% in December and personal consumption grew 2.4% YOY, up from 1.6% YOY. There was a surprise increase in industrial production in February which grew 1.4% YOY and residential housing starts rose 7.2% YOY (multi-family up 30% YOY) although permits fell 5.4% YOY (multi-family down 12.4%). 

The fiscal deficit for the month of February 2026 was $307.5 billion, up slightly from the $307.0 billion seen a year earlier. Nevertheless, the twelve-month running fiscal deficit was $1.633 trillion, down 24% from the $2.15 trillion seen in February 2025. More importantly, the current $1.633 trillion deficit represents an estimated 5.3% of GDP (using recently revised 4Q25 GDP) down significantly from the 7.2% of GDP seen in February 2025. This is important data and should have a favorable effect on US Treasury bonds as supply slows. The goal of the administration is to get the deficit down to a sustainable 3% of GDP and to see economic growth above 3%. Note that a ratio of 3% of GDP (or less) is typical during economic expansions, but this was not a focus of the Biden administration and deficits grew because of fiscal stimulus throughout this four-year term. This improvement in the fiscal deficit in the past year has been amazing and significant, but we are concerned that unless the administration finds a workaround to the Supreme Court decision on tariffs, there could be a future burden to the Treasury.

Although economic news has been important, we believe it is fundamental support that is keeping market action stronger than many expected. According to LSEG IBES, of the 496companies in the S&P 500 Index that have reported revenue for the fourth quarter of 2025, 72.4% reported revenue above expectations and this compares to the last 24-year average of 63%. Overall, companies are reporting revenues that are 1.9% aboveestimates, which compares to a 24-year average surprise factor of 1.3%. Earnings for calendar 2026 are presently forecasted to increase 16.2%, which is far better than the long-term average of 8.1%. The S&P 500 is currently trading at 21.1 times the IBES 2026 estimate, the lowest multiple since July 2025, and 18.1 times the 2027 estimate. See pages 6, 7, and 13.

There has been some weakness in a few technical indicators this week, in particular the 10-day average of daily new highs and lows. Daily new highs have dropped to 100 and daily new lows have risen to 121, leaving this indicator at risk of going negative if new highs fall below 100. The AAII sentiment indicators were also worth noting with bullishness falling 1.2% to 31.9% and bearishness jumping 10.9% to 46.4% (its highest reading since November 12, 2025. The neutral category fell 9.7% to its lowest reading since November 12, 2025. We would note that November 2025 was when the index successfully tested its 100-day moving average. In recent days the S&P index has been testing its 200-day moving average, now at 6612.14, which we believe will prove to be a meaningful test. We expect the test will be successful, but we remain cautious. The underlying fundamentals of the economy and the stock market remain solid and favorable, but the growing geopolitical divide due to Middle East turmoil is at a dangerous stage in our view. Moreover, Friday, March 30, is a quadruple expiration day which can be preceded by a day or two of great volatility. A break of the 200-day could trigger more short-term selling. We would wait for a successful test. And lest we forget, it is FOMC week and we expect the Fed will not change monetary policy.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

As noted last week, we remain a buyer of market weakness over the longer term but given the unpredictability and messiness of the war in the Mideast, we remain cautious in the short term. War-time changeability and chaos are best represented by the wild swings in the price of crude oil. There is no shortage of oil around the world and prices are expected to return to normal in coming weeks, but over 68 loaded oil tankers, or roughly 4.2 billion gallons of crude, are currently trapped or delayed in the Persian Gulf region due to the conflict. This has triggered volatility in WTI intermediate crude futures (CLC1 – $83.45), which rose from a closing price of $65.21 on February 26 to a recent intraday high of $119.48, before closing just above $83 a barrel on March 10. Both Brent crude and WTI prices are roughly 40% higher than they were earlier in the year and this will put pressure on consumers and inflation benchmarks if the Strait of Hormuz does not open soon. According to price-tracking data from AAA, the average price for a gallon of gas in the US was up six cents this week to roughly $3.54, and the only state with gas prices under $3 a gallon was Kansas at $2.96. California continues to have the most expensive gas in the US, with a gallon costing an average of $5.29.  

Cons

The inflationary impact of higher energy prices clearly poses a risk to the economy since higher energy costs hurt middle and lower-income households most severely. It could also mean the Federal Reserve may postpone lowering interest rates and this would be a disappointment to the consensus.

Another concern we have is the weakness in the job market. The employment environment has been deteriorating for over six months, but the increased use of AI is clearly stunting job growth.

The February jobs report was a negative surprise with a loss of 92,000 jobs for the month (versus expectations of a 50,000+ increase) and the unemployment rate rose 0.1% to 4.4%. According to the BLS establishment survey, employment grew by a mere 156,000 jobs in the 12 months ended February. More disturbingly, the household survey showed a 12-month decline of 426,000 jobs. See page 4. However, the BLS delayed its annual Census Bureau population update from January to February, which means February’s report included revised population estimates which incorporated new information on births, deaths, and migration changes since the most recent decennial census. This year’s population assessments also incorporated data on net international migration. The changes made to January 2026 data also reflected adjustments back to the April 2020 Census population base. After these head spinning revisions, the January 2026 employment number, on a not seasonally adjusted basis, showed a month-to-month decline of 2.05 million jobs and a decline of 895,000 jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis. Not surprisingly, our year-over-year household survey chart now shows January and February job growth to be negative 0.45% and negative 0.26%, respectively. Negative growth in employment is normally a sign of a recession which implies this is a major concern. However, since all these changes were applied to the month of January 2026, year-over-year or month-to-month comparisons are impossible. All in all, we have found the accuracy and assessment of BLS data to be troublesome in recent years so we would not make major decisions based on this data. Still, there does appear to be weakness in the job market. 

Pros

One may wonder why the recent stock market, despite all the volatility and the risks to oil and the Middle East, has performed as well as it has. We believe it stems from the fact that most traders expect the conflict to be resolved quickly, and the administration suggests it should. Moreover, conflicts and energy crises, on average, have not been a big negative for the equity market, particularly in recent years. A table on page 3, from The Stock Traders’ Almanac, shows that over the last 87 years equity markets have had an average gain of 3.4% in the six months (2.9% in twelve months) after the beginning of a crisis and a 7.6% gain in the six months (12.7% in the twelve months) following the start of a crisis over the last 47 years.

The worst one year experience was the 34.3% decline which followed the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. This embargo sent oil prices from $2.90 to $11.65 a barrel, led to a rationing of gasoline in the US, and gave rise to inflation peaking at 11% in 1974. The second worst one-year performance followed the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. However, this decline was due primarily to the bursting of the Dot-com bubble in March 2000. In short, history suggests crises have not been major issues for the equity market.

In addition, some recent reports suggest the job market may not be as bad as we thought. The ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing employment indices rose to 48.8 and 51.8, respectively, for the month of February. As a result, the total employment index rose to 100.6, its highest level since February 2025. The ISM manufacturing index for February was down 0.2 to 52.4, but the nonmanufacturing index jumped 2.3 points to 56.1. Both ISM indices were up over 4% YOY, reflecting an improvement in the economy and the ISM nonmanufacturing survey showed improvement in each category, except for prices paid which fell from 66.6 to 63.0 – a positive. See page 8.

Although we are monitoring consumer data closely, most reports remain solid. Advance estimates of retail and food services sales for January 2026 were down 0.2% for the month, but up 3.2% YOY seasonally adjusted and up 3.1% YOY not seasonally adjusted. These were solid numbers and exceeded inflation of 2.4% YOY. Total vehicle unit sales were 16.1 million in February, up nearly 6% for the month, but down 1.8% YOY. The good news in this report was the 2.8% YOY increase in domestic light weight vehicles. Conversely, foreign light weight vehicle unit sales fell 7.0% YOY. This suggests the administration’s fiscal policy that gives tax breaks to domestic-made vehicles (Car Loan Interest Deduction) continues to have a positive impact on domestically made vehicle sales. See page 7.

New consumer credit data was also positive. Consumer credit outstanding increased $8.1 billion in the month of January, which included a $4.7 billion increase in revolving credit and a $3.3 billion increase in nonrevolving. As a result, the six-month rates of change for total, revolving, and nonrevolving credit were 1.2%, 1.4%, and 1.1%. The twelve month rates of change were 3.2%, 1.9%, and 3.6%, respectively. This is a significant improvement from most months in 2025 when revolving credit was contracting. Contractions in credit are often signs of consumer distress and recession. Perhaps the greatest positive of all is the growth in S&P 500 earnings. As fourth quarter 2025 earnings season ends, consensus estimates continue to increase. This week the LSEG IBES consensus earnings estimate for 2026 rose $1.33 to $316.69 and the 2027 forecast rose $2.37 to $367.81. The S&P Dow Jones consensus estimate for 2026 rose $1.28 to $313.60 and the estimate for 2027 jumped $2.50 to $365.30. This means the market is trading at 21.5 times the IBES 2026 estimate and 18.5 times the 2027 estimate. In sum, fundamentals remain solid and support buying on weakness. See page 10.  

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

We remain a buyer of market weakness over the longer term but given the escalation of the war in the Mideast, we would be cautious this week since war can be chaotic and messy. The war took a dangerous turn after Iran launched widespread retaliatory missiles and drone attacks targeting US military assets, as well as airports and oil infrastructure across the Middle East. The countries impacted include all six of the Arab nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain, as well as Jordan. Attacks have also hit civilian infrastructure, oil facilities, British air bases in Cyprus, and oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. In our opinion, these appear to be acts of desperation by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), acts that could prove fatal, but this retaliation will make the next few days dangerous and unpredictable. We doubt most members of the IRGC have been or will be willing to negotiate and would rather fight to the death. This exemplifies a culture many in the Western world do not truly understand, and it is possible that the conflict could escalate, the number of participants in the war zone could increase, and this turmoil would hurt the production and flow of oil to the world. Weakness in the financial markets have been an obvious response to this threat, to which we add several important observations.

First, this conflict shows how vital US energy independence is to America. The disruption in oil exports is expected to have a nominal impact on the American economy since the US is a net exporter of energy. The effect will be minimal if the crisis lasts a month or less and financial markets appear to understand this. While the US equity market has declined in recent days, it has been a relative out-performer in terms of global markets. Over the last five trading sessions the S&P 500 index lost 1.1% versus the Vanguard FTSE All-Word ex-US ETF (VEU – $77.62) with a loss of 4.7%, or the iShares China Large Cap ETF (FXI – $36.06) with a decline of 6.0%. See page 10. 

Second, over the last five trading days Brent crude futures (LCOc1 – $81.73) and West Texas intermediate crude futures (CLc1 – $74.73) rose 15% and 14%, respectively. These oil price increases will be a benefit to exporters such as Russia, Canada, Venezuela, and the US; but they increase the cost of fuel and hurt most economies around the world. The recent rally in the dollar increases the pain for many importers of oil since crude oil is priced in dollars. China, in particular, imports 70% of its consumption of oil, 90% of which is seaborne imports. This could put China in a desperate situation. However, The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia reported in January* that China’s recent aggressive stockpiling of crude oil suggests it could weather a multi-month disruption of imports from Iran and Venezuela. Time will tell. These two countries were the source of at least 15% of China’s imports in 2025.

Third, it should not go unnoticed that the conflict with Iran goes well beyond Iran’s borders. The combination of removing Maduro in Venezuela and potentially the radical government of Iran, could have major long-term implications for China and the global balance of power. It is a reset that stems China’s access to energy, natural resources, and its goal of economic dominance.

Fourth, the rising cost of crude oil is inflationary and the longer the conflict persists, the greater the risk to oil and natural gas production and refineries, and the more inflationary risk grows. OPEC+ has decided to unwind past production cuts, and the US and China could release strategic stockpiles, but these are small changes and sentiment could move prices higher, nonetheless. Moreover, natural gas markets are severely impacted. According to the Center on Global Energy Policy “Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) transiting through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted since February 28 and nearly 90% of the LNG transiting the Strait is destined for Asian markets, which will therefore be the most directly impacted. While China accounts for the largest share—approximately 25%—of the disrupted LNG volumes.” From a US perspective, this will likely postpone any future Federal Reserve rate cuts in coming months. It also has implications for long-term interest rates and the broad fixed income markets.

These inflation fears were already rising after last week’s PPI report which showed final demand rose 0.5% for the month of January and 2.9% YOY. Final demand for services rose 0.8% in January and 3.4% YOY. Conversely, final demand for goods fell 0.3% in January and rose only 1.6% YOY. The 0.5% increase in headline PPI was the highest in four months; the 0.8% rise for final demand services was the largest increase in six months and the 0.3% decline in final demand goods was the largest decrease in ten months. Note that most of January’s rise in PPI for final demand services can be traced to margins for final demand trade services, which jumped 2.5%. Trade indexes measure changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers. We believe the concern over January’s PPI was overdone. See page 3.

Fifth, this Mideast conflict is negatively impacting many economies in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe and the longer it persists the more it will slow the global economy. Some economists estimate that every $10 increase in the price of oil reduces global GDP by 0.2%. Global air travel is also disrupted as the war has kept major Middle Eastern airports closed or severely restricted. Reuters reports that this is one of the sharpest aviation shocks in recent years. Initially, flights were halted over Iranian airspace, but this has spread to a much larger area after Dubai International Airport sustained damage during Iran’s attacks. United Arab Emirates, the world’s largest international carrier, said it suspended operations to and from its Dubai mega-hub, leaving thousands of global travelers stranded. In short, many economies in the area are put on hold, and this will impact the revenue and profits of many international companies.

However, while the war and oil prices dominate the headlines and create some near-term uncertainty, earnings season is generating another strong quarter. According to LSEG IBES, the estimated earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 for the fourth quarter of 2025 is 14.3%, and if the energy sector is excluded, the growth rate improves to 14.7%. The S&P 500 expects to see share-weighted earnings of $630.2 billion in the fourth quarter, compared to share-weighted earnings of $551.5 billion a year earlier. The LSEG IBES consensus earnings estimate for 2026 rose $0.76 this week to $315.36 and the 2027 forecast rose $0.90 to $365.44. The S&P Dow Jones consensus estimate for 2026 rose $1.60 to $312.32 and the estimate for 2027 jumped $2.59 to $362.80. This implies the market is trading at 21.6 times the IBES 2026 estimate and 18.7 times the 2027 estimate. Although some analysts feel PE multiples are rich, the forward earnings yield of 4.7% and dividend yield of 1.14% compare well to a 10-year Treasury bond yield of 4.1%. Plus, the 12-month sum of operating earnings per share shows a gain of 16.7% YOY, far better than the 75-year average of 8.1% YOY. See pages 5 and 12. In sum, strong fundamental underpinnings are why we remain a buyer on weakness.

*https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/where-china-gets-its-oil-crude-imports-in-2025-reveal-stockpiling-and-changing-fortunes-of-certain-suppliers-including-those-sanctioned/

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

A day before President Trump’s State of the Union speech, a wave of panic rolled over the equity market. Some of this was due to a multitude of questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court after it struck down many of the administration’s tariffs. The law at the center of the case is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, which authorizes the president to use the law “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” A separate provision of the law provides that when there is a national emergency, the president may “regulate … importation or exportation” of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.” President Trump initiated tariffs early in 2025 after declaring a state of emergency and asserting that unfair trade posed a threat to the US economy. The Trump administration used tariffs to conduct foreign policy and at the same time to boost jobs and manufacturing in the US. After the Supreme Court decision, he responded by signing an executive order that imposes a 10% duty on articles imported to the US for a period of 150 days. In the interim, the administration will be looking at ways to reinstate its tariff policy.

Unfortunately, since the Supreme Court took no stand on tariffs already collected it leaves the US government open to lawsuits that will take many years to resolve. However, we ponder why companies would be suing the US for reparations if it is true, as most economists suggest, that tariffs were a “tax” on households and that they hurt the US consumer. Both cannot be true. And as we reported last week, the January 2026 CPI report showed that price indices for durables rose 0.4% YOY and nondurables rose 1.3% YOY. If tariffs on imported goods were the source of inflation, it should show up here. On the contrary, it was service sector inflation that rose 3.2% YOY and services have been the source of inflation throughout 2025.

A New York Federal Reserve study found that 86% to 94% of the burden of 2025 tariffs hurt US businesses and consumers, not foreign exporters. Yet, if this is true why did General Motors (GM – $81.29) and Ford Motor Co. (F – $14.20) report solid 2025 financials despite absorbing significant EV-related charges? Tariffs on autos were some of the first to go into effect, were some of the highest tariffs enacted, were not tied to IEEPA, and continue to be in force. And yet, General Motors generated $12.7 billion in adjusted EBIT and $2.7 billion net income, despite absorbing significant EV-related charges. Moreover, the company indicated that its core business remains highly profitable, and they expect profits will increase in 2026 despite roughly $7 billion in fourth quarter 2025 EV restructuring. In our opinion, too many economists and media commentators are quoting each other instead of looking at the actual numbers.

The other catalyst for a selling wave this week was a report by a little known firm called Citrini Research that rattled investors by envisioning a future in which autonomous AI systems – or agents – upend the entire US economy, from jobs to markets and mortgages. A warning from Nassim Taleb, author of the 2007 best-selling book “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable” told investors they should brace for escalating volatility as the AI rally enters a fragile phase and even bankruptcies could be ahead for the software sector. In response, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM – $229.32) fell 13% on February 23^rd.

There is another development that has investors worried and that is the vast and opaque $1.8 trillion private credit market. Blue Owl Capital (OWL – $10.73), an asset manager specializing in private debt financing, recently announced it was limiting withdrawals from a $1.6 billion fund. This sent ripples through the private credit industry. We are concerned about this as well, particularly since this is an unregulated area of finance. It is unlikely that the private debt market represents a systemic risk to the banking system, however, private credit firms have been partnering with insurers which potentially broadens the risk they represent. 

While no one likes to see the stock market go down, we see a silver lining to the recent selloff. If the stock market were in a bubble – and one could materialize someday – this kind of panic linked to concern about future fundamentals and earnings, is not typical of a market top. And as we noted last week, as the S&P approaches a milestone of 7,000 it is not unusual to see a bit of fear and consolidation. In short, this fear is good. It is also showing up in investor surveys. Last week’s AAII sentiment survey showed bullishness fell 4.0% to 34.5% and bearishness fell 1.2% to 36.9%. Bullishness is now below average for the first time in 12 weeks. Bearishness is above average for the fifth time in 12 weeks. The 8-week bull/bear index is 10.2% and neutral. The last significant signal in this indicator was a positive one in late September. See page 10.

There was a series of economic releases during the week, and in a nutshell, it showed that the economy was slowing at the end of 2025. This begins with the first estimate for fourth quarter GDP of 1.4%, which follows on the heels of the 4.4% reported for the third quarter. The weakness was concentrated in a decline in residential investment and decline in government spending, but the consumer, while still resilient, did slow consumption. Housing starts for December were down 7% YOY despite a small gain for the month. Single-family starts fell 9% YOY. Housing permits were down 2.2% YOY and single-family permits declined 11% YOY. For the year ending in December, 1.5 million housing units were completed, a decline of 8% from the previous year. See page 3.

International trade was an interesting release. In 2025, the trade deficit in goods and services was $901.5 billion, down $2.1 billion, or 0.2% from 2024. Exports were $3.4 trillion, up $199.8 billion, or 6.2%, and imports were $4.3 trillion, up $197.8 billion, or 4.8%. The oddity of 2025 was the erratic trade in nonmonetary gold — which is included in the trade numbers for goods. Much of this activity in gold trade was triggered by uncertainty regarding tariffs announced in April 2025 and the shift to hard assets. Some of these tariffs are now nullified by the recent Supreme Court decision. Nonmonetary gold imports surged to a record $80.8 billion in the first quarter of 2025; however, nearly half of this, or $34.8 billion of gold was exported in the second quarter of 2025. Notably, the $34.8 billion gold exports represented 6.5% of total exports in the second quarter — a record. See page 4. However, what gives us comfort is earnings growth. This week the LSEG IBES consensus earnings estimate for 2026 rose $0.17 to $314.62 and the 2027 forecast rose $0.54 to $364.54. The S&P Dow Jones estimate for 2026 rose $0.33 to $310.72 and the new consensus estimate for 2027 debuted at $360.22. This means the market is trading at 21.7 times 2026 estimated earnings and 18.75 times 2027 estimated earnings. Although PE multiples are a bit rich, the forward earnings yield of 4.7% and dividend yield of 1.15% compare well to a 10-year Treasury bond yield of 4.08%. Plus, the 12-month sum of operating earnings shows a gain of 16.7% YOY, far better than the 75-year average of 8.1% YOY. We remain a buyer on weakness.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

US Strategy Weekly                    

Lower Inflation Ahead

We like to find “crowded trades” or extremes in sentiment regarding an investment and then find the flaws in the view. One of these crowded views is the global stance on the US dollar. According to a recent Bank of America survey, global fund managers have the most bearish outlook on the US greenback in over a decade. Analysts attribute this weakness to concerns regarding US policy predictability and Federal Reserve independence. In both cases, we feel the fear is overhyped and would not hold up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, pessimism has been correct with the dollar down over 11% since its peak in early January 2025. But we would point out that part of the dollar’s weakness is a result of the narrowing of the trade deficit since this results in less demand for dollars. Analysts may simply be using policy and the Fed as the reason for the weakness. Ironically, a weaker dollar makes US exports more attractive so in the long run a weaker currency can be good for the economy. In our opinion, a weaker dollar is not a major concern — although it can be inflationary — and the reason is simple. Modern currency is fiat money backed only by trust and confidence in a country. This trust is based upon the stability and transparency of its government and banking system, the strength of its economy, the relative level of inflation, and geopolitical and military power. In sum, the US has more of these important qualities than any other competing currency. Dollar weakness could simply be the greenback’s adjustment to the narrowing of the trade deficit.   

In terms of measuring US economic strength and relative inflation there were two important reports last week. January payrolls are always a problem — for several reasons. Each January, the establishment survey is benchmarked to new data gathered from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages – QCEW – which counts jobs covered by the unemployment insurance tax system. In addition, seasonal adjustments are reworked with more current data. This January the BLS also changed the birth-death model to include current sample information.

The household survey also undergoes an annual adjustment for new population data from the Census Bureau in January; however, this adjustment was delayed this month. And finally, the BLS noted that severe winter storms resulted in the household data response rate falling to 64.3%. In short, the January jobs report was riddled with issues making any worthwhile analysis impossible. Nevertheless, we did see the growth rate for total household employment fall from 1.5% YOY to 0.4% YOY. The establishment growth rate was also low at 0.2% YOY and has been relatively unchanged since October. In short, recent data releases suggest weak job growth. See page 3.

We have been writing about the weak growth in total employment which began in 2024 and continued in 2025. One risk is that AI will continue to dull job growth. If so, we worry that this could lead to a recession, particularly since a recession is best defined as a year-over-year decline in total employment. Nonetheless, the unemployment rate fell from 4.4% to 4.3% in January. The underlying data showed a significant divergence in unemployment rates among levels of education. The rate for those with less than a high school diploma fell from 5.6% to 5.2%. High school graduates saw unemployment jump from 4.0% to 4.5%. The rate for those with some college or an associate degree fell from 3.8% to 3.6%; whereas a college degree or higher saw a rate increase from 2.8% to 2.9%. These were unusual changes, but due to the various adjustments and low survey response in the January jobs report we believe the numbers are too unreliable to draw any conclusions. See page 4.   

January’s inflation numbers were better than expected with the headline CPI index falling from 2.7% YOY to 2.4% YOY and core inflation falling from 2.6% YOY to 2.5% YOY. However, many of the components of the CPI grew faster than headline, especially the index for fuels and utilities which rose 1.1% for the month and 6.1% YOY. This inflation in utilities and energy services is taking place even though energy commodities fell 6.6 % YOY in January after falling 3.0% YOY in December. This contradiction is due to supply and demand disruptions at the consumer end. The previous administration’s environmental policies resulted in the subtraction of nearly 17 gigawatts of reliable baseload power generation in the US. These 17 gigawatts are enough to power 12 to 15 million homes or the equivalent of the output of 17 large nuclear reactors. This huge decline on the supply side was coupled with soaring demand for energy from large data centers which support AI and crypto mining. These two factors are the likely causes for the differentiation between falling raw material prices and soaring energy services pricing. See page 5.

The debate regarding the inflationary impact of tariffs on consumers is answered by the chart on page 6. There was some increase in durable and nondurable consumer prices in the middle of 2025, but this never rose to more than 1.9% YOY in durables and 2.3% YOY in nondurable. In January 2026, the price indices for durables rose 0.4% YOY and nondurables rose 1.3% YOY. However, service sector inflation rose 3.2% YOY. Service inflation has been high, first driven by housing prices, then by motor vehicle insurance, followed by a spike in hospital & related services, and more recently led by household insurance pricing. These rolling spikes in pricing have kept service inflation above 3% YOY for the last four years. Nevertheless, the 3.2% YOY seen in January matches the November 2025 level, both of which were the lowest since August 2021. Note that service sector inflation is closely tied to employment costs and the employment cost index (ECI) was 3.4% in the fourth quarter, the lowest since the second quarter of 2021. AI should also help to keep employment costs low and employee productivity high in coming years. See page 6.

Core CPI indices have been steadily decelerating since the cyclical peak made in September and are now clustered in a range of 1.8% YOY to 2.4% YOY. In all cases, core indices are equal or down from January a year ago. This is good news for consumers. But a few sticking points remain, and these currently include necessities such as utility and housing insurance costs. See page 7.  

A main reason for our optimistic inflation forecast of 2.2% or less in 2026 is that crude oil prices continue to be negative on a year-over-year basis. Inflation has rarely if ever moved substantially higher when energy commodity prices are falling. However, as we noted, policy factors and demand changes have impacted energy services pricing. We expect the current administration will address both supply and demand issues this year. If so, the fed funds rate could move lower in 2026, but we would not be surprised if the FOMC required several more months of data before cutting rates. Traders are currently pricing in a 63% chance of a 25-basis-points rate cut at the June meeting, which is a recent upward shift. Note that in March 2022 the real fed funds rate was at its lowest and most dovish level in over 75 years! See page 8. This was a contributing factor to the 9.1% YOY peak in the CPI in June 2022. If the Fed delays cutting rates again in the face of a weakening job market, they risk being wrong one more time.

Technical indicators favor the bulls, particularly the NYSE cumulative advance/decline line which made a new high on February 17, 2026. However, the 10-day average of daily new lows has moved above 100, shifting this indicator from positive to neutral. The rotation of leadership and questioning of AI-related fundamentals is a positive factor for the longer run in our view; but we would not be surprised if the S&P index spends more time consolidating below the 7,000 level. We remain a buyer of weakness.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

There has been a string of data releases this past week, but the most important reports on employment and inflation for January are still ahead. The combination of these two releases could shift the consensus view on rate cuts in 2026, which now stands at one or two 25-basis point cuts and would bring the current range of 3.5% to 3.75% closer to 3% by year end. The FOMC dot plot projects only one 25-basis point cut this year, but the Fed’s dot plot is less a projection of interest rates than a data trend follower. And there is reason to be cautious about inflation since economic activity as measured by GDP has been strong. The 3.8% and 4.4% growth rates in the second and third quarters of 2025 were the best economic activity seen since the 4.7% and 3.4% rates seen in the third and fourth quarters of 2023. However, it is important to point out that inflation did not accelerate in 2023, and we do not believe it will accelerate this year either.

One reason inflation is less likely to accelerate this year is that employment costs are down. A recent employment cost index (ECI) report shows that total compensation, wages & salaries, and benefit costs for civilian workers each rose 0.7% in the final quarter of 2025. This was better than expected, and on a year-over-year basis, total compensation rose 3.4%, benefits rose 3.4%, and wages rose 3.3%. In each case, these were the lowest increases seen since 2021. See page 3. In the second half of 2023, the ECI was falling from a peak of 5.1% in the second quarter of 2022, but costs were still rising 4.4% and 4.2%, respectively. And despite this fact, inflation continued to decelerate. In our view, inflation is likely to slow in 2026 as well, particularly since crude oil prices remain relatively low. The fourth quarter deceleration in the ECI indices has been a positive for businesses and is showing up in recent corporate earnings releases as margin improvement.

The January jobs report will be an important data point for the Federal Reserve to ponder, but it will be a difficult report to analyze due to annual adjustments to seasonality and population benchmarks. Nevertheless, a weak employment report coupled with mild inflation could be a recipe for the dot plot to raise its estimates of rate cuts for this year. If so, it would spark more demand for equities.

Despite our concern about the weakening job market, there are signs that the consumer remains resilient. Outstanding consumer credit surged $24.1 billion in December, nearly five times the increase seen in November. Revolving credit, which includes credit cards and other short-term borrowing, grew $10.2 billion, or at an annualized rate of 13.4%. This gain was in sharp contrast to November’s annualized decline of 1.5%. Total credit grew 3.3% YOY, which was the highest growth rate seen since September 2023. Revolving credit rose 2.4% YOY, the first YOY increase since November 2024. We welcome this growth in consumer credit since negative revolving credit growth, like that seen in revolving credit recently, is closely correlated with recession. See page 4.

The advance estimate for retail and food services sales in December (adjusted for seasonal variation, holiday and trading-day differences, but not price changes), was $735.0 billion, virtually unchanged from the previous month, but up 2.4% YOY. Real retail sales rose 1.1% YOY. This report was viewed as a disappointment by most economists, but total sales for the 12 months of 2025 were up a healthy 3.7%. Nonstore retailers were up 5.3% YOY and food service and drinking places rose 4.7% YOY.

A separate report on vehicle sales was a concern since it showed that total vehicle sales were 15.4 million units (annualized rate) in January, down 6% month-to-month and down 3.5% YOY. Unit sales were reported to be 16.4 million in December 2025, down an even larger 5.2% YOY. In short, there has been a sharp 2-month deceleration in auto sales. A good part of this may be due to severe weather across much of the US but it is a trend worth monitoring since it could point to a weakness in consumption. See page 5.

The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index fell 0.2 to 99.3 in January. Seven components declined and the only improvements were in expectations for expansion, sales and credit. Hiring plans edged lower, and the uncertainty index, which dropped to its lowest level since mid-2024 in December, rose modestly in January. The most significant problems reported by small business owners were taxes (18%), followed by labor quality (16%) and insurance cost (13%). See page 6.

The University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey inched up to 57.3 in February from 56.4 in January, due primarily to the 2.9 point increase in present conditions, which rose to 58.3. Expectations slipped to 56.6 from 57.0. However, sentiment surveys have been in recession levels below 60, for ten of the last twelve months despite steady growth in the economy and retail sales. In our opinion, sentiment indicators have become victims of negative media coverage and are less useful than they had been in the past. See page 7.

All in all, recent economic reports show a healthy, although somewhat sluggish, economy. Fourth quarter earnings season, on the other hand, has been stellar. At present, the 12-month sum of operating earnings shows a gain of 16.7% YOY, far better than the 75-year average of 8.1% YOY. Consensus operating earnings estimates for the S&P 500 this year are currently $314.24 for LSEG IBES and $310.64 for S&P/Dow Jones. Our $315 estimate looked high in December when we published our outlook for the year, but it is becoming consensus view. But as we stated in December, our estimates are likely to prove to be too conservative. See pages 8 and 15.

Technical indicators continue to favor the bulls, even though our 25-day up/down volume oscillator, now at 1.78, remains in neutral territory. However, the 10-day average of daily new highs was strong at 553 this week and new lows ticked higher at 162. This combination of daily new highs above 100 and new lows above 100 lowered this indicator from positive to neutral last week. But most importantly, the NYSE cumulative advance/decline line made a new high on February 10, 2026, confirming new highs in the broad indices. See pages 10 and 11. Investors should be aware that the backdrop for the financial markets includes several risks. On the geopolitical front Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be visiting Washington this week to discuss possible military options against Iran with US President Donald Trump. There are reports that Israel is preparing contingencies should US-Iran talks collapse. We are also concerned about possible liquidity issues linked to cryptocurrencies following the roughly 45% decline in Bitcoin (BTC – $68,758.59) from its October peak of $126,000. One analyst estimated that there were roughly $10 billion in realized losses locked in by investors last week, the second-highest total since June 2022. Massive selloffs in one asset can create liquidity pressures that roll into other parts of the financial system. Nonetheless, we remain a buyer on weakness.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download

Just like the market was not concerned about last week’s FOMC meeting, it was unaffected by the current partial government shutdown. Both are rational reactions in our view. Lower interest rates in a good economy are less necessary (and could be inflationary), and more importantly, fiscal policy will “trump” monetary policy in 2026. Plus, the anxiety surrounding a government shutdown and the political posturing during one has become far less relevant to equity investors today, particularly since the record-breaking 43-day shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, did little to nothing to impact the overall economy last year.

This latter statement is quite amazing, particularly since federal government employment fell by 179,000 in October 2025 during the shutdown, reaching its lowest level since July 2014. Recent data shows that over 212,000 civil servants have left the federal workforce through voluntary and involuntary mechanisms aimed at reducing the number of federal employees. This should dampen employment levels; nevertheless, in October 2025 while retail sales slowed to a gain of 3.3% YOY from 4.1% YOY a month earlier, this pace was still better than the 3.2% YOY gain seen in October a year earlier.

But, as we go to print, the threat of a shutdown is ending since the House of Representatives has voted to end a four-day partial shutdown. The legislation will fully fund five sectors of the federal government through the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2026), while extending funding for the Department of Homeland Security for ten days, or until February 13, 2026.

And despite all the political bluster the economy appears to be strengthening. The ISM manufacturing index increased from 47.9 to 52.8 in the month of January, and this gave a boost to the stock market earlier this week. It was the first reading above the breakeven 50 level since the back-to-back 50.9 and 50.3 readings seen in January and February 2025. However, these two readings were preceded by 26 straight months of readings that were below the breakeven 50 level – a sign of contraction in the sector. Three of the ten components in the index shifted from under to over 50 in January – new orders were impressive jumping from 47.4 to 57.1 – and production rose from 50.7 to 55.9. Employment increased from 44.8 to 48.1 but remains in contraction territory. See page 3. The ISM nonmanufacturing index will be released later this week.

Despite our concern about housing affordability and the inability of young adults to buy homes, homeownership rates increased in the third quarter of the year, with the overall reading rising 0.3 points to 65.3%. The largest increases were seen in the Northeast (61.4% to 62.5%) and the South (66.6% to 67.2%). Homeownership rates were flat in the West and down in the Midwest. Still, the most surprising and important fact seen in the survey was the 1.1% increase in homeownership for those under 35 years of age which rose to 37.5%. Homeownership remains highest for those 65 years of age or more at 77.9%, however the percentage was down from 78.6% in the second quarter. See page 4.

In general, we believe inflation worries are fading; however, the 0.5% increase in the PPI index in December was the largest monthly gain in five months. Still, this larger-than-expected monthly gain left the year-over-year unchanged at 3% YOY. The increase in December’s PPI final demand index can be traced to a 0.7% rise in the index for final demand services. Prices for final demand goods were unchanged in December, again indicating that tariffs on imported goods are not the source of inflation.

The deceleration in CPI and PPI indices has carried most inflation measures to a range of 2.7% to 3%. On one hand this range is well above the Fed’s 2% target, but it is also below the long-term average for inflation of 3.4% YOY. More importantly, it would be highly unusual to see any acceleration in inflation in coming months since oil prices continue to be negative YOY. Lower oil and energy prices provide a favorable backdrop for consumers and inflation.  See page 5.

Labor productivity increased by 4.9% (annualized) in the third quarter, after rising 4.1% in the second quarter. This acceleration was predictable since GDP accelerated to 4.4% in the third quarter after rising 2.8% in the second quarter. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates labor productivity index by dividing an index of output by an index of hours worked. Output can be measured in most industries, but for those industries where employees do not punch a clock, hours worked can only be estimated. As a result, we believe productivity numbers are unreliable. But it is clear to us that productivity did rise in the third quarter because nonfarm unit labor costs decelerated to 1.2% YOY from 2.0% YOY in the second quarter. Note that the BLS data on employment costs also shows compensation has been relatively stable at 3.5% YOY. Stable labor costs are good for corporate profit margins and for earnings growth. See page 6.

While the economy appears to be doing well, the risk is that the job market may be weakening for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, BLS will not release January’s employment data this week. However, the January jobs report is always fraught with issues since the establishment survey undergoes an annual benchmarking process and seasonal adjustment factors are updated. The household survey is also adjusted for updated population estimates from the Census Bureau. All these factors make January data difficult to compare to previous months. It will be an important, but tricky month to analyze when we get the data. 

But if we were to choose one factor that is important for the equity market it would be earnings. The LSEG IBES consensus earnings estimate for 2025 rose $0.35 (more than offsetting last week’s $0.30 decline) to $271.92 this week and the 2026 estimate was unchanged at $313.04. The 2027 forecast rose $0.71 to $361.32. The S&P Dow Jones estimate for 2025 rose $1.81 to $265.41 and the 2026 estimate fell $0.02 to $310.24. Using IBES estimates this means the market is trading at 25.4 times 2025 estimates, 22.1 times 2026 estimates, and 19.1 times 2027 earnings. What is interesting about these PE multiples is that they have not changed much in the last two years (apart from the tariff panic in April 2025) even as equity prices continue to rise. In short, this is, and has been, an earnings-driven market. That is the best kind of bull market.

And though PE multiples are rich, the forward earnings yield of 4.65% and dividend yield of 1.14% compare well to a 10-year Treasury bond yield of 4.2%. Perhaps most importantly, 12-month trailing operating earnings are growing at 16.2% YOY, far better than the 75-year average of 8.1% YOY. See page 7.

All in all, we remain a buyer of weakness, and as this will be a midterm election year, one should expect several bumps in the road ahead. But if the economy and earnings continue to grow, and we expect they will, we expect the long-term bull market will remain intact.

Gail Dudack

Click to Download