Global markets continue to search for anything they can grasp onto that points to possible signs of progress on global trade tensions, and by anything, we do mean ‘anything’ – truth social posts, X posts, this person heard from this person something tangible. It shows just how volatile this current market really is that inuendo and whim is being treated as fact.Back in the ‘tangible’ real world, the other white knight that is being watched ever closely is some form of possible policy backstop from central banks - Particularly the Federal Reserve. Considering the President’s consistent input here that US rates should be lower either through a post or a media rant, so far this has not moved the Fed one inch.While the recent 90-day tariff pause from Liberation Day has provided a temporary market reprieve, the underlying trade tensions, especially between the U.S. and China, remain largely unresolved. In fact, we would argue they are only getting stronger as nations and blocs are now looking to each other to offset the US trade impasse.China remains the most consequential player in this landscape, and despite the pause, the effective U.S. (weighted-average) tariff rate on goods has only fallen modestly, just 3%, from a 24% peak to 21% year-to-date.Beijing appears to be holding the ‘better hand’ currently; the additional back down from Washington with its ‘exemption’ on electronics is case in point. Just take Apple as the example, down over 23% since its peak in December last year, and it is the poster child for the full impact of Trump’s program. This back-down is showing just how much strain the US is experiencing with Beijing playing hardball.Think about it: a US$3,000 iPhone versus a Samsung that, even with tariffs, could be as much as 20% less for the US consumers. That’s a killer for the Silicon Valley Titan and Trump’s plan on the whole.This just shows the structural nature of the U.S.-China trade imbalance and the scale of bilateral tariffs already in place.As negotiations remain tentative and tensions persist, the market is left navigating a landscape shaped by potential escalation, geopolitical signalling, and the lingering question of whether or even what policymakers will/can do if economic or market stress intensifies.China: Market KingmakerAs mentioned, the modest drop in the effective tariff rate even after a 90-day pause highlights the entrenched nature of the dispute. The sheer scale of U.S.-China trade means that even minor changes have significant global implications. While no breakthrough appears imminent, traders and investors alike continue to watch for any sign of constructive engagement – which currently does not exist, if we are honest.Any sign of negotiation could take place, or even if there is a modest de-escalation, it could trigger a risk-on response across asset classes as seen in the final part of the week beginning 7 March 2025. This is why China is now the market kingmaker – it is currently holding firm on ‘escalating’ when responding to Washington’s moves.The indicator we all need to watch for around US/China relations is US Treasury Bonds. Any sign that Beijing is turning from escalation to de-escalation should produce a rally sharply here as market flows have been dominated by heightened cash preference as persistent stagflation concerns, coupled with recession risks.Where’s the Fed at?Will the Federal Reserve step in to support markets? The better question is, can it step in? From a traditional standpoint with rate cuts – no. However, there are other mechanisms like exemptions to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (this is the amount of tier one capital required to be held at US banks), which was temporarily introduced during the 2020 pandemic crisis. A repeat of that policy would increase the banking system’s capacity to absorb government bonds without triggering capital constraints.More aggressive tools, such as direct purchases at the long end of the U.S. yield curve, are considered much less likely in the current macro environment, and Fed officials have been cautious in their recent commentary around this idea.Realistically, there are limited signs of funding stress and a relatively high threshold for intervention; the probability of a "Fed put" being activated near-term appears low to non-existent. This means the Fed is just as much a spectator as we are.The FX flowWith US exceptionalism now on the blink, the broader trend of US dollar weakness is expected to persist, but the weak spots may change.Rather than concentrating on current account surplus currencies such as JPY and CHF, the weakness may broaden out to risk-sensitive FX like AUD, NZD, and CAD. Just take a look at the bounce back in AUDUSD at the backend of the 7 March week’s trading – a 3.8% jump in 2 days is unheard of.The euro is expected to perform well across both “risk-on” and “risk-off” tariff scenarios, driven by long-term capital reallocation and structural factors within the euro area.We need to highlight Japan and South Korea – both nations have shown signs they are willing to engage with Washington, and the response from the market was huge. More importantly, the administration has responded positively. This puts JPY and KRW in a more positive light than peers, and they would be wary of being exposed as a deal would put them into upside air very quickly.Outlook: Cloudy but clearing – chance of tariff showers later in the week.Markets remain in a holding pattern, waiting for clearer signals on trade policy.The recent softening of rhetoric from the U.S., particularly in response to financial market volatility, suggests some room for constructive negotiations—especially with countries outside China.The 90-day pause has provided some breathing space, but it will need to be followed by tangible progress if market sentiment is to turn, and on that metric, the outlook is still cloudy but clearing. Yet tariff risks retain high later in the period as the 90-day period looks to expire and specific tariffs (healthcare, electronics, etc) get announced.
Market Watching in the Autumn – The Orange World Impacts

Related Articles

The 8 April ceasefire announcement and parallel discussions around a 45-day truce have not resolved the Strait of Hormuz disruption. They have, for now, capped the worst-case scenario, but tanker traffic remains at a fraction of normal levels and Iran's demand for transit fees signals a structural shift, not a temporary one.
What began as a regional conflict has become a global energy shock, and the question for markets is no longer whether Hormuz was disrupted, but how permanently the disruption changes the pricing floor for oil.
Key takeaways
- Around 20 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and petroleum products normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, equal to about one-fifth of global oil consumption and roughly 30% of global seaborne oil trade.
- This is a flow shock, not an inventory problem. Oil markets depend on continuous throughput, not static storage.
- If the disruption persists beyond a few weeks, Brent could shift from a short-term spike to a broader price shock, with stagflation risk.
- Tanker traffic through the strait fell from around 135 ships per day to fewer than 15 at the peak of disruption, a reduction of approximately 85%, with more than 150 vessels anchored, diverted, or delayed.
- A two-week ceasefire was announced on 8 April, with 45-day truce negotiations under way. Iran has separately signalled a demand for transit fees on vessels using the strait, which, if formalised, would represent a permanent geopolitical floor on energy costs.
- Markets have begun rotating away from growth and technology exposure toward energy and defence names, reflecting a view that elevated oil is becoming a structural cost rather than a temporary risk premium.
The world’s most critical oil chokepoint
The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products, equal to about 20% of global oil consumption and around 30% of global seaborne oil trade. With global oil demand near 104 million bpd and spare capacity limited, the market was already tightly balanced before the latest escalation.
The strait is also a critical corridor for liquefied natural gas. Around 290 million cubic metres of LNG transited the route each day on average in 2024, representing roughly 20% of global LNG trade, with Asian markets the main destination.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has described Hormuz as the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint, noting that even partial interruptions may trigger outsized price moves. Brent crude has moved above US$100 a barrel, reflecting both physical tightness and a rising geopolitical risk premium.

Tankers idle as flows slow
Shipping and insurance data now point to strain in real time. More than 85 large crude carriers are reported to be stranded in the Persian Gulf, while more than 150 vessels have been anchored, diverted or delayed as operators reassess safety and insurance cover. That would leave an estimated 120 million to 150 million barrels of crude sitting idle at sea.
Those volumes represent only six to seven days of normal Hormuz throughput, or a little more than one day of global oil consumption.
Updated shipping and insurance data now confirm more than 150 vessels have been anchored, diverted, or delayed, up from the 85 initially reported. The 1.3 days of global consumption coverage from idle crude remains the binding constraint: this is a flow shock, not a storage problem, and the ceasefire has not yet translated into meaningfully restored throughput.
A market built on flow, not storage
Oil markets function on continuous movement. Refineries, petrochemical plants and global supply chains are calibrated to steady deliveries along predictable sea lanes. When flows through a chokepoint that carries roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption and around 30% of global seaborne oil trade are interrupted, the system can move from equilibrium to deficit within days.
Spare production capacity, largely concentrated within OPEC, is estimated at only 3 million to 5 million bpd. That falls well short of the volumes at risk if Hormuz flows are severely disrupted.
Inflation risks and macro spillovers
The inflationary impact of an oil shock typically arrives in waves. Higher fuel and energy prices may lift headline inflation quickly as petrol, diesel and power costs move higher.
Over time, higher energy costs may pass through freight, food, manufacturing and services. If the disruption persists, the combination of elevated inflation and slower growth could raise the risk of a stagflationary environment and leave central banks facing a difficult trade-off.
No easy offset, a system with little slack
What makes the current episode particularly acute is the lack of slack in the global system.
Global supply and demand near 103 million to 104 million bpd leave little spare cushion when a chokepoint handling nearly 20 million bpd, or about one-fifth of global oil consumption, is compromised. Estimated spare capacity of 3 million to 5 million bpd, mostly within OPEC, would cover only a fraction of the volumes at risk.
Alternative routes, including pipelines that bypass Hormuz and rerouted shipping, can only partly offset lost flows, and usually at higher cost and with longer lead times.
Bottom line
Until transit through the Strait of Hormuz is restored and seen as credibly secure, global oil flows are likely to remain impaired and risk premia elevated. For investors, policymakers and corporate decision-makers, the core question is whether oil can move where it needs to go, every day, without interruption.

A headline about a civilisation "dying tonight" is built to overwhelm, but the more telling signal may be the calm underneath it, because markets are starting to treat this cycle of sharp escalation followed by sudden de-escalation as a pattern, not a surprise.
In macro circles, that pattern has a blunt label: TACO, or "Trump Always Chickens Out". The phrase is loaded, but the logic is simple. A maximum-pressure threat hits, risk assets wobble, then a pause, delay or softer outcome appears once the economic cost starts to bite.
That does not mean the risk is small. It may just mean investors have grown used to a script where rhetoric flares, markets absorb the shock, and restraint shows up before the worst-case scenario fully lands.
The path ahead
The current convergence of geopolitical tension and historical positioning extremes has created a unique "coiled spring" environment for global markets. While the TACO framework suggests a pattern of sharp escalation followed by strategic pauses, the real test for traders over the next 60 days will be the transition from headline-driven volatility to structural market rotation.
Whether the positioning gap closes through a gentle de-escalation or a violent short squeeze, having a defined reaction framework can help traders navigate the noise.

Here is the situation as April begins. A war is affecting one of the world's most important oil chokepoints. Brent crude is trading above US$100. And the Federal Reserve (Fed), which spent much of 2025 engineering a soft landing, is now facing an inflation threat driven less by wages, services or the domestic economy, and more by energy. It is watching an oil shock.
The Fed funds rate sits at 3.50% to 3.75%. The next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting is on 28 and 29 April and the key question for markets is not whether the Fed will cut, it is whether the Fed can cut, or whether the energy shock may have shut that door for much of 2026.
A heavy run of major data releases lands in April. The March consumer price index (CPI), non-farm payrolls (NFP) and the advance estimate of Q1 gross domestic product (GDP) are the three that matter most. But the FOMC statement on 29 April may be the release that sets the tone for the rest of the year.
Growth: Business activity and demand
Think about what the US economy looked like coming into this year: AI-driven capital expenditure (capex) was a major part of the growth narrative, corporate investment intentions looked firm and the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act was already in the mix. On paper, the growth story looked solid.
Then the Strait of Hormuz situation changed the calculus. Not because the US is a net energy importer, it is not, and that structural insulation matters. But what is good for US energy producers can still squeeze margins elsewhere and weigh on global demand. The 30 April advance Q1 gross domestic product (GDP) estimate is now likely to be read through two lenses: how strong was the economy before the shock, and what it may signal about the quarters ahead.
Labour: Payrolls and employment
February's jobs report was, depending on how you read it, either a blip or a warning sign. Non-farm payrolls (NFP) fell by 92,000, unemployment edged up to 4.4% and the official line was that weather played a role. That may be true but here is what also happened. The labour market suddenly looked a little less convincing as the main argument for keeping rates elevated.
The 3 April employment report for March is now genuinely consequential. A bounce back to positive payroll growth would probably steady nerves and a second consecutive soft print, particularly against a backdrop of higher energy prices, would start to build a very uncomfortable narrative for the Fed. It would be looking at slower jobs growth and an inflation threat at the same time. That is not a comfortable place to be.
Inflation: CPI, PPI and PCE
Here is the uncomfortable truth about where inflation sits right now. Core personal consumption expenditures (PCE), the Fed's preferred gauge, was already running at 3.1% year on year in January, before any oil shock had fed through. The Fed had not fully solved its inflation problem, rather, it had slowed it down. That is a different thing.
And now, on top of a not-quite-solved inflation problem, oil prices have moved sharply higher. Energy prices can feed into the consumer price index (CPI) relatively quickly, through petrol, transport and logistics costs that can eventually show up in the price of nearly everything. The 10 April CPI print for March is probably the most important single data release of the month, it is the one that may tell us whether the energy shock is already showing up in the numbers the Fed watches.
Policy, trade and earnings
April is also the start of US earnings season, and this quarter's results carry an unusual amount of weight. Investors have been pouring capital into AI infrastructure on the basis that returns are coming. The question is when. With geopolitical volatility driving a rotation away from growth-oriented technology and towards energy and defence, JPMorgan Chase's 14 April earnings will be read as much for what management says about the macro environment as for the numbers themselves.
Then there is the FOMC meeting on 28 and 29 April. After the early-April run of data, including NFP, CPI and producer price index (PPI), the Fed will have more than enough information to update its language. Whether it signals that rate cuts could remain on hold through 2026, or whether it leaves the door slightly ajar, may be the most consequential communication of the quarter.
Geopolitical volatility has already pushed investors to reassess growth-heavy positioning. The estimated US$650 billion AI infrastructure buildout is also coming under heavier scrutiny on return on investment. If earnings season disappoints on that front, and if the FOMC signals a prolonged hold, the combination could test risk appetite heading into May.
Big US data release ahead? Stay focused.
Open an account · Log in
Recent Articles

The 8 April ceasefire announcement and parallel discussions around a 45-day truce have not resolved the Strait of Hormuz disruption. They have, for now, capped the worst-case scenario, but tanker traffic remains at a fraction of normal levels and Iran's demand for transit fees signals a structural shift, not a temporary one.
What began as a regional conflict has become a global energy shock, and the question for markets is no longer whether Hormuz was disrupted, but how permanently the disruption changes the pricing floor for oil.
Key takeaways
- Around 20 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and petroleum products normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, equal to about one-fifth of global oil consumption and roughly 30% of global seaborne oil trade.
- This is a flow shock, not an inventory problem. Oil markets depend on continuous throughput, not static storage.
- If the disruption persists beyond a few weeks, Brent could shift from a short-term spike to a broader price shock, with stagflation risk.
- Tanker traffic through the strait fell from around 135 ships per day to fewer than 15 at the peak of disruption, a reduction of approximately 85%, with more than 150 vessels anchored, diverted, or delayed.
- A two-week ceasefire was announced on 8 April, with 45-day truce negotiations under way. Iran has separately signalled a demand for transit fees on vessels using the strait, which, if formalised, would represent a permanent geopolitical floor on energy costs.
- Markets have begun rotating away from growth and technology exposure toward energy and defence names, reflecting a view that elevated oil is becoming a structural cost rather than a temporary risk premium.
The world’s most critical oil chokepoint
The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products, equal to about 20% of global oil consumption and around 30% of global seaborne oil trade. With global oil demand near 104 million bpd and spare capacity limited, the market was already tightly balanced before the latest escalation.
The strait is also a critical corridor for liquefied natural gas. Around 290 million cubic metres of LNG transited the route each day on average in 2024, representing roughly 20% of global LNG trade, with Asian markets the main destination.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has described Hormuz as the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint, noting that even partial interruptions may trigger outsized price moves. Brent crude has moved above US$100 a barrel, reflecting both physical tightness and a rising geopolitical risk premium.

Tankers idle as flows slow
Shipping and insurance data now point to strain in real time. More than 85 large crude carriers are reported to be stranded in the Persian Gulf, while more than 150 vessels have been anchored, diverted or delayed as operators reassess safety and insurance cover. That would leave an estimated 120 million to 150 million barrels of crude sitting idle at sea.
Those volumes represent only six to seven days of normal Hormuz throughput, or a little more than one day of global oil consumption.
Updated shipping and insurance data now confirm more than 150 vessels have been anchored, diverted, or delayed, up from the 85 initially reported. The 1.3 days of global consumption coverage from idle crude remains the binding constraint: this is a flow shock, not a storage problem, and the ceasefire has not yet translated into meaningfully restored throughput.
A market built on flow, not storage
Oil markets function on continuous movement. Refineries, petrochemical plants and global supply chains are calibrated to steady deliveries along predictable sea lanes. When flows through a chokepoint that carries roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption and around 30% of global seaborne oil trade are interrupted, the system can move from equilibrium to deficit within days.
Spare production capacity, largely concentrated within OPEC, is estimated at only 3 million to 5 million bpd. That falls well short of the volumes at risk if Hormuz flows are severely disrupted.
Inflation risks and macro spillovers
The inflationary impact of an oil shock typically arrives in waves. Higher fuel and energy prices may lift headline inflation quickly as petrol, diesel and power costs move higher.
Over time, higher energy costs may pass through freight, food, manufacturing and services. If the disruption persists, the combination of elevated inflation and slower growth could raise the risk of a stagflationary environment and leave central banks facing a difficult trade-off.
No easy offset, a system with little slack
What makes the current episode particularly acute is the lack of slack in the global system.
Global supply and demand near 103 million to 104 million bpd leave little spare cushion when a chokepoint handling nearly 20 million bpd, or about one-fifth of global oil consumption, is compromised. Estimated spare capacity of 3 million to 5 million bpd, mostly within OPEC, would cover only a fraction of the volumes at risk.
Alternative routes, including pipelines that bypass Hormuz and rerouted shipping, can only partly offset lost flows, and usually at higher cost and with longer lead times.
Bottom line
Until transit through the Strait of Hormuz is restored and seen as credibly secure, global oil flows are likely to remain impaired and risk premia elevated. For investors, policymakers and corporate decision-makers, the core question is whether oil can move where it needs to go, every day, without interruption.

A headline about a civilisation "dying tonight" is built to overwhelm, but the more telling signal may be the calm underneath it, because markets are starting to treat this cycle of sharp escalation followed by sudden de-escalation as a pattern, not a surprise.
In macro circles, that pattern has a blunt label: TACO, or "Trump Always Chickens Out". The phrase is loaded, but the logic is simple. A maximum-pressure threat hits, risk assets wobble, then a pause, delay or softer outcome appears once the economic cost starts to bite.
That does not mean the risk is small. It may just mean investors have grown used to a script where rhetoric flares, markets absorb the shock, and restraint shows up before the worst-case scenario fully lands.
The path ahead
The current convergence of geopolitical tension and historical positioning extremes has created a unique "coiled spring" environment for global markets. While the TACO framework suggests a pattern of sharp escalation followed by strategic pauses, the real test for traders over the next 60 days will be the transition from headline-driven volatility to structural market rotation.
Whether the positioning gap closes through a gentle de-escalation or a violent short squeeze, having a defined reaction framework can help traders navigate the noise.

So here is the thing: April’s US earnings season is arriving in a market that still feels anything but normal. As GO Markets explains in The global US earnings playbook: The essential guide for traders, this reporting period is landing after a real shift in what markets care about. It is no longer just about chasing growth at any cost. It is about what the numbers are saying beneath the surface.
And in 2026, those signals are colliding with a high-friction backdrop:
- Geopolitical conflict: Ongoing tension in the Middle East
- Oil supply shock: Brent crude above US$100
- The Fed: A central bank still boxed in by sticky inflation
The durability pivot
Yes, AI is still the market’s main story but it's still the flashy engine getting most of the attention. But underneath that, there is a quieter move towards companies that look built to hold up better when conditions get harder.
When rates are uncertain and energy markets are under pressure, names like JPMorgan Chase and the major defence contractors start to carry more weight. They are not replacing the AI narrative, rather, they are becoming part of the way traders read risk appetite, earnings durability and, ultimately, where the market is looking for something more solid to hold on to.

