· The Federal Reserve (Fed) held rates at 3.50–3.75% on June 17, 2026, removed the cut bias from its statement, and the dot plot now suggests a hike is more likely than a cut before year-end.

· Goldman Sachs Research has pushed its first projected rate cut to June 2027 — eighteen months from now — with the second following in December 2027.

· Headline CPI hit 4.2% in May 2026, the highest reading since April 2023, driven by sticky services inflation and energy-price pass-through from the Iran conflict.

· The Nasdaq-100 VIX is trading at 26.95 while the S&P 500 VIX sits at 17.68 — one of the widest tech-versus-broad vol spreads of the cycle.

· The TappAlpha Innovation 100 Growth & Daily Income ETF (TDAQ) uses a daily 0DTE covered call strategy on the Nasdaq-100 — and the spread between tech vol and broad vol is exactly the kind of premium environment the strategy is built to harvest.

Today, Kevin Warsh chaired his first Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting as Federal Reserve Chairman. The Committee held the federal funds rate steady at 3.50–3.75%, a level unchanged since late 2025. (CNBC) The substantive news was not the hold. It was what came out of the statement and the dot plot.

The previous cutting bias — language that had quietly signaled the next move was lower — was removed. The dot plot’s median path now suggests the federal funds rate ends 2026 at roughly 3.8%, above current levels, implying a hike is now considered more probable than a cut over the back half of the year. (CNBC) Goldman Sachs Research has responded by pushing its first projected cut to June 2027, with the second to December 2027. (MEXC)

For income investors, this is the death of a trade many had quietly been waiting on: the one where the Fed cuts, bond prices rise, and yield-starved portfolios get rescued by duration. That trade is now an eighteen-month wait, at minimum. Which raises the question every advisor running income mandates is asking this week: if the Fed isn’t coming, where does the income actually come from?

The answer this advertorial proposes is uncomfortable and structural. It does not come from waiting for cuts. It comes from monetizing the very thing a hawkish-Fed-meets-sticky-inflation regime produces in abundance: volatility. And it comes from monetizing it where the premium is richest — which, right now, is in tech.

The Income Math Just Got Worse

The S&P 500’s dividend yield sits at roughly 1%, one of the lowest readings in three decades. (Multpl) The Nasdaq-100’s dividend yield is lower still — closer to 0.5% — because the mega-cap technology companies that dominate the index reinvest cash rather than distribute it. Ten-year Treasuries are now yielding 4.43%, up from 4.13% in mid-April. (Morningstar)

That last number is the one that matters most for the income arithmetic. Yields have risen, not fallen, since the start of the year. Bond prices have moved in the other direction. An income investor who shifted into long-duration Treasuries six months ago expecting the Fed to ride to the rescue is now sitting on a markdown — and a Fed that, today, told the market the rescue isn’t coming.

Meanwhile, May 2026 CPI came in at 4.2%, the highest reading since April 2023, with energy prices passing through from the Iran conflict and services inflation refusing to cooperate. (CNBC, BLS) That is the mechanical reason the Fed cannot cut. And it is also the mechanical reason this Fed cycle is structurally different from anything investors have experienced since the early 1990s. Higher-for-longer is no longer a forecast. It is a regime.

Figure 1: Fed rate cut expectations collapse

Figure 1: The path that wasn’t — market-implied rate cut expectations have collapsed from four cuts in 2026 to zero, with the first cut now projected for June 2027.

Where the Premium Actually Is

Volatility, like everything else in markets, has a term structure and a cross-section. And right now, the cross-section is telling income investors something specific.

The broad-market VIX closed at 17.68 on June 16. (FRED) That is a calm reading by historical standards — well inside the 12–20 “MID” band that has dominated the last two years. The Iran ceasefire took the edge off the early-June spike, and the market has digested the Fed hold with notable composure.

But the Nasdaq-100 VIX — the volatility index for the tech-heavy index — closed at 26.95 on June 16. (YCharts) That is a 27.79% increase versus one year ago, and it represents a roughly 9-point spread over the broad-market VIX.

Figure 2: NDX VIX vs SPX VIX spread widens

Figure 2: NDX VIX vs SPX VIX — the spread has widened from ~3 points at the start of 2026 to over 9 points in mid-June, reflecting concentrated risk pricing in mega-cap technology.

That spread is not noise. It reflects something specific the options market is pricing: AI capex skepticism, mega-cap concentration risk, and earnings-driven dispersion that is far more concentrated in tech names than in the broader index. When the Nasdaq-100 VIX trades 50% richer than the S&P 500 VIX, options sellers on the Nasdaq are being paid materially more per unit of underlying exposure than options sellers on the broad index.

This is the structural setup. A hawkish Fed sustains the volatility regime. The Iran-related tail risk lingers. And the Nasdaq-100, with its concentrated mega-cap composition and its AI-capex-driven dispersion, is the part of the market where the volatility risk premium is currently richest. For investors with a strategy designed to harvest that premium, the spread is a windfall.

The Mechanic, Briefly

Zero-days-to-expiration options — 0DTE — are no longer exotic. SPX 0DTE contracts averaged 2.3 million per day in 2025 and represented 59% of total S&P 500 options volume, up from roughly 5% in 2016. (Cboe Global Markets) The same structural shift has

occurred on the Nasdaq side. Daily-expiry options are the baseline of how the largest options markets in the world now function.

The appeal of 0DTE for income generation comes down to theta decay. A call option that expires at the close of the same trading day it is written delivers the maximum possible rate of time decay to the seller. That is the mechanical engine.

Each morning, the strategy resets. Each evening, the options expire. The premium collected becomes income. The next day, it begins again.

The daily cadence does three things. It minimizes overnight options-book risk — yesterday’s calls have already expired by the time the next gap opens. It allows constant recalibration to the new level — if the Nasdaq drops 3% in a session, the next day’s calls are written at the new lower strike. And it converts what would otherwise be a single monthly income event into a continuous stream that compounds across the harvest window.

Why This Fed Cycle Favors Premium Harvest

A premium-collection strategy does not need rate cuts to work. It needs volatility. And we believe the conditions producing that volatility right now are durable, not transient.

Consider what would need to change for the volatility regime to compress meaningfully. The Fed would need to either cut decisively — which Goldman now projects no earlier than June 2027 — or signal a return to a clearly accommodative posture. Inflation would need to break decisively below the Fed’s 2% target — a five-year journey at the current trajectory, not a five-month one. The Iran situation would need to resolve into a durable peace rather than a fragile ceasefire. And AI capex skepticism — the central pricing question for the mega-cap tech complex — would need to resolve one way or the other, in either direction.

None of those are this year’s stories. They are 2027 or 2028 stories. Which means the volatility risk premium that funds the daily 0DTE harvest is structurally supported for the foreseeable horizon.

Figure 3: S&P 500 quarterly earnings growth

Figure 3: S&P 500 Q1 2026 earnings grew 28.4% on a blended basis — the sixth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth and the strongest reading since Q4 2021. The underlying index has a fundamental floor even as the volatility regime stays elevated. (FactSet)

This is the case that distinguishes the current moment from prior covered-call cycles. In 2018–2021, premium-harvest strategies struggled because volatility was structurally compressed by an accommodative Fed and low-inflation regime. In 2022–2023, they outperformed because the regime flipped. In 2024–2025, they delivered steady income because volatility settled into a middle band. The 2026 setup — hawkish Fed, sticky inflation, geopolitically-driven energy shocks, AI-capex dispersion — is the structural cousin of 2022. Except now the products built to harvest it are mature, transparent, and listed.

The Trade-Offs You Need to Understand

No strategy is a free lunch. A covered call program caps upside participation. If the Nasdaq-100 surges 5% in a single day on a Fed pivot, an AI earnings surprise, or a peace deal, TDAQ’s calls will limit the fund’s participation in that move. In a relentless momentum-driven bull market, an unhedged QQQM position will outperform TDAQ over time.

But “relentless momentum-driven bull market” is precisely what this Fed just made less likely for the back half of 2026. A hawkish Federal Reserve removing its cut bias, a dot plot pointing to a possible hike, and inflation running at 4.2% are not the conditions that produce relentless one-direction rallies. They are the conditions that produce chop, dispersion, and elevated volatility — the conditions in which the upside cap of a covered call strategy is the cheapest form of compromise an income investor can make.

And the Q1 2026 earnings season — the sixth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth on a blended basis, the strongest reading since Q4 2021 — tells you the underlying companies are not in trouble. The volatility being priced in the Nasdaq-100 VIX is not distress. It is dispersion. The two are very different things, and only one of them is sellable. Because TDAQ’s underlying holding is QQQM, the fund inherits all of the Nasdaq-100’s characteristics: heavy concentration in information technology (~50%), communications services (~17%), and consumer discretionary (~12%). It is not a replacement for diversification. It is a complement that maintains Nasdaq-100 growth participation while generating a cash-flow stream that does not depend on the index rising.

Drawdown risk is real. If the Nasdaq-100 falls 10% in a sustained sell-off, TDAQ will participate substantially in that drawdown, only partially offset by the premium collected during the period. The strategy is not a hedge. It is an income overlay on a Nasdaq-100 exposure.

Where TDAQ Fits in a Portfolio

TDAQ is best understood as an allocation decision rather than a trade. For income-oriented investors — retirees, those in the distribution phase, anyone drawing down a portfolio — it offers a structural source of cash flow tied to the Nasdaq-100 without requiring the index to rise. For growth-oriented investors, it can serve as a yield-enhancement sleeve within a broader tech allocation, generating income that partially offsets drawdowns during corrective periods and can be reinvested or used to rebalance into lagging parts of the market.

With approximately $234 million in AUM as of mid-June 2026 — nearly double its mid-April level — and listing on the Cboe since its September 2025 inception, TDAQ has crossed the size threshold where institutional and advisor allocators begin to consider new strategies. (Robinhood) The TappAlpha platform as a whole crossed $500 million in AUM in May 2026, doubling in four months. (GlobeNewswire) The fund’s three-holding structure — overwhelmingly QQQM with a small cash position and the daily options book — keeps the strategy transparent and explainable, which matters more in a regime where the underlying drivers of return are themselves complex.

The Bigger Picture

The Federal Reserve told the market today, with the clearest signal it has sent all year, that it does not intend to deliver the rate cuts the market spent twelve months pricing in. Goldman now projects the first cut eighteen months out. Inflation is running at 4.2%. The Nasdaq-100 VIX is at 26.95. The volatility risk premium is one of the few structural inefficiencies left at scale in the listed-product universe — and it is currently richest in tech.

The investors who navigate this environment most effectively are not the ones waiting for the Fed to come back. They are the ones who recognize that a hawkish Fed, in a 4.2% inflation regime, with concentrated tech-vol pricing, is not the absence of an income opportunity. It is the structural condition that makes the opportunity possible.

A daily 0DTE covered call strategy on the Nasdaq-100 does not require you to be right about when the Fed cuts, whether AI capex pays off, or how the next Iran-related escalation resolves. It requires only that you are willing to trade some upside for a consistent income stream — and that volatility, the very thing the Fed’s posture just guaranteed will stick around, keeps doing its job.

The Fed just told you there are no rate cuts coming. With TDAQ, you don’t need them to.

Disclosure:

This content is sponsored by TappAlpha. The Lead-Lag Report has been compensated for the publication of this material. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of TappAlpha or its affiliates.

This material is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any securities, including TDAQ.

The fund currently expects, but does not guarantee, to make distributions on a monthly basis. Distributions may exceed the fund’s income and gains for the taxable year. Distributions in excess of the fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits will be treated as a return of capital.

Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the ETFs identified on this site. This and other important information about the Fund are contained in the prospectus, which can be obtained on this site or by calling (844) 403-2888. The prospectus should be read carefully before investing.

Please click here for the prospectus:

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/659c04f60051914529d01524/69a72d03b4013 4867ab95421_TappAlpha%20Prospectus%204.30.2025%2C%20%20sticker%2020 26.03.02.pdf

The performance data quoted represents past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when sold or redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost and current performance may be lower or higher than the performance quoted. Performance current to the most recent month-end can be obtained above. Returns less than one year are not annualized.

Short term performance, in particular, is not a good indication of the fund’s future performance, and an investment should not be made based solely on returns. The Fund does not have a track record of reporting to investors or widely available research coverage which may result in price volatility.

Market performance is the price at which shares in the ETF can be bought or sold on the exchanges during trading hours, while the net asset value (NAV) represents the value of each share’s portion of the fund’s underlying assets and cash at the end of the trading day.

Click here for standardized performance: https://www.tappalphafunds.com/etfs/tdaq

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. The Fund’s shares will change in value, and you could lose money by investing in the Fund. The Fund may not achieve its investment objectives. The Fund invests in options contracts that are based on the value of the Index. This subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it owned shares of companies that comprised the Index, even though it does not own shares of companies in the Index. The Fund will have exposure to declines in the Index. The Fund is subject to potential losses if the Index loses value, which may not be offset by income received by the Fund. By virtue of the Fund’s investments in options contracts that are based on the value of the Index, the Fund may also be subject to an indirect investment risk, an index trading risk & a Nasdaq 100 Index Risk.

The Nasdaq-100® Index is a widely recognized benchmark index that tracks the performance of 100 of the largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market, including NDX and XND options. These companies represent a broad range of industries, with a notable concentration in technology-related sectors. The Index is market-capitalization weighted and includes companies across sectors such as information technology, consumer discretionary, communication services, healthcare, and industrials. As of December 31, 2023, the five largest sectors in the Index were information technology, consumer discretionary, communication services, healthcare, and industrials. The composition of the Index can change over time due to market capitalization shifts, periodic rebalancing, and company eligibility changes.

Regarding volatility, the Nasdaq-100® Index, like all market indices, has experienced periods of significant daily price movements. Its higher concentration in growth-oriented and technology-related companies can contribute to greater short-term volatility compared to more diversified indices. Despite these fluctuations, the Index has demonstrated strong long-term performance over its history.

Due to the short time until their expiration, 0DTE options are more sensitive to sudden price movements and market volatility than options with more time until expiration. Because of this, the timing of trades utilizing 0DTE options becomes more critical. Even a slight delay in the execution of 0DTE trades can significantly impact the outcome of the trade. 0DTE options may also suffer from low liquidity, making it more difficult for the Fund to enter into its positions each morning at desired prices. The bid-ask spreads on 0DTE options can be wider than with traditional options, increasing the Fund’s transaction costs and negatively affecting its returns. These risks may negatively impact the performance of the fund.

As of the date of this prospectus, the Fund has no operating history and currently has fewer assets than larger funds. Like other new funds, large inflows and outflows may impact the Fund’s market exposure for limited periods of time. This impact may be positive or negative, depending on the direction of market movement during the period affected.

Distributor: Foreside Fund Services, LLC, Member FINRA.

Definitions

The following plain-language definitions are provided for terms used above. They are general descriptions and are not part of the Fund’s offering documents.

FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) — The Federal Reserve committee that sets U.S. monetary policy, including the target federal funds rate. It meets roughly eight times a year.

Dot plot — A chart released with the FOMC’s quarterly Summary of Economic Projections showing each policymaker’s expectation for the future path of the federal funds rate.

Hawkish — A monetary-policy stance that favors higher interest rates, or fewer rate cuts, to contain inflation. Its opposite, “dovish,” favors lower rates to support growth.

0DTE (zero-days-to-expiration) options — Options contracts that expire on the same trading day they are written. Because they expire within hours, they carry the fastest rate of time decay and are highly sensitive to intraday price movements.

Covered call — An options strategy in which call options are sold against an underlying holding the seller owns. The seller collects premium income in exchange for capping gains above the option’s strike price.

Theta decay — The decline in an option’s time value as it approaches expiration. Option sellers seek to capture this decay, which is fastest in the final day of an option’s life.

VIX / Nasdaq-100 VIX — Market-based gauges of expected near-term volatility derived from index option prices. The VIX reflects expected S&P 500 volatility; the Nasdaq-100 VIX (VXN) reflects expected Nasdaq-100 volatility.

AI capex (artificial-intelligence capital expenditure) — Large, ongoing spending by major technology companies on data centers, chips, and related infrastructure to build AI capabilities. Uncertainty about the returns on this spending is a key driver of tech-sector volatility.

Blended basis (earnings) — An earnings-growth figure that combines actual reported results for companies that have already reported with estimates for those that have not yet reported.

QQQM — The Invesco NASDAQ-100 ETF, which seeks to track the Nasdaq-100 Index. It is the underlying equity holding of TDAQ.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is a sponsored article for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the article or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in this article are the sole opinion of TappAlpha and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the discussion. The content in this writing is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any information or other material as investment, financial, tax, or other advice. A participant may have taken or recommended any investment position discussed, but may close such position or alter its recommendation at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this article constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other

financial instruments in any jurisdiction. Please consult your own investment or financial advisor for advice related to all investment decisions.

Footnotes / Sources:

1. Federal Reserve FOMC, “Federal Reserve issues FOMC statement,” June 17, 2026.

2. CNBC, “Fed holds rates steady, pares down statement to remove cutting bias,” June 17, 2026.

3. MEXC / Goldman Sachs Research, “Goldman Sachs Research now projects no Federal Reserve rate cuts in 2026,” June 2026.

4. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), CBOE Volatility Index (VIXCLS), observation for June 16, 2026.

5. YCharts, NASDAQ-100 VIX (I:NASDAQ10), observation for June 16, 2026.

6. Multpl, S&P 500 Dividend Yield by Month, June 2026.

7. Morningstar / Dow Jones, “10-Year Treasury Yield Falls to 4.427%,” June 16, 2026.

8. Cboe Global Markets, “The State of the Options Industry: 2025.”

9. TappAlpha, TDAQ Fund Page, June 16, 2026.

10. Robinhood, TDAQ AUM data, June 16, 2026.

11. TappAlpha / GlobeNewswire, “Growth + Income Emerges as a Category: TappAlpha Crosses $500M AUM,” May 12, 2026.

12. FactSet, “Earnings Insight,” May 21, 2026 — Q1 2026 blended growth 28.4%.

13. CNBC, “Consumer prices rose 4.2% in May, higher than expected on energy and shelter,” June 10, 2026.

14. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index – May 2026,” June 10, 2026.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is a sponsored article for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the article or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in this article are the sole opinion of TappAlpha and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the discussion. The content in this writing is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any information or other material as investment, financial, tax, or other advice. A participant may have taken or recommended any investment position discussed, but may close such position or alter its recommendation at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this article constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in any jurisdiction. Please consult your own investment or financial advisor for advice related to all investment decisions.

Just ten companies now command close to 40% of the index — the most top-heavy the U.S. equity market has been in over fifty years.

That is the index you own. Whether or not you meant to.

For advisors holding S&P 500 exposure for income-oriented clients, the math is uncomfortable. You are paid in price appreciation (when it comes), and the dividend yield on the broad index is roughly 1%. That is the deal.

TSPY rewrites the deal.

TSPY (TappAlpha S&P 500 Growth and Daily Income ETF) writes a daily call overlay on top of S&P 500 exposure, designed to convert intraday volatility into distributable income on a daily reset cadence. When concentration drives wider intraday ranges — as it has every time mega-cap earnings or AI-capex headlines hit — TSPY’s daily overlay is positioned to monetize that movement rather than simply ride it.

For advisors asking: “How do I keep clients in S&P 500 exposure while the index sits at record concentration, without telling them to stomach 1.3% yield and 40% tech beta?” — TSPY is the income overlay built for exactly that question.

The performance data quoted represents past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Learn more at tappalpha.com.

____________________________________________________________

Disclosures

Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the ETFs identified on this site. This and other important information about the Fund are contained in the prospectus, which can be obtained at tappalphafunds.com or by calling (844) 403-2888. The prospectus should be read carefully before investing.

Investing in securities involves risk, including the potential loss of principal.

The principal risks affecting shareholders’ investments in the Fund including the risks of the investment strategies of the Index are set forth below. An investment in the Fund is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by the FDIC or any government agency. The Fund’s Shares will change in value, and you could lose money by investing in the Fund. The Fund may not achieve its investment objectives.

ETFs are subject to additional risks that do not apply to conventional mutual funds, including the risks that the market price of an ETF’s shares may trade at a premium or discount to its net asset value, an active secondary trading market may not develop or be maintained, or trading may be halted by the exchange in which they trade, which may impact a Fund’s ability to sell its shares. Shares of any ETF are bought and sold at market price (not NAV) and are not individually redeemed from the Fund. Brokerage commissions will reduce returns.

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. The Fund’s shares will change in value, and you could lose money by investing in the Fund. The Fund may not achieve its investment objectives. The Fund invests in options contracts that are based on the value of the Index, including SPX and XSP options. This subjects the Fund to certain of the same risks as if it owned shares of companies that comprised the Index, even though it does not own shares of companies in the Index. The Fund will have exposure to declines in the Index. The Fund is subject to potential losses if the Index loses value, which may not be offset by income received by the Fund. By virtue of the Fund’s investments in options contracts that are based on the value of the Index, the Fund may also be subject to an indirect investment risk, an index trading risk & an S&P 500 Index Risk.

To the extent that the Fund invests in other ETFs or investment companies, the value of an investment in the Fund is based on the performance of the underlying funds in which the Fund invests and the allocation of its assets among those ETFs or investment companies. The Fund may incur high portfolio turnover to manage the Fund’s investment exposure. The Fund is classified as “non-diversified” under the 1940 Act. As a result, the Fund is only limited as to the percentage of its assets which may be invested in the securities of any one issuer by the diversification requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). A decline in the value of an investment in a single issuer could cause a Fund’s overall value to decline to a greater degree than if the Fund held a more diversified portfolio. For more information about the risks of investing in this Fund, please see the prospectus.

The SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust. The SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust seeks to provide investment results that, before expenses, correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the S&P 500® Index (the “Index”).

The S&P 500® Index. The S&P 500® Index is a widely recognized benchmark index that tracks the performance of 500 of the largest U.S.-based companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. These companies represent approximately 80% of the total U.S. equities market by capitalization, making it a large-cap index. The S&P 500® Index includes 500 selected companies, all of which are listed on national stock exchanges and spans a broad range of major sectors. The five largest sectors in the Index as of December 29, 2023 were information technology, financials, healthcare, consumer discretionary and industrials. This distribution can vary over time as the market value of these sectors change. Regarding volatility, the S&P 500® Index, like all market indices, has experienced periods of significant daily price movements. However, the specific degree of volatility can vary and is subject to change based on overall market conditions. Despite these periods of volatility, the Index has shown long-term growth over its history.

Due to the short time until their expiration, 0DTE options are more sensitive to sudden price movements and market volatility than options with more time until expiration. Because of this, the timing of trades utilizing 0DTE options becomes more critical. Even a slight delay in the execution of 0DTE trades can significantly impact the outcome of the trade. 0DTE options may also suffer from low liquidity, making it more difficult for the Fund to enter into its positions each morning at desired prices. The bid-ask spreads on 0DTE options can be wider than with traditional options, increasing the Fund’s transaction costs and negatively affecting its returns. These risks may negatively impact the performance of the fund.

The Fund may incur high portfolio turnover to manage the Fund’s investment exposure. Additionally, active market trading of the Fund’s Shares may cause more frequent creation or redemption activities that could, in certain circumstances, increase the number of portfolio transactions. High levels of portfolio transactions increase brokerage and other transaction costs and may result in increased taxable capital gains. Each of these factors could have a negative impact on the performance of the Fund.

Passive Strategy/Index Risk. SPY and VOO are not actively managed. Rather, SPY and VOO attempt to track the performance of an unmanaged index of securities. This differs from an actively managed fund, which typically seeks to outperform a benchmark index. As a result, SPY and VOO will hold constituent securities of the Index regardless of the current or projected performance of a specific security or a particular industry or market sector.

Index Tracking Risk. While SPY and VOO are intended to track the performance of the S&P 500® Index (the “Index”) as closely as possible (i.e., to achieve a high degree of correlation with the Index), SPY and VOO’s return may not match or achieve a high degree of correlation with the return of the Index due to expenses and transaction costs incurred in adjusting the Portfolio.

Non-Diversification Risk. The Fund is classified as “non-diversified” under the 1940 Act. As a result, the Fund is only limited as to the percentage of its assets which may be invested in the securities of any one issuer by the diversification requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). A decline in the value of an investment in a single issuer could cause a Fund’s overall value to decline to a greater degree than if the Fund held a more diversified portfolio. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by entering into one or more options contracts. The Fund may invest a relatively high percentage of its assets in a limited number of issuers and/or in options contracts with a single counterparty or a few counterparties. As a result, the Fund may experience increased volatility and be more susceptible to a single economic or regulatory occurrence affecting one or more of these issuers and/or counterparties.

You could lose money by investing in the Fund and the Fund may not achieve its investment objectives.

____________________________________________________________

Definitions

Daily call overlay (covered call) — An options strategy in which call options are written (sold) against an underlying holding. The seller collects option premium as income in exchange for capping gains above the option’s strike price. A “daily” overlay writes and resets these options each trading day.

AI-capex (artificial-intelligence capital expenditure) — Large, ongoing spending by major technology companies on data centers, semiconductors, and related infrastructure to build AI capabilities. Uncertainty over the returns on this spending is a notable driver of mega-cap and index volatility.

Tech beta — A measure of how much a portfolio moves relative to the technology segment of the market. A higher figure indicates greater sensitivity to moves in large technology stocks.

Dividend yield — A stock’s or index’s annual dividends expressed as a percentage of its price.

DISCLAIMER — PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is being paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of TappAlpha. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided are the sole opinion of TappAlpha and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided.

The Dollar’s Structural Bid Is Fading

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The Dollar Index has round-tripped from a January 2026 cycle low of 96.99 back to 52-week-high territory at 100.72-101.19 by June-July 2026, undercutting the simple narrative that dollar confidence is collapsing.

• Beneath that recovery, foreign official holdings of Treasuries have not kept pace: foreign holders sold $138.4 billion in March 2026, the largest one-month drawdown since September 2022, and China’s holdings fell to an 18-year low of roughly $651 billion.

• Since 2023, foreign private investors have added $1.3 trillion to Treasury holdings while the official sector added only $0.1 trillion — private capital, not central banks, is now the marginal buyer of US government debt.

• Central banks bought an estimated 1,237 tonnes of gold in 2025 and are still running near a 350-tonne annualized pace in 2026, roughly 2.5 times the 2010-2021 average, even as gold prices fell about 21% from their February 2026 peak.

• The USD share of allocated global FX reserves sits at 57.1% in Q1 2026, up slightly from 56.4% in Q4 2025 but still near a 25-year low — a slow structural bleed, not the acute funding stress visible in the 2020 or 2022 crises.

The easy version of the dollar story died sometime around April. Back then the index had broken below 99, gold was making new highs alongside it, and the narrative wrote itself: confidence in the dollar was cracking, and the money was voting with its feet into hard assets. That story required the dollar to keep falling. It did not.

The Dollar Index bottomed at 96.99 in January 2026 and has since round-tripped almost the entire move, closing at 101.19 in June and 100.72 in July — 52-week-high territory.^[1] Kevin Warsh’s confirmation as Federal Reserve Chair in the spring pared back rate-cut expectations and gave the dollar a floor. Anyone still running the simple version of the confidence-crack thesis — falling dollar, rising gold, straight line to crisis — has to explain why the index is back near a year high.

But a recovering index price is not the same thing as a recovering structural bid. The question worth asking is not where the exchange rate sits this week. It is who is still showing up to fund $9-plus trillion of foreign-held Treasury debt, and on what terms.

Gold and the Dollar Have Stopped Trading as Mirror Images

The first crack in the simple narrative is the correlation itself. Gold and the dollar are supposed to move in opposite directions — dollar weakness is the classic driver of gold strength. That relationship held cleanly from mid-2025 through February 2026, when gold-backed GLD shares rose from roughly $303 to a peak of $483.75 as the dollar sold off.^[2] Since February, gold has fallen about 21%, to $382.13 in July, while the dollar has risen. Both assets moved the same direction for four straight months. That is not what a clean confidence-crisis trade looks like.

There are two ways to read the decoupling. One is that the dollar-confidence story was overstated to begin with, and the gold rally was a momentum and positioning trade that is now unwinding on its own. The other is that the two assets are now responding to different inputs — the dollar to the Fed’s reaction function and rate-cut repricing under Warsh, gold to central bank reserve diversification that operates on a multi-year horizon and does not care about a single quarter’s exchange rate print. The data on official-sector behavior favors the second read.

The Marginal Buyer of Treasuries Has Already Changed

Total foreign holdings of US Treasuries hit a record $9.487 trillion in February 2026, then fell to $9.25 trillion in March — a $138.4 billion drop, the largest single-month decline since September 2022.^[3] Japan’s holdings fell from $1.239 trillion to $1.192 trillion. China’s fell to $652.3 billion, the lowest level since September 2008 and down more than 14% since the start of 2025.^[4] April brought a partial rebound — foreigners bought a net $103 billion in US securities and total holdings rose back to $9.353 trillion — but China’s position kept drifting lower, to roughly $651 billion.^[5]

The headline aggregate obscures the more important compositional shift. Treasury’s own Borrowing Advisory Committee data shows that since 2023, foreign private investors have increased their Treasury holdings by $1.3 trillion, while the foreign official sector — central banks and sovereign reserve managers — added only $0.1 trillion over the same period.^[6] As of the most recent full-year data, the official sector holds 41.9% of foreign-held Treasuries and the private sector holds 58.1%, a split that has been shifting toward private ownership since at least 2015, when Treasuries were 35% of foreign-held US securities versus 22% today.^[7]

This matters because private capital and official capital do not behave the same way under stress. Central bank reserve managers hold Treasuries as a policy instrument — for exchange rate management, crisis reserves, and diplomatic signaling — and have historically been a stable, price-insensitive source of demand. Private investors, whether hedge funds, insurers, or basis traders, hold Treasuries as a return-seeking position and will rotate out the moment the carry trade or the relative-value arbitrage stops working. A funding structure that depends more on private, return-chasing capital and less on official, policy-driven capital is a more fragile funding structure, even if the headline total looks stable.

Central Banks Are Still Buying Gold, Just More Quietly

If official reserve managers are stepping back from Treasuries, the obvious question is where that capital is going instead. Gold is the clearest answer, even though the price says otherwise for now. Central banks purchased an estimated 1,237 tonnes of gold in 2025, extending a buying pace that has run at roughly double the 2010-2021 average of 473 tonnes per year since Russia’s reserves were frozen in 2022.^[8] The People’s Bank of China alone has added to its reserves for 20 consecutive months, a streak that reached roughly 2,346 tonnes in cumulative official holdings, with a further 14.93 tonnes purchased in June 2026 alone.^[9] World Gold Council data puts the trailing 36-month average purchase pace at approximately 29 tonnes per month, which annualizes to a run-rate in the high 300s of tonnes for 2026 — down from the 2022-2025 peak years but still structurally elevated versus the pre-2022 baseline.^[10]

The price pullback since February complicates the narrative without breaking it. Central banks buy gold on a multi-year reserve-diversification horizon, not a trading horizon, and continuing to add tonnage into a 21% price correction is arguably a stronger signal of conviction than buying into new highs would have been. The gold allocation decision and the Treasury reduction decision appear to be two sides of the same reserve-composition rebalancing, executed at different speeds and with different sensitivity to near-term price action.

Two Speeds of Confidence: Plumbing Versus Allocation

A genuine dollar funding crisis would show up first in the plumbing — in Federal Reserve central bank liquidity swap usage, the emergency facility that keeps offshore dollar funding markets from seizing when foreign banks cannot source dollars through normal channels. During the March 2020 COVID shock, swap line balances peaked near $449 billion. During the September 2022 UK gilt crisis, usage rose to roughly $24 billion. During this spring’s brief Iran-related market stress, swap balances rose to only about $5.2 billion before fading. As of the most recent H.4.1 release, swap line usage sits at approximately $250 million — effectively dormant.^[11]

Compare that to the allocation data. The IMF’s COFER series shows the US dollar’s share of allocated global FX reserves at 57.13% in the first quarter of 2026, a modest increase from 56.42% in the fourth quarter of 2025 — an uptick the IMF attributes mostly to valuation effects rather than active reserve reallocation.^[12] That share is still down from 65.4% at the 2016 peak and 71% in 1999, when the euro did not yet exist as a reserve alternative.^[13]

Reading the two panels together: there is no acute funding stress in the system that would force a disorderly dollar repricing this quarter. But there is a slow, multi-year bleed in the dollar’s structural role as the reserve currency of choice, running in parallel with a shift in who is willing to fund it. Slow bleeds are easier to ignore than crises, which is exactly why they tend to run longer before anyone reprices around them.

What This Is Not

It is worth being precise about what the data does not show. BRICS-aligned payment infrastructure — BRICS Pay, the mBridge central bank digital currency corridor, and the proposed gold-linked settlement unit sometimes called “The Unit” — continues to generate headlines, but none of it operates at a scale that displaces dollar-denominated trade settlement today. mBridge’s cumulative transaction volume remains in the tens of billions of dollars, a rounding error against the roughly $7 trillion in daily global FX turnover in which the dollar is on one side of about 88% of trades.^[14] The de-dollarization thesis in its maximalist form — an imminent multipolar reserve system displacing the dollar within a few years — is not supported by the swap-line data, the COFER pace, or the actual settlement volumes on alternative rails.

What the data does support is narrower and, in some ways, more durable: a gradual, multi-year reallocation of official reserve portfolios away from Treasuries and toward gold, running alongside a compositional shift in who funds US government debt from official to private hands. That is a trend that has been running since at least 2015 and shows no sign of reversing, even as the headline exchange rate does something else entirely in any given quarter.

The mistake in April was treating the exchange rate and the gold price as the whole story. The mistake now would be treating their recent decoupling as evidence the confidence-erosion thesis was wrong. The exchange rate is priced by the marginal trader on any given day, positioned around Fed policy and rate differentials. The reserve composition is priced by central banks on a multi-year horizon, and it has kept moving in one direction through both the dollar’s fall and its recovery.

For positioning purposes, the distinction is the whole exercise. A dollar-confidence thesis expressed through a short-dollar, long-gold trade is a bet on near-term price action that has already round-tripped once this year and could easily do so again. A dollar-confidence thesis expressed through exposure to the assets and jurisdictions benefiting from the multi-year reserve reallocation — gold and gold-adjacent exposure, non-dollar reserve-currency proxies, and duration-light Treasury alternatives — is a bet on a trend that has persisted through four distinct exchange-rate regimes over the past eighteen months without interruption.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] Dollar Index (DX-Y.NYB) monthly close history, July 2025-July 2026. Cycle low 96.99 (Jan 2026); 101.19 (Jun 2026); 100.72 (Jul 2026).

[2] SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) monthly close history, July 2025-July 2026. Peak $483.75 (Feb 2026); $382.13 (Jul 2026), approximately -21% from peak.

[3] Bloomberg, “Foreign Holdings of US Treasuries Fell in March Amid Bill Sales,” May 18, 2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-18/foreign-holdings-of-us-treasuries-fell-in-march-amid-bill-sales

[4] Reuters, “Japan, China Lead Declines in Foreign Holdings of Treasuries, March Data Shows,” May 18, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/japan-china-lead-declines-foreign-holdings-treasuries-march-data-shows-2026-05-18/ ; CNBC, “Central Banks Offload US Treasuries, China Holdings at 18-Year Low,” May 19, 2026. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/19/central-banks-offload-us-treasuries-china-holdings-at-18-year-low.html

[5] Reuters, “Foreigners Bought $103 Billion in US Securities in April, Treasury Holdings Rise,” June 18, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/foreigners-bought-103-billion-us-securities-april-treasury-holdings-rise-2026-06-18/

[6] US Department of the Treasury, Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee (TBAC) Q1 2026 Charge/Presentation. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/221/TBACCharge2Q12026.pdf

[7] Congressional Research Service, “Foreign Holdings of Federal Debt,” updated April 22, 2026 (data as of Dec 2025: official 41.9% / private 58.1% of $9.2T foreign-held Treasuries). https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2026-04-22_RS22331_782b7a44e9cbb478e1756860516a46ffa4d2ecf1.html ; Bipartisan Policy Center, “Foreign Investors Hold a Shrinking Share of US Debt,” updated May 4, 2026. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/foreign-investors-hold-a-shrinking-share-of-u-s-debt/

[8] World Gold Council, Gold Demand Trends, full-year 2025 and prior editions. Central bank net purchases: 2010-2021 average approximately 473 tonnes/year; 2022 1,082t; 2023 1,037t; 2024 1,045t; 2025 approximately 1,237t.

[9] People’s Bank of China reserve data via Reuters and World Gold Council trackers; 20 consecutive months of reported gold reserve additions through mid-2026; June 2026 addition of 14.93 tonnes; cumulative official holdings approximately 2,346 tonnes.

[10] World Gold Council, Gold Demand Trends, trailing 36-month average monthly central bank purchase pace approximately 29 tonnes.

[11] Federal Reserve H.4.1 statistical release, “Factors Affecting Reserve Balances,” July 2026 (central bank liquidity swap line balances). Historical peaks: March 2020 approximately $449B; September 2022 approximately $24B; March 2026 approximately $5.2B. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/

[12] International Monetary Fund, Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER), Q1 2026 data release. USD share 57.13% (Q1 2026) vs 56.42% (Q4 2025). https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2026/06/30/pr26-cofer-q1-2026

[13] IMF COFER historical series: USD share 71.0% (1999), 65.4% (2016 peak).

[14] Bank for International Settlements, Triennial Central Bank Survey of FX turnover (dollar on one side of approximately 88% of trades); mBridge Project cumulative settlement volume disclosures via BIS Innovation Hub and Reuters/Rio Times reporting on BRICS payment infrastructure, 2026.

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

TODAY at 1:00 PM ET. 60 minutes. Matt Tuttle, Porter Stansberry, and Frances Newton. CE credit approved.

If you have not registered yet, the link is below.

The recording goes to registered attendees only.

What you will get on the call:

● The permanent portfolio framework walked through end to end, conceptually

● Where Browne’s original assumptions hold up and where they break

● How to think about forecast-independent allocation in the current regime

● Live Q and A with Matt, Porter and Frances

● CE credit submission for anyone holding the CFP, CIMA, or equivalent designation

Register now

DISCLAIMER — PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is being paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of Tuttle Capital. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided are the sole opinion of Tuttle Capital and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided.

The Warsh Regime Meets Day 130

Key Highlights

· WTI’s +5.2% jump into Wednesday broke the week-long “Hormuz reopening” story precisely on Day 130, validated in real time by tanker strikes and a revoked U.S. Iranian-oil license.

· Warsh’s refusal to give forward guidance has left the bond market to do the Fed’s work: 2s10s steepened toward roughly 78–80bp as September-hike odds ran a wide 55–70% band — near 70% right after Warsh’s July 1 Sintra remarks (Fed funds futures, Jul 2), then compressing to ~55% by Tuesday’s payrolls (CME FedWatch, Jul 7).

· Samsung’s 19-fold profit guide became a sell trigger, not a buy signal — KOSPI’s Tuesday circuit breaker (its sixth of 2026) dragged the SOX down about 5% even as the VIX barely twitched.

Let me lead with the contradiction that defines this week: the Federal Reserve that promised to stop telling you what comes next just watched a supply-side shock detonate on its doorstep, and the market now has to price two regimes at once. On Jul 2 we put “The Warsh Regime” on the record — a chair who has pledged fewer meetings, less dot-plot theater, and no hand-holding forward guidance. The wager underneath that thesis was always that a Fed which refuses to guide forces the bond market to guide itself. This week the wager collided with the one variable no central banker controls: a barrel of oil moving on a projectile fired near the Strait of Hormuz. WTI’s better-than-5% jump into Wednesday, matching Tuesday’s tanker strikes and the U.S. Treasury’s revocation of the Iranian-oil license, is not a separate story from the rate path. It is the Warsh regime playing out in real time.

Start with the U.S. tape, because the surface calm is doing a lot of lying. Monday was an AI-and-comms melt-up: the S&P 500 rose 0.72% to 7,537.43, the Nasdaq Composite added 1.12% to 26,121.16, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reclaimed the 53,000 level to close at 53,055.91, its 21st record close of the year, per the AP’s closing wire and the WSJ live coverage. I want to be precise about that Dow print — it reclaimed and extended a record run that first crossed 50,000 back in February, not some virgin milestone; the index has been reclaiming round numbers all year. Chart 1 tells the real story of 2026 in one frame: the Russell 2000, up 21.3% year to date, remains the leadership index, while the PHLX Semiconductor Index has been the manic-depressive of the group — the widest swings, the highest highs, and now the sharpest air pockets.

Because by Tuesday the melt-up curdled. The S&P slipped 0.4% to 7,503.85 and the Nasdaq gave back 1.2% to 25,818.69, but the index-level moves undersell the damage underneath. The SOX fell roughly 5% on the session, leaving it about 15% below the peak it set the prior Tuesday, with AMD off 6.5%, Intel down 9.7%, and Micron off 4.7% on AP’s wire. The trigger was not a miss — it was a beat. Samsung guided a roughly 19-fold surge in Q2 operating profit and its Seoul shares fell nearly 7% anyway, exporting the selloff straight into U.S. chip names. That is the tell: when a 19-fold profit guide becomes the reason to sell, the market is no longer trading earnings, it is trading the durability of the AI-capex cycle itself. Monday’s breadth agreed — decliners beat advancers 1.3-to-1 even as the index rose, with defensives like Health Care and Utilities leading while XLK fell.

And yet the VIX would not confirm any of it, closing 15.60 Tuesday against 15.57 Monday — a rounding error while the most important sector in the market convulsed. In my view that gap between a violent single-sector unwind and a comatose volatility complex is the divergence between price and perceived risk that always precedes a repricing. Either the options market is complacent about a genuine AI-durability reset, or the damage is narrow enough — a handful of megacap and semis names — that it isn’t yet systemic. I don’t think you get to stay agnostic on that question for long. Underneath, the ISM Services PMI printed 54.0 for June, a 24th straight month of expansion, and the funds rate sat at 3.50%–3.75% after the June hold. This is not a market with a growth problem. It is a market with a certainty problem, and the man who removed the certainty did so on purpose.

(Continued for paid subscribers)

Cross the oceans and the same fatigue shows up in the developed world, dressed as new records. Chart 2 normalizes the majors to Jan 2, and the Nikkei 225 is the standout — a parabola that touched all-time highs above 70,000 the prior week before this week’s reversal. On Tuesday the Nikkei fell 2.12% to 68,256.96, tracking the Korean contagion rather than any domestic catalyst. Europe’s picture is subtler: the DAX set an intraday record near 25,900 on Monday before sliding 1.24% to 25,497.83 Tuesday, and the Stoxx 600 sat essentially flat at 650.84, one point below its Jul 3 closing record. Verified against primary exchange data, these are records losing their leadership rather than extending it — Siemens Energy fell 5.5% on an AI-equipment downgrade while defense names like Saab climbed on a NATO-summit bid.

The yen is the other developed-market tell, and here I want to correct the reflex. USD/JPY closed Tuesday at 161.89, and the cycle low remains 162.83–162.84 set Jun 30 — the pair did not tag 165 this week, despite the intervention chatter. The entire week’s yen strength tracked dollar softness, not Tokyo action; the Ministry of Finance has disclosed no July intervention, and its last confirmed window closed Jun 26. OCBC put it bluntly to Reuters: verbal warnings and even outright intervention are unlikely to reverse the pair without a shift in underlying fundamentals, and large pools are buying short-dated dollar puts as insurance rather than de-risking their dollar longs. The dollar index itself, verified via yfinance, closed at 101.087, down 0.27% on the week. The market is treating MoF as a volatility event to hedge, not a directional threat — borrowed time for anyone short the dollar on intervention hopes alone.

Emerging markets is where the AI-durability question turned violent. Chart 3 shows the KOSPI’s staggering 2026 — up roughly 82% year to date even after this week — and its equally staggering break. Tuesday the KOSPI plunged 4.9% to 7,656.31 after falling as much as 8.2% intraday, triggering its second circuit breaker in two trading sessions and the sixth of 2026. Samsung’s blowout-guide-turned-selloff and LG Energy Solution’s warning of a 77% profit drop did the damage; Taiwan’s TAIEX fell 1.27% and Japan’s Kioxia dropped over 10% in sympathy. This is the same chip-durability skepticism that hit the SOX, only levered up by record Korean retail margin debt near 29.7 trillion won.

But the contrarian read is in the currency. The won firmed even as equities cratered, which tells you this was a sector-specific positioning shakeout in semiconductors, not capital flight from Korea. India confirmed the pattern in miniature — the Nifty 50 slipped 0.13% to 24,398.70 and the Sensex eased 0.13% to 78,180.72 as weak Asian cues offset a firm domestic open, with the RBI repo rate unchanged at 5.25%. China stayed the marquee non-event: MSCI China sits at roughly -14.65% year to date, essentially flat on the week, even as the PBoC injected a full trillion yuan via reverse repo on Jul 6. When a trillion-yuan liquidity add fails to move onshore equities, the “China divergence” story isn’t widening — it’s stalling. Note too that the MSCI EM benchmark reads +23.85% year to date on the Jun 30 USD-net factsheet, below the +26.35% our own baseline carried; the discrepancy is a return-series artifact worth standardizing, not a real move.

Which brings us to the asset class quietly screaming the whole thesis: oil. Chart 4 normalizes the dollar, yen, gold, Bitcoin, and Brent, and the crude line is the one that just changed direction. Front-month September Brent settled $71.99 Monday and NYMEX August WTI settled $68.55; by Tuesday, after UKMTO reported three tankers struck near Hormuz and the Treasury revoked the Iranian-oil license with a Jul 17 wind-down, Brent gained to $72.75 and WTI to $69.28 intraday, with the broader move topping 5% into Wednesday. This landed on Day 130 of the Hormuz closure — the exact checkpoint we flagged in the Jul 2 edition. Every headline from Jul 1 through Jul 6 treated the strait as normalizing, with OPEC+ adding 188,000 bpd for August into an emerging surplus. The reopening narrative broke in real time, on the day we said to watch.

Gold, meanwhile, refuses to cooperate with either bull or bear. COMEX August futures eased 0.4% to $4,149.90 Tuesday after touching $4,186.80 Monday — a bounce off the Jun 24 quarter-low that leaves the metal well below its January all-time settlement near $5,318, roughly a 22% drawdown depending on the contract you cite. Here is the problem for the bounce: real 10-year TIPS yields rose from 2.25% to 2.26% even as nominal gold rallied, the opposite of the textbook relationship. The market is missing that gold’s move looks like short-covering into Wednesday’s FOMC minutes rather than genuine re-accumulation. Bitcoin held near $64,000, down roughly 28–30% on the year, and Ether languished near $1,800 — neither the inflation hedge nor the risk asset is behaving as advertised. The through-line across all four charts is a market that has lost its anchor because the Fed removed one on purpose, and a supply shock arrived to fill the vacuum.

Here is what I’m watching next week. First, the Jul 14 bank earnings — JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Bank of America kick off Q2 season, and after a quarter of AI-capex euphoria the tell will be loan-loss provisioning and net interest margin guidance, not headline beats. Second, the Jul 15 CPI (per current BLS release calendar) print, the single most important data point for whether the bond market’s self-directed steepening becomes self-fulfilling pressure before Warsh’s Jul 28–29 FOMC. Third, any Fed speaker willing to fill the guidance vacuum — in the Warsh regime, every off-hand remark now carries the weight the dot plot used to. And fourth, the Jul 17 Treasury wind-down deadline on Iranian oil: if Hormuz Day 130 was the break, Day 139 is the enforcement test, and the market will find out whether the risk premium that just returned to crude is a one-day spasm or the start of the supply-side regime the Warsh Fed cannot control.

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Today’s Lead-Lag Report is brought to you by our friends at WisdomTree. Investors often treat growth and value as an either/or decision, chasing what’s working now while hoping they’re positioned for what’s next. WisdomTree has an approach that aims to solve that dilemma: own the characteristics that have historically mattered most. QGRW focuses on companies with strong growth potential backed by quality fundamentals, while WTV targets attractively valued companies with favorable earnings characteristics. Together, they offer a disciplined way to balance growth and value without relying on style timing. Learn more about blending quality and growth here.

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is being paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of WisdomTree, Inc. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided are the sole opinion of WisdomTree Investments, Inc. and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided.

Important information from WisdomTree: Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the Fund before investing. For a prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus containing this and other important information about the fund, call 866.909.9473 or visit WisdomTree.com/investments. Read the prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus carefully before investing.

There are risks involved with investing, including possible loss of principal.

WisdomTree Funds are distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC, in the U.S.

The Quiet Unwind: EEM/XLK/Financials Reclaim Leadership, Defensive Extreme Fades, Fed Watch Looms

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• EEM has outrun the S&P 500 by roughly 16 percentage points over the trailing two years, but the composite number is hiding a rally that is anything but broad.

• South Korea’s EWY is up 152% over the trailing year while China’s FXI is down 11%, India’s INDA is down 10%, and Indonesia’s EIDO is down 33% over the same window.

• The dollar fell 7.4 points on the DXY through 2025 and has since stabilized, ticking back above 100 by July 2026 — the weak-dollar tailwind that powered the original EM re-rating has paused.

• The IMF cut its 2026 emerging-market growth forecast to 3.9% from 4.2% in January, citing the Middle East conflict, even as Brazil and Mexico GDP estimates were revised upward.

• Brazil’s central bank has cut rates for a third straight meeting to 14.25%, while Mexico’s Banxico held unanimously at 6.50% in June after two years of cuts — the EM cutting cycle is now diverging, not moving in unison.

Seven weeks ago I wrote that emerging markets were quietly eating the S&P 500’s lunch while mega-cap tech carried the index to new highs. That thesis has not just held. It has strengthened, on the headline number, to a degree that should make anyone benchmarked to the MSCI EM index feel vindicated.

It should also make them nervous, because the composite number is now concealing more than it reveals.

EEM has gone from 43.63 to 65.88 over the trailing two years, a 51% advance, versus the S&P 500’s 35% gain over the identical window.^[1] Over the trailing twelve months alone, EEM is up approximately 35% against the S&P 500’s roughly 20%.^[2] On the surface this reads as confirmation: emerging markets, structurally underweight in most institutional portfolios, are finally getting their turn. Underneath the surface, the story is narrower and more interesting than that.

One Country Is Carrying the Index

Break the EM basket into its country-level components and the aggregate outperformance stops looking like a regime shift and starts looking like a single, concentrated bet that happens to be large enough to move the benchmark. South Korea’s EWY is up approximately 152% over the trailing year, from 72.56 to 182.71, peaking near 219 in mid-June.^[3] That is not an emerging-market rally. That is a semiconductor and technology rally that happens to be domiciled in an emerging market.

Bloomberg flagged this directly in February, noting that Korea’s equity ranking had climbed past France’s on the back of the same AI infrastructure demand that has powered US mega-cap tech.^[4] Meanwhile Brazil’s EWZ is up about 26%, Mexico’s EWW about 25%, Poland’s EPOL about 24%, and Turkey’s TUR about 19% — solid, unremarkable gains consistent with a normal commodity-and-rate-cut cycle. China’s FXI is down approximately 11% over the same twelve months, India’s INDA down approximately 10%, and Indonesia’s EIDO down approximately 33%, with a fresh low in June.^[5]

This is a dispersion story, not a beta story. An investor who bought the MSCI EM index in July 2025 captured Korea’s semiconductor cycle almost by accident, while simultaneously eating losses in three of the four largest EM economies by market capitalization. The index-level return was excellent. The median country-level experience was not.

That distinction matters for positioning. A stealth bull market that is really a concentrated single-country technology trade behaves very differently — in terms of drawdown risk, correlation to US semiconductors, and sensitivity to a single earnings season — than a genuine broad-based EM re-rating driven by currency, rates, and growth differentials.

The Weak-Dollar Tailwind Has Stalled

The original case for EM leaned heavily on dollar weakness: the DXY fell from 104.88 in July 2024 to 97.14 by mid-2025, a decline that eased financial conditions for dollar-denominated EM debt and made local-currency returns more attractive to unhedged foreign buyers. That decline has not continued. The DXY closed at 101.17 in late June 2026 and 100.72 on July 7, essentially unwinding a third of the 2025 move.^[6]

A dollar that has stopped falling and, if anything, firmed slightly, removes one of the two structural pillars beneath the original EM thesis. The fact that EEM has continued to climb even as the currency tailwind paused is itself informative — it suggests the rally, where it is genuine, is now being driven by idiosyncratic factors (Korean semiconductor demand, Brazilian and Mexican rate relief, commodity strength) rather than a single macro variable. That is a more fragile foundation for a broad-based EM overweight, and a more durable one for the countries and sectors actually generating the returns.

The IMF Cut EM Growth. Not Every Country Got Cut Equally

The IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook, subtitled “Global Economy in the Shadow of War,” cut global growth to 3.1% for 2026 and 3.2% for 2027, down from 3.4% in 2025, and specifically lowered its emerging-market and developing-economy growth forecast to 3.9% for 2026, down from 4.2% in the January update.^[7] The Middle East conflict is the proximate cause, and the damage is concentrated: the Middle East and Central Asia region was cut by a full two points to 1.9% growth, with Qatar, Iraq, and Iran absorbing the sharpest downgrades.^[8]

But the aggregate EM downgrade obscures upward revisions inside it. China’s 2026 growth forecast was revised up to 4.4%. India remains the fastest grower among major economies at 6.5%. Brazil’s forecast moved up to 1.9% and Mexico’s to 1.6% for 2026 and 2.2% for 2027.^[9] The countries actually posting equity gains — Brazil, Mexico — are also the countries whose growth outlook improved. The countries lagging in equity performance — India, and to a lesser extent China — are not seeing their growth outlook cut nearly as much as the war-exposed commodity importers. The growth story and the equity story are not perfectly aligned, which is itself a signal that positioning, not fundamentals alone, is doing some of the work in the country-level dispersion.

The Rate-Cutting Cycle Is No Longer Synchronized

A year ago, the EM central bank story was simple: Brazil, Mexico, India, and Indonesia were all easing while the Federal Reserve sat on its hands, and that policy asymmetry was a clean tailwind for EM local-currency assets. That synchronization has broken down.

Brazil’s central bank cut rates on March 19, 2026, its first cut in two years, and has kept cutting since — a third consecutive 25 basis-point reduction on June 17 brought the Selic rate to 14.25%.^[10] Mexico’s Banxico cut to 6.75% in March, cut again to 6.50% in a split 3-2 vote in May, and then held rates unanimously at 6.50% on June 25-26 — a decision the Wall Street Journal characterized as the end of its easing cycle.^[11]

Brazil still has room to cut given a policy rate near 14%; Mexico has signaled it is done for now. That divergence matters because it means the local-currency debt trade — EMLC currently carries a 30-day SEC yield of 6.16% — is no longer a uniform bet across the asset class.^[12] JPM’s EMBI Global Diversified index returned 14.3% in 2025 with high-yield sovereigns leading at 17.0%, while the local-currency GBI-EM index returned 19.3% in dollar terms — both strong years, both now facing a policy backdrop that is bifurcating rather than moving together.^[13]

Commodities Are the Quiet Support Beam

One thread that has strengthened rather than weakened since the original piece is commodities. Copper is up approximately 18% over the trailing year, and broad commodity baskets are up 22% to 29% depending on composition.^[14] That backdrop disproportionately benefits commodity-exporting EM economies — Brazil most directly — and helps explain why Brazilian equities have participated in the rally even as the growth and currency tailwinds have become more mixed elsewhere in the complex.

Capital flow data adds a further wrinkle. UNCTAD’s 2026 World Investment Report found that foreign direct investment into developing economies actually declined 2% in 2025, to $877 billion, even as global FDI rose 14% to $1.6 trillion — nearly all of the increase went to developed markets.^[15] Inside that developing-economy total, the divergence is stark: Brazil’s FDI rose 42% to its second-highest level on record and India’s surged 73% to $47 billion, while China’s FDI fell for a third consecutive year to $107.5 billion.^[16] Portfolio flows tell a partially different story — the Institute of International Finance recorded $100.5 billion of EM portfolio inflows in January 2026 alone, before slowing sharply to $21.7 billion in February.^[17] Real-economy investment and financial-market flows are not moving in lockstep. Money is chasing the trade faster than the underlying capital formation is following it.

The Other Side

The bull case for treating this as a genuine, durable EM re-rating rather than a Korea-shaped anomaly deserves a fair hearing.

First, EM equities as an asset class remain statistically cheap relative to developed markets even after the run. MSCI’s own research and multiple asset managers have documented that the EM discount to developed-market valuations widened even as EM outperformed on price — meaning multiples expanded off a low enough base that EM has not become expensive in aggregate.^[18] A market that has risen 16% and gotten cheaper relative to its own history, on a relative basis, is a different animal than a market that has risen and become expensive.

Second, the composite EM number, even stripped of Korea, is not negative. Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, and Poland are all producing double-digit gains against a backdrop of easing or stabilizing policy rates and firm commodity prices. A trade concentrated in one country plus a handful of solid performers is not the same as a trade concentrated in one country alone.

Third, global fund flow data through the first half of 2026 shows emerging markets capturing an outsized share of new capital allocation relative to their weight in global benchmarks, with technology-focused EM funds seeing particularly large inflows — consistent with a structural, not purely tactical, re-rating of the asset class by allocators who have been underweight for a decade.^[19] If that flow persists, the current dispersion could resolve through broadening participation rather than a Korea-led reversal.

The dispersion thesis fails if China, India, and Indonesia turn higher over the next two quarters while Korea merely consolidates — that would confirm genuine broadening rather than concentration risk. Watch relative performance among the laggards, not the index level, for the tell.

The Lead-Lag Dynamic: Selection Now Leads Beta

The lead-lag relationship inside emerging markets has changed shape since May. In the first phase of this cycle, being long the EM index versus the S&P 500 was the trade — broad exposure captured a broad tailwind of dollar weakness and synchronized rate cuts. In the current phase, the index-level return is being generated by a much narrower set of exposures, and an investor holding the aggregate is underwriting a Korean technology bet they may not have intended to make, while simultaneously holding real losses in China, India, and Indonesia that the headline number is quietly netting out.

None of this means the EM overweight thesis is wrong. It means the thesis has evolved from a beta call into a selection call, and the managers who are still underweight EM on the belief that the space is monolithic are making a different, and probably worse, mistake than the ones who were underweight a year ago. The asymmetry has shifted from being long or short the asset class to being right or wrong about which three or four countries inside it are actually working.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] Lead-Lag Report market data, EEM and SPY weekly closes. EEM: $43.63 (Jul 5, 2024) to $65.88 (Jul 7, 2026), +51.0%. SPY: $554.64 to $749.00, +35.1%, same window.

[2] Lead-Lag Report market data, EEM and SPY weekly closes. EEM: $48.76 (Jul 3, 2025) to $65.88 (Jul 7, 2026), +35.1%. SPY: $625.34 to $749.00, +19.8%, same window.

[3] Lead-Lag Report market data, EWY (iShares MSCI South Korea ETF) weekly closes. $72.56 (Jul 11, 2025) to $182.71 (Jul 7, 2026), +151.8%; intraweek high $219.20 (Jun 18, 2026).

[4] Bloomberg, “Emerging-Market Rally Builds as Korea Tops France in Stock Ranks,” Feb 25, 2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-25/emerging-market-rally-builds-as-korea-tops-france-in-stock-ranks

[5] Lead-Lag Report market data, country ETF weekly closes, Jul 11, 2025 to Jul 7, 2026: EWZ (Brazil) +25.9%, EWW (Mexico) +25.3%, EPOL (Poland) +23.9%, TUR (Turkey) +18.8%, FXI (China) -11.0%, INDA (India) -9.9%, EIDO (Indonesia) -32.6% with a low of $11.23 in June 2026.

[6] Lead-Lag Report market data, DXY (US Dollar Index) weekly closes: 104.88 (Jul 5, 2024), 97.14 (Jul 6, 2025), 101.17 (Jun 28, 2026), 100.72 (Jul 7, 2026).

[7] International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, April 2026, “Global Economy in the Shadow of War.” Global growth 3.1% (2026), 3.2% (2027); EMDE growth 3.9% (2026) vs 4.2% January estimate. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2026/04/14/world-economic-outlook-april-2026

[8] IMF WEO April 2026, Chapter 1. Middle East and Central Asia growth cut to 1.9%; Qatar -8.6%, Iraq -6.8%, Iran -6.1%. https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/weo/2026/april/english/ch1.pdf

[9] IMF WEO April 2026, Statistical Appendix Table A. China 4.4% (2026); India 6.5% (2026); Brazil 1.9% (2026); Mexico 1.6% (2026) and 2.2% (2027). https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/weo/2026/april/english/tablea.pdf

[10] Reuters, “Brazil central bank cuts rates third straight meeting by 25 bps,” Jun 17, 2026, Selic to 14.25%. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-central-bank-cuts-rates-third-straight-meeting-by-25-bps-2026-06-17/ ; Rio Times, “Brazil Interest Rate Cut,” Mar 19, 2026. https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-interest-rate-cut-selic-copom-march-2026/

[11] Reuters, “Bank of Mexico cuts benchmark interest rate to 6.50% in split vote,” May 7, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bank-mexico-cuts-benchmark-interest-rate-650-split-vote-2026-05-07/ ; Bloomberg, “Mexico Holds Key Interest Rate at 6.5% After Two Years of Cuts,” Jun 25, 2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-25/mexico-holds-key-interest-rate-at-6-5-after-two-years-of-cuts ; WSJ, “Bank of Mexico Ends Easing Cycle With Interest-Rate Cut.” https://www.wsj.com/economy/central-banking/bank-of-mexico-ends-easing-cycle-with-interest-rate-cut-baa52f64

[12] VanEck, JPMorgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) fact sheet, 30-day SEC yield 6.16% as of Jul 6, 2026. https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/investments/jp-morgan-em-local-currency-bond-etf-emlc/

[13] State Street Global Advisors, “Emerging Market Debt Outlook,” Jan 2026. EMBI Global Diversified +14.3% (2025), HY sovereigns +17.0%; GBI-EM Global Diversified +19.3% (2025). https://www.ssga.com/us/en/institutional/insights/emerging-market-debt-outlook-jan-2026

[14] Lead-Lag Report market data, weekly closes, Jul 2025 to Jul 2026: CPER (copper) +17.7%, DBC (broad commodities) +22.0%, GSG (broad commodities) +29.3%.

[15] UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2026 data note. Global FDI $1.6 trillion in 2025 (+14%); developed-economy FDI +43% to $728B; developing-economy FDI -2% to $877B. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaeiainf2026d1_en.pdf

[16] UNCTAD World Investment Report 2026. Brazil FDI +42% to $89B; India FDI +73% to $47B; China FDI -8% (third consecutive annual decline) to $107.5B. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaeiainf2026d1_en.pdf

[17] Reuters, “Portfolio flows to emerging markets slow to $22 billion in February, says IIF,” Mar 10, 2026. January 2026 inflows $100.5B; February $21.7B ($14.3B debt, $7.4B equity). https://www.reuters.com/world/china/portfolio-flows-emerging-markets-slow-22-billion-february-says-iif-2026-03-10/

[18] MSCI, “EM gains but discount to developed markets deepens.” https://www.msci.com/indexes/markets-in-motion/visualizations/em-gains-but-discount-to-developed-markets-deepens ; Yahoo Finance, “Emerging Markets Rise 16% in 2026, Outpacing S&P 500 by Wide Margin,” Apr 28, 2026. https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/world-indices/articles/emerging-markets-rise-16-2026-150031525.html

[19] Bloomberg, “Emerging-Market Assets Rally on Iran War Resolution Bets,” Apr 14, 2026, on flow and sentiment dynamics into EM funds. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-14/emerging-market-assets-rally-on-iran-war-resolution-bets

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

For the first time in three years, U.S. equity breadth is improving. Equal-weight S&P hit fresh all-time highs in mid-June. Russell 2000 followed. The Mag-7 — the names that carried 2023, 2024, and the first half of 2025 — is actually UNDER-performing the broader index YTD.

If you believe that broadening continues, your income sleeve has a problem.

Most popular income ETFs are concentrated in the same mega-cap names that just stopped leading. Covered-call funds written on the S&P or the Nasdaq inherit the index’s concentration. You collect the premium, but you collect it against the part of the market that may be done leading.

TSYX (TSPY Lift ETF) is built differently. The strategy generates income from S&P 500 exposure without doubling down on the top-10 concentration that already defines most income products. For advisors positioning client portfolios for a broadening market — where leadership rotates from mega-cap tech toward the other 490 names — TSYX is the income tool that sits on the right side of that rotation.

Income that doesn’t require betting the rally stays narrow.

Learn more at tappalpha.com.

____________________________________________________________

Disclosures

Investors should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risk factors, charges and expenses before investing. This and additional information can be found in the Fund’s prospectus and summary prospectus, which may be obtained by visiting TappAlphaFunds.com or by calling (844) 403-2888. Read the prospectus and summary prospectus carefully before investing.

An investment in the Fund is subject to risks, including the possible loss of the principal amount invested. The Fund and adviser are new, and the ETF has only recently commenced operations. This Fund may not be suitable for all investors.

The Fund seeks leveraged exposure to the performance of its reference asset and does not invest directly in equity securities in the same manner as a traditional equity fund.

Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk, and will fluctuate in market value. Transactions in shares of ETFs will result in brokerage commissions, which will reduce returns. There is no assurance that the Fund’s investment process will consistently lead to successful investing. As of the date of this prospectus, the Fund has no operating history and currently has fewer assets than larger funds. Like other new funds, large inflows and outflows may impact the Fund’s market exposure for limited periods of time. This impact may be positive or negative, depending on the direction of market movement during the period affected. TSYX is distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC.

Daily Leverage and Compounding Risk. The Fund seeks daily leveraged investment results and resets its exposure on a daily basis. As a result, the Fund’s performance for periods longer than a single trading day will differ from the stated leveraged objective due to the effects of compounding. In volatile markets, compounding may significantly impact returns and may cause the Fund to experience losses even if the reference asset’s performance is positive over the same period. The use of leverage may magnify losses and increase the risk of losing the entire investment.

Leverage Risk. The Fund obtains investment exposure in excess of its net assets by utilizing leverage and may lose more money in market conditions that are adverse to its investment objective than a fund that does not utilize leverage. An investment in the Fund is exposed to the risk that a decline in the daily performance of TSPY will be magnified. This means that an investment in the Fund will be reduced by an amount equal to 1.3% for every 1% daily decline in TSPY, not including the costs of financing leverage and other operating expenses, which would further reduce its value. If TSPY declines by approximately 77% or more in a single trading day, the Fund could experience a total loss of its value for that day. A total loss may occur in a single day even if TSPY does not lose all of its value. Leverage will also have the effect of magnifying any differences in the Fund’s correlation with TSPY and may increase the volatility of the Fund. The cost of maintaining leveraged exposure (e.g., swap financing, collateral, and related fees) may increase, particularly in rising interest rate environments, which can adversely affect performance.

Rebalancing Risk. If for any reason the Fund is unable to rebalance all or a part of its portfolio, or if all or a portion of the portfolio is rebalanced incorrectly, the Fund’s investment exposure may not be consistent with its investment objective. In these instances, the Fund may have investment exposure to TSPY that is significantly greater or significantly less than its stated multiple. The Fund may be more exposed to leverage risk than if it had been properly rebalanced and may not achieve its investment objective, leading to significantly greater losses or reduced gains. Intraday market movements may cause the Fund’s actual exposure to drift from 130% between rebalancing times, which can contribute to tracking differences.

____________________________________________________________

Definitions

Equal-weight S&P (S&P 500 Equal Weight) — A version of the S&P 500 in which all constituents carry the same weight rather than being weighted by market capitalization, so the largest companies do not dominate the index’s performance.

Russell 2000 — An index of approximately 2,000 small-capitalization U.S. companies, widely used as a benchmark for small-cap equities and for market “breadth.”

Mag-7 (the “Magnificent Seven”) — An informal grouping of seven mega-cap technology companies — commonly Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla — that drove a disproportionate share of index returns in 2023–2025.

DISCLAIMER — PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is being paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of TappAlpha Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided are the sole opinion of TappAlpha and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided.

What Credit Is Saying That Equity Isn’t Hearing

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• High yield OAS sits at 274 basis points and investment grade OAS at 75 basis points as of July 3, 2026 — both look orderly on the surface, which is exactly why the underlying plumbing matters more than the headline print.

• Synthetic credit is trading meaningfully wider than cash bonds. CDX.NA.HY has run 20-35 basis points above the cash HY OAS index since mid-Q2 2026, a basis that historically opens when dealers cannot source cash bonds to hedge fast enough.

• US CLO new issuance fell to approximately $77.2 billion in the first half of 2026 versus $99.8 billion in the same period a year earlier, even as AAA CLO tranche spreads held near 103 basis points — a split between primary indigestion and secondary calm.

• Treasury market depth decays sharply the moment you leave the on-the-run 2-year note: effective spreads widen from 0.66 basis points on-the-run to 2.23 basis points by the second off-the-run issue, a liquidity fragility that transmits into credit hedging costs.

• This is not the Fed-personnel story and it is not a rerun of the April 285-basis-point equity-credit divergence. It is a narrower claim: the micro-structure of credit — where cash trades versus where synthetic trades, where primary issuance clears versus where secondary spreads sit — is where dislocations show up first, weeks before the index-level spread moves.

The headline number is boring. High yield option-adjusted spread closed at 274 basis points on July 3, 2026.^[1] Investment grade OAS closed at 75 basis points the same day.^[2] Both are close to where they sat a month ago. Anyone scanning only the index-level spread would conclude credit is quiet. Credit is not quiet. It is quiet in the one place everybody is looking and noisy in three or four places nobody checks before the index catches up.

I wrote about the April divergence between a 285-basis-point high yield spread and an S&P 500 sitting near 7,000 — a genuine equity-credit gap that closed as equity caught down and spreads normalized into June.^[3] That piece was about the index-to-index relationship. This one is not. This one is about what happens underneath the index before it moves at all: the basis between synthetic and cash credit, the ratio between high yield and investment grade compensation, the depth of the Treasury market that everything else prices off of, and the primary market’s willingness to absorb new supply.

The Synthetic Market Is Not Buying the Cash Market’s Calm

CDX.NA.HY, the tradable index of credit default swaps on high yield names, is supposed to move roughly in line with the cash bond index it references. Through most of 2025 it did. Since March 2026 it has not. The synthetic index ran to roughly 312 basis points in mid-May while cash HY OAS sat closer to 280.^[4] A positive CDX-cash basis of that size means one of two things: either dealers are marking protection wide because inventory to hedge is scarce, or real-money accounts are buying protection faster than the cash market is repricing. Both are pre-dislocation conditions. In 2007 the CDX-cash basis blew out roughly two quarters before the cash HY index made its real move.^[5]

The basis has narrowed somewhat into July — cash OAS at 274, synthetic closer to 296-300 by market chatter — but it has not closed.^[6] A persistent, un-closing basis is the tell. It says the market that trades fastest, with the least friction, is pricing more stress than the market that trades slowest, with the most friction. Cash bonds lag because trading them requires locating an actual bond, actual size, and an actual counterparty. When that friction is the only thing keeping the index calm, the index is not really calm.

The High Yield Risk Premium Over Investment Grade Is Thin

A second micro-tell sits in the ratio between high yield and investment grade spreads. Historically this ratio runs in a fairly stable band — high yield compensates investors 3.5 to 4.5 times what investment grade does, reflecting the additional default and recovery risk. At today’s levels — 274 basis points HY against 75 basis points IG — the ratio is approximately 3.65x, near the tighter end of the trailing eighteen-month range.^[7] A compressed ratio means the market is not demanding much extra compensation to hold the riskier tranche of the corporate credit stack relative to the safer one. That is a classic late-cycle signature: not distress, but complacency about the marginal unit of risk.

This matters more than the absolute spread level because ratios compress before they blow out. The ratio was near 4.4x in July 2025 and has ground down to roughly 3.65x by July 2026 even as both spread levels individually look unremarkable.^[8] A ratio compression of that magnitude, occurring while headline HY OAS is flat to slightly lower, is the kind of quiet regime shift that shows up in footnotes, not headlines, until it does not.

The Liquidity Underneath Credit Is Thinning Faster Than Credit Itself

Every credit spread in this article is a spread over a Treasury curve, and that curve’s own liquidity has been degrading in a way that rarely gets discussed outside fixed income microstructure desks. The New York Fed’s own research shows that the on-the-run 2-year note trades with an effective bid-ask spread of 0.66 basis points. The first off-the-run 2-year trades at 1.22 basis points — nearly double. The second off-the-run trades at 2.23 basis points — more than triple the on-the-run cost.^[9] That decay curve did not exist at this steepness five years ago. It means the risk-free benchmark itself is losing depth just off the most liquid point, and every credit spread quoted against “the 2-year” is implicitly assuming a liquidity the actual instrument may not have once you are two auctions removed from the current one.

Swap spreads confirm the same signal from a different angle. The 2-year swap spread sat at negative 13.8 basis points, the 10-year at negative 43.2, and the 30-year at negative 75.8 basis points as of late April 2026 — a deeply negative term structure that reflects dealer balance-sheet constraints rather than credit risk in the swap counterparties themselves.^[10] Negative swap spreads of this magnitude mean the cost of financing a Treasury position via repo and swaps is elevated relative to the Treasury yield itself — a structural friction that widens whenever balance sheet is scarce, which is precisely the condition under which credit hedges get expensive first and cash bonds reprice second.

Credit Has Stalled While Equity Kept Re-Rating

Zoom out to the ETF level and the lead-lag pattern is visible in price, not just in spread math. HYG, the largest high yield bond ETF, closed at $79.81 on July 7, 2026, essentially flat to slightly below where it started twelve months earlier.^[11] SPY closed at $747.37 the same day, up sharply from $623 a year prior — even after a sharp March 2026 drawdown to the mid-$630s that credit tracked but equity has since erased entirely.^[12] A high yield ETF that has gone nowhere in a year while the equity index it is supposed to move with has re-rated by over 20% is not confirmation that credit is fine. It is a divergence in its own right, distinct from the April episode, because this time the spread level has not moved much — the relative price action has.

Primary Market Indigestion Behind a Calm Secondary Tape

The final tell sits in primary issuance. US CLO new-issue volume ran to approximately $77.2 billion in the first half of 2026, down more than 20% from the $99.8 billion priced in the same period of 2025.^[13] AAA CLO tranche spreads, meanwhile, held near 103 basis points over SOFR as of early July, with distribution yields around 4.9% — secondary paper still trading well.^[14] That split — issuance down sharply, secondary spreads calm — is a primary-market indigestion signal. Arrangers are pricing fewer new deals into a market that says it will absorb them at current levels, which usually means the arrangers know something about demand depth that the secondary quote does not yet reflect. Recent CLO AAA tranches have priced at SOFR plus 120, near the wider end of the 2026 range, consistent with issuers paying up to clear rather than secondary spreads screaming stress.^[15]

Leveraged loan distress metrics point the same direction from the credit-quality side. The proportion of loans trading below 70 cents on the dollar by amount rose sharply into early 2026 relative to the prior year’s cycle lows, even as headline default rates for high yield bonds stayed contained in the high-2% to low-3% range through the spring.^[16] Distress ratios lead default rates by design — they measure where the market is already marking paper for eventual trouble before a formal default event occurs. A rising distress ratio against a flat default rate is the loan-market equivalent of the CDX-cash basis: the forward-looking gauge moving before the trailing one does.

The Other Side

Two counterarguments deserve real weight before drawing conclusions.

First, basis and ratio compressions can persist for a long time without resolving into a spread blowout. The CDX-cash basis has been elevated, on and off, for over a year without high yield OAS breaking materially above 300. Microstructure signals are leading indicators with long and variable lags, not triggers.

Second, the CLO issuance decline may reflect less overall refinancing need — many issuers termed out debt in the 2024-2025 window when spreads were tighter — rather than investor reluctance to buy new paper. A slower primary calendar is not automatically bearish if it reflects lower net supply rather than lower demand.^[17]

The thesis fails if the CDX-cash basis fully closes, the HY-IG ratio reverts back above 4x, and CLO primary volume reaccelerates toward the 2025 pace over the next two quarters without a corresponding widening in cash spreads. Any one of those alone would not be disqualifying. All three together would be.

The Lead-Lag Dynamic: Microstructure Leads the Index

The lead-lag relationship here runs from plumbing to price. The CDX-cash basis, the HY-IG ratio, Treasury off-the-run liquidity, and primary-versus-secondary CLO pricing all move before the headline OAS print does, because they are closer to where dealers and arrangers actually take risk onto their own balance sheets. The headline spread is the last thing to move, not the first.

None of this is the Warsh-era Fed reaction function, and none of it is a repeat of April’s equity-credit gap. It is a narrower and, I think, more useful claim: watch the places in credit where the friction is lowest and the balance sheet cost is highest, because that is where the next move announces itself first. Right now, several of those places are flashing before the index is.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] FRED, ICE BofA US High Yield Index Option-Adjusted Spread (BAMLH0A0HYM2), July 3, 2026 observation: 2.74%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2

[2] FRED, ICE BofA US Corporate Index Option-Adjusted Spread (BAMLC0A0CM), July 3, 2026 observation: 0.75%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A0CM

[3] Macro Observations, “Credit Divergence” (Apr 24-25, 2026): HY OAS near 285bps vs S&P 500 near 7,000. Internal Lead-Lag Report archive.

[4] ConvexTrade CDX glossary and dealer indications, CDX.NA.HY Series levels mid-May 2026, approximately 312bps. https://www.convextrade.com/

[5] Historical CDX-cash basis behavior pre-2008 documented in BIS Quarterly Review credit derivatives sections; basis widening preceded cash HY OAS peak by approximately two quarters in 2007-2008.

[6] Dealer CDX.NA.HY indications and ICE BofA cash OAS, early July 2026, basis narrowing to approximately 20-25bps from May peak.

[7] Ratio computed from FRED BAMLH0A0HYM2 (274bps) and BAMLC0A0CM (75bps), July 3, 2026: approximately 3.65x.

[8] Ratio computed from FRED BAMLH0A0HYM2 and BAMLC0A0CM series, trailing eighteen months, Jul 2025-Jul 2026.

[9] Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Liberty Street Economics, “Liquidity Fades as Treasuries Age,” June 30, 2026. On-the-run 2Y effective spread 0.66bps; first off-the-run 1.22bps; second off-the-run 2.23bps. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/06/liquidity-fades-as-treasuries-age/

[10] NAIC swap spread data (Table J), April 30, 2026: 2-year -13.77bps, 10-year -43.20bps, 30-year -75.77bps.

[11] HYG (iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) closing price, July 7, 2026: $79.81. Fund data.

[12] SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust) closing price, July 7, 2026: $747.37, vs approximately $623 on July 11, 2025. Fund data.

[13] Yahoo Finance, US CLO market Q2 2026 wrap, June 30, 2026: H1 2026 issuance approximately $77.2B vs $99.8B in H1 2025, down over 20% YoY.

[14] BlackRock, iShares AAA CLO ETF (CLOA) fund page, data as of July 6, 2026: option-adjusted spread 103.05bps, 30-day SEC/distribution yield approximately 4.91%. https://www.ishares.com/

[15] Canyon CLO 2026-1 AAA tranche pricing, April 2026: SOFR + 120bps, market wrap coverage.

[16] Yahoo Finance leveraged loan market coverage, March 3, 2026: loan distress ratio by amount rose to approximately 6.43% at end of February 2026; Fitch Ratings, US high yield bond default rate 2.9% in April 2026 vs 2.7% in March 2026.

[17] Market commentary on 2024-2025 refinancing wave reducing near-term CLO reset/refi need; general leveraged finance primary market coverage, H1 2026.

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Tomorrow at1:00 PM ET. 60 minutes. Matt Tuttle, Porter Stansberry, and Frances Newton. CE credit approved.

If you have not registered yet, the link is below.

The recording goes to registered attendees only.

What you will get on the call:

● The permanent portfolio framework walked through end to end, conceptually

● Where Browne’s original assumptions hold up and where they break

● How to think about forecast-independent allocation in the current regime

● Live Q and A with Matt, Porter and Frances

● CE credit submission for anyone holding the CFP, CIMA, or equivalent designation

Register now

DISCLAIMER — PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is being paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of Tuttle Capital. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided are the sole opinion of Tuttle Capital and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided.

The Private Credit Machine Is Cracking Where No One Is Looking

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Apollo’s flagship retail vehicle, Apollo Debt Solutions, took redemption requests equal to 16.8% of the fund in the second quarter of 2026, up from 11.2% in the first quarter, and is again capping withdrawals at 5%.

• The KBRA DLD Direct Lending Index’s trailing twelve-month default rate rose to 2.3% of issuers as of mid-June 2026, matching the highest level since the index launched, with KBRA projecting 3.5% by year-end.

• BDC non-accruals jumped 40% sequentially in Q1 2026 to 2.01% of aggregate reported debt investments at cost, and Octus estimates the adjusted figure, including likely under-reporting, at 3.24%.

• The mean publicly traded BDC now trades at an estimated 20-25% discount to net asset value, a level not seen since the depths of prior credit cycles, even as reported NAVs have barely moved.

• Ares’ Strategic Income Fund and Blackstone’s BCRED both breached their own redemption gates earlier in 2026. Cliffwater’s Corporate Lending Fund took 17% redemption requests in Q2 against a 5% cap.

Six weeks ago this column argued that private credit’s reckoning had already started and the marks simply had not caught up. The evidence since then has not complicated that thesis. It has accelerated it.

Apollo Global Management disclosed in late June that redemption requests on its flagship retail vehicle, Apollo Debt Solutions, hit approximately $2.4 billion, or 16.8% of the fund, in the second quarter of 2026 — up from 11.2% just one quarter earlier.^[1] Apollo is again capping withdrawals at the contractual 5% ceiling. Investors asking for a dollar are getting roughly 30 cents, and the ratio of demand to available liquidity is now worse than it was the last time this column covered it.

The Equity Market’s Verdict Has Not Changed. It Has Hardened.

Publicly traded business development companies remain the cleanest real-time proxy for what the market thinks BDC net asset values are actually worth, because their equity trades every day while their underlying loan books are marked quarterly. The VanEck BDC Income ETF, BIZD, has fallen approximately 23% over the trailing twelve months through July 3, 2026, while the iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond ETF, HYG, is roughly flat over the same period.^[2] That is not a broad credit selloff. It is a private-credit-specific repricing, isolated to the vehicles that hold the loans everyone is worried about.

Individual names show the same pattern. Ares Capital, the largest BDC by portfolio size, has fallen from the low $20s a year ago to roughly $18.50 today.^[3] Blue Owl Capital Corporation, OBDC, is down to roughly $10.85, having cut its base dividend 16% earlier this year as lower base rates and spread compression pulled adjusted net investment income down to match the reduced payout exactly.^[4] Hercules Capital and Blackstone Secured Lending have both round-tripped through sharp February drawdowns and only partially recovered. The mean BDC now trades at an estimated 20-25% discount to stated net asset value — wider than the 22% discount this column flagged in May, not narrower.^[5]

The Default Data Just Confirmed the Trend, Not Reversed It

The counting-convention debate from the spring is now resolving in the bears’ direction on every measure that updates in real time. Fitch’s U.S. Private Credit Default Rate, which counts payment-in-kind conversions and maturity extensions alongside bankruptcies, sat at 6.0% on a trailing-twelve-month basis through April, the record this column cited previously.^[6] What has changed is the narrower, market-standard measure. Bloomberg reported in mid-June that the KBRA DLD Direct Lending Index’s trailing twelve-month default rate climbed to 2.3% of issuers, matching the highest level since the index’s December 2023 inception, with KBRA projecting a rise to 3.5% — roughly 111 issuers — by the end of 2026.^[7] That is the stricter, bankruptcy-and-missed-payment index moving toward the more expansive Fitch measure, not away from it.

Non-accruals tell the same story with a sharper inflection. The LSTA’s BDC Quarterly Wrap found the weighted-average non-accrual rate across public and non-traded BDCs rose to 1.99% in the first quarter of 2026, up from 1.42% in the fourth quarter of 2025 and 1.36% a year earlier.^[8] Octus, tracking the dollar figures directly, found $9.98 billion of debt at cost in non-accrual status in Q1 2026, a 40% sequential jump from $7.12 billion in Q4 2025, and estimated that the true, under-reported exposure could be closer to $16.04 billion — a 61% increase over the reported figure.^[9] Individual names are the ones carrying the weight: Blue Owl’s OBDC posted a 16% dividend cut, FS KKR’s non-accruals ran as high as 8.1% at cost, and Blackstone Secured Lending’s non-accruals surged to 4.7% of cost with NAV down more than 2% quarter over quarter.^[10]

The Structural Backdrop Has Not Moved. That Is the Point.

Private credit assets under management have grown from roughly $500 billion in 2014 to an estimated $2.1 trillion in 2026, a buildout that has outpaced the growth of bank commercial and industrial lending by a wide margin over the same period.^[11] Preqin still projects further growth from here. None of the stress data changes that trajectory in the near term — capital keeps flowing in even as redemption requests keep exceeding gates on the way out. That asymmetry, more capital committed to illiquid structures than the structures can return on demand, is the mechanical reason gates keep tripping regardless of how any single quarter’s default number reads.

The Federal Reserve’s May 2026 Financial Stability Report addressed this directly, noting that accepted redemptions from perpetual BDCs exceeded new inflows in the first quarter of 2026 for the first time since these structures were created, while characterizing the redemption activity itself as “limited and manageable.”^[12] The Financial Stability Board’s parallel report on private credit vulnerabilities, published the same week, flagged opacity, valuation uncertainty, and interconnection with banks and insurers as the open questions regulators still cannot fully measure.^[13]

Redemption Gates Are No Longer an Apollo-Specific Story

What has changed most since this column’s original take is the breadth of the gate-tripping. Ares capped redemptions on its $21.5 billion Strategic Income Fund at 5% in the first quarter after withdrawal requests reached 11.6% of shares — more than double the quarterly limit.^[14] Blackstone’s BCRED took $3.7 billion in redemption requests in the first quarter, roughly 7.9% of net asset value, and the board opted to upsize its repurchase limit to 7% rather than hold the standard 5% cap.^[15] Cliffwater’s Corporate Lending Fund, one of the largest retail-facing interval funds at roughly $31 billion, took redemption requests of 17% against its 5% cap in the second quarter.^[16] Four large, differently structured vehicles, run by four different managers, hit the same wall in the same two quarters. That is not idiosyncratic manager risk. That is a structural feature of how these funds were designed.

Washington Noticed Too

Senator Elizabeth Warren used a June 11 Senate Banking Committee hearing to connect private credit directly to systemic risk, warning that AI companies are “buying borrowing upwards of a trillion dollars” through private credit funds that themselves borrow from banks, and that a downturn in AI-linked revenue could “risk bringing down giant banks” in a scenario she compared explicitly to 2008.^[17] Whether or not that specific chain of contagion plays out, the framing matters: a sitting member of the Senate Banking Committee is now treating private credit and AI financing as the same conversation, not two separate ones.

The Other Side, Taken Seriously

The bull case has real substance and deserves a fair hearing. Non-accrual rates at the largest, most conservatively underwritten BDCs remain well below the levels seen in 2020, and several managers — Barings among them — report non-accruals near the low end of the industry even as sector averages rise.^[18] Cliffwater’s realized loss data for 2025 came in at 0.70%, below the 1.01% long-run average, and some analysts characterize the current move as normalization back toward historical norms rather than a genuine deterioration.^[19] Senior secured unitranche yields remain attractive on an absolute basis, and the asset class is not going away regardless of how this specific cycle resolves.

The problem with the normalization argument is timing, not direction. Normalization from artificially suppressed post-2021 non-accrual levels back to a 2.5% historical average is exactly what a credit cycle turning looks like in its early stages. The KBRA index moving from 1.4% to a projected 3.5% inside twelve months, Octus’s non-accrual dollar figure rising 40% in a single quarter, and four separate retail vehicles tripping gates in back-to-back quarters are not, together, consistent with a mature, stable plateau. They are consistent with a trend that has not yet found its ceiling.

Few Understand This

The lead-lag relationship here has not changed since the original thesis, but the lag has started to close faster than the accounting convention was built to handle. BDC equity led. Redemption requests followed. Non-accruals are now confirming both, on a quarter-over-quarter basis, in numbers that keep surprising to the downside relative to where consensus commentary sat even ninety days ago.

Ares Capital reports second-quarter 2026 results on July 29.^[20] That print, and the ones from FS KKR, Blue Owl, and Blackstone Secured Lending around it, will be the next test of whether the reported cycle finally catches up to the realized one, or whether the gap keeps widening for another quarter while retail capital keeps discovering, one gated redemption at a time, what patient capital actually costs when it needs to become liquid.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] CNBC, “Apollo curbs withdrawals after exit requests hit 17%, reigniting fears over private credit liquidity,” June 23, 2026: Apollo Debt Solutions fund redemption requests of approximately $2.4 billion (16.8% of the fund) in Q2 2026 vs. 11.2% in Q1 2026; 5% gate maintained. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/23/apollo-private-credit-fund-withdrawals-redemptions.html

[2] Perplexity Finance OHLCV data: BIZD (VanEck BDC Income ETF) and HYG (iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) month-end closes, July 2025 through July 7, 2026. BIZD down approximately 23.2%; HYG down approximately 0.7% over the trailing twelve months.

[3] Perplexity Finance OHLCV data: ARCC (Ares Capital Corporation) closing price history, July 2025-July 2026.

[4] Finsee, “Blue Owl Capital (OBDC) Q1 2026 earnings review”: base dividend cut 16% from $0.37 to $0.31 per share as adjusted net investment income fell to match the reduced payout. https://finsee.ai/earnings/obdc/2026/q1/en/

[5] TigZig, “Private Credit and BDC Stress. Discounts at 13-Year Lows,” June 6, 2026, and Mercer Capital, “Public Prices, Private Marks: What BDC Discounts Are Signaling,” April 9, 2026, aggregated with Perplexity Finance OHLCV data for illustrative estimate of mean BDC price-to-NAV discount. https://www.tigzig.com/post/private-credit-bdc-stress-regulators-jun2026

[6] Fitch Ratings, “U.S. Private Credit Default Rate Hits a High of 6.0% in April 2026,” cited via LinkedIn/Private Credit Solutions summary, June 17, 2026; methodology classifies PIK conversions and maturity extensions as defaults.

[7] Bloomberg, “Private-Credit Defaults Match 2023 High in $300 Billion Index,” June 16, 2026: KBRA DLD Direct Lending Index trailing 12-month default rate at 2.3% of issuers, projected to reach 3.5% (approximately 111 issuers) by year-end 2026. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/private-credit-defaults-match-2023-high-in-300-billion-index

[8] LSTA, “BDC Quarterly Wrap: 1Q26,” June 9, 2026: weighted-average non-accrual rate for public and non-traded/private BDCs combined rose to 1.99% in Q1 2026 from 1.42% in Q4 2025 and 1.36% in Q1 2025. https://www.lsta.org/content/bdc-quarterly-wrap-1q26/

[9] Octus, “Octus BDC Weekly Roundup: Nonaccruals Jump 40% Sequentially,” June 18, 2026: $9.98 billion in Q1 2026 non-accruals at cost vs. $7.12 billion in Q4 2025 (2.01% of aggregate reported debt investments, up from 1.45%); adjusted estimate of $16.04 billion (3.24%) accounting for likely under-reporting. https://octus.com/resources/articles/octus-bdc-weekly-roundup-061626/

[10] A.L. Capital Advisory, “Private Credit 2026: BDC Crisis, Default Outlook & Safest BDCs,” April 2, 2026, and Forbes, “4 Deeply Discounted BDCs Paying Us Up To 13%,” June 13, 2026: OBDC dividend cut, FSK non-accruals up to 8.1% at cost, BXSL non-accruals at 4.7% of cost with NAV down over 2% quarter over quarter. https://alcapitaladvisory.com/research/intelligence/private-credit.html

[11] Preqin private credit AUM estimates and historical trajectory, 2014-2026; Federal Reserve H.8 release, commercial and industrial loans outstanding at all commercial banks, used for comparative bank lending growth. https://www.preqin.com/insights/global-reports/private-credit-in-2026

[12] Federal Reserve, “Financial Stability Report,” May 2026: accepted redemptions from perpetual BDCs exceeded new inflows in Q1 2026 for the first time since inception; redemption activity characterized as limited and manageable. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/financial-stability-report-20260508.pdf

[13] Financial Stability Board, “Report on Vulnerabilities in Private Credit,” May 6, 2026: opacity, valuation uncertainty, leverage, liquidity mismatch, and interconnection with banks and insurers flagged as open risks. https://www.fsb.org/uploads/P060526.pdf

[14] A.L. Capital Advisory, “Private Credit 2026: BDC Crisis, Default Outlook & Safest BDCs,” April 2, 2026: Ares Strategic Income Fund (ASIF) capped redemptions at 5% after withdrawal requests of 11.6% of shares in Q1 2026. https://alcapitaladvisory.com/research/intelligence/private-credit.html

[15] FinancialContent/Wedbush MarketMinute, “Blackstone BCRED Navigates Record $3.7 Billion Redemption Wave,” April 6, 2026: BCRED took $3.7 billion in redemption requests (approximately 7.9% of NAV) in Q1 2026; board upsized repurchase limit to 7%. https://markets.financialcontent.com/wral/article/marketminute-2026-4-6-private-credits-leaning-tower-of-liquidity-blackstone-bcred-navigates-record-37-billion-redemption-wave

[16] Solomon Grey Capital, “Private Credit’s Bifurcation: Liquidity Panic, Not a Credit Crisis,” May 5, 2026: Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund received 17% redemption requests against a 5% cap in Q2 2026. https://solomon-grey-capital.ghost.io/private-credits-bifurcation-liquidity-panic-not-a-credit-crisis/

[17] Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senate Banking Committee hearing, June 11, 2026: warned that AI companies are borrowing upwards of a trillion dollars through private credit funds linked to banks, comparing systemic risk to 2008.

[18] Investing.com, “Earnings call transcript: Barings BDC Q1 2026 earnings miss forecasts, stock rises,” May 8, 2026: non-accruals at fair value approximately 1.0% of portfolio, among the lowest in the industry. https://www.investing.com/news/transcripts/earnings-call-transcript-barings-bdc-q1-2026-earnings-miss-forecasts-stock-rises-93CH-4672950

[19] Solomon Grey Capital, “Private Credit’s Bifurcation: Liquidity Panic, Not a Credit Crisis,” May 5, 2026: Cliffwater Direct Lending Index realized losses of 0.70% for 2025 vs. 1.01% historical average; non-accruals at 1.48% vs. 2.13% long-term norm. https://solomon-grey-capital.ghost.io/private-credits-bifurcation-liquidity-panic-not-a-credit-crisis/

[20] Yahoo Finance/PRNewswire, “Ares Capital Corporation Schedules Earnings Release for the Second Quarter Ended June 30, 2026,” July 2, 2026: earnings scheduled for July 29, 2026. https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/ares-capital-corporation-schedules-earnings-110000833.html

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Today’s Lead-Lag Report is brought to you by our friends at WisdomTree. Many investors are interested in exposure to gold in their portfolio, but the harder part is deciding how to get there without tying up too much portfolio capital. WisdomTree’s capital-efficient gold suite offers three distinct approaches: GDE combines gold futures with U.S. large-cap equities, GDMN combines gold futures with gold miners equities, and GDT blends TIPS with a gold futures overlay for a different kind of inflation-aware exposure. Learn more about GDE. GDMN and GDT here.

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is being paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of WisdomTree, Inc. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided are the sole opinion of WisdomTree Investments, Inc. and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided.

Important information from WisdomTree: Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the Fund before investing. For a prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus containing this and other important information about the fund, call 866.909.9473 or visit WisdomTree.com/investments. Read the prospectus or, if available, the summary prospectus carefully before investing.

There are risks involved with investing, including possible loss of principal.

WisdomTree Funds are distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC, in the U.S.

The Quiet Unwind: EEM/XLK/Financials Reclaim Leadership, Defensive Extreme Fades, Fed Watch Looms

Below is an assessment of the performance of some of the most important sectors and asset classes relative to each other.

See this week’s Weekly Signals for the full 4-signal framework reading. Does the sector rotation below confirm or contradict this signal?

WEEKLY SNAPSHOT — Week Ended July 6, 2026

“Every ratio that printed an Extreme |Z|>2.0 signal a week ago reversed direction this week — and not one of them reached even Notable significance on the way back. That is either the cleanest mean-reversion unwind this framework has logged, or the calm before the next leg.”

24-ASSET MASTER SUMMARY TABLE

Sorted by status — strong leaders first, weak laggards last (never alphabetical). “Weak MA” denotes a ratio trading below both its 20-week and 52-week moving averages.

LEADERS: Emerging Markets and Tech Reclaim the Top, Financials Confirm, Industrials Barely Hang On

Emerging Markets (EEM) – Deteriorating RRG — Aging Leader

EEM/SPY: -1.46% one-month, 1.17% three-month, 9.24% six-month, 17.2% one-year (Signal strength: +0.77σ — Weak)

EEM/SPY posted the largest single-ratio move of the week at +1.96%, reclaiming the top of the leaderboard after last week’s -1.61σ divergence warning failed to extend into a deeper unwind. The move is tactical, not yet structural — the ratio remains in a Deteriorating RRG quadrant, meaning the 4-week rate of change is still decelerating even as the 1-week print jumped. A weaker dollar into month-end appears to be the proximate driver. Whether this is noise or signal depends on whether EM can hold this bid through a second consecutive week; one strong print inside a decelerating quadrant is not yet a trend change.

Technology (XLK) – Deteriorating RRG — Aging Leader

XLK/SPY: -2.06% one-month, 16.25% three-month, 15.71% six-month, 18.43% one-year (Signal strength: +0.24σ — Background)

Technology’s +1.65% weekly bounce is the mirror image of last week’s -2.01σ reversal call that specifically failed to materialize — the sector deepened its losses into Run #21, and this week’s bounce only partially claws that back. The RRG quadrant remains Deteriorating, and the 1-month horizon is still negative at -2.06%, so this reads as a relief bounce inside a structurally strong 3-month/1-year uptrend (+16.25% and +18.43% respectively) rather than a fresh leadership signal. Tactical bounce, structural trend intact.

Credit vs. Treasuries (JNK/GOVT) – Strengthening RRG

JNK/GOVT: 0.19% one-month, 1.24% three-month, 1.33% six-month, 2.6% one-year (Signal strength: +0.24σ — Background)

Credit spreads narrowed modestly this week (JNK/GOVT +0.17%), the second consecutive week of narrowing after last week’s -1.53σ widening call flagged a divergence risk that did not extend. This is the credit-side confirmation the equity leadership board needs to sustain — see the Credit Confirmation panel below for the full read.

Financials (XLF) – Weakening RRG — Aging Leader

XLF/SPY: 4.01% one-month, 0.1% three-month, -6.63% six-month, -10.27% one-year (Signal strength: +0.16σ — Background)

Financials extended a 3-week rising streak, now the longest active streak on the board, even as the RRG quadrant reads Weakening — the ratio is still rising but decelerating. Growth-vs-value axis: XLF’s quiet strength alongside XLK’s bounce suggests this week’s rotation is broad rather than concentrated in a single style factor.

European Banks vs. US Banks (EUFN/XLF) – Strengthening RRG

EUFN/XLF: 1.68% one-month, 0.67% three-month, 10.8% six-month, 21.79% one-year (Signal strength: +0.12σ — Background)

European banks continue to outpace their US counterparts on a 1-year view (+21.79%), and this week’s +0.66% move keeps that structural trend intact on a 2-week rising streak. Global vs. domestic axis: European financials remain one of the cleanest multi-month leadership signals in the entire universe, largely undisturbed by the domestic defensive-to-cyclical whipsaw of the last two weeks.

Gold (GLD) – Recovering RRG

GLD/SPY: -2.65% one-month, -21.14% three-month, -15.27% six-month, 1.48% one-year (Signal strength: +0.04σ — Background)

Gold’s relative ratio ticked up +0.18% this week, but the signal is essentially noise (+0.04σ) and sits inside a still-negative 3-month (-21.14%) and 6-month (-15.27%) trend. Last week’s “trend is the trade” call on gold’s falling streak holds — one quiet week inside a 9-plus week decline is not a reversal.

Industrials (XLI) – Strengthening RRG — marginal

XLI/SPY: 3.98% one-month, -2.17% three-month, 5.86% six-month, 2.73% one-year (Signal strength: -0.03σ — Background)

Industrials barely qualify as a leader this week — the Z-score is effectively flat (-0.03σ) and the ratio is up only 0.02% on the week. It earns its spot on the strength of a Strengthening RRG read and a positive 1-month (+3.98%) and 6-month (+5.86%) trend, but this is the weakest leader on the board and worth watching for a possible flip next week.

LAGGARDS: Defensive Extreme Unwinds Across the Board, Utilities Lead the Fade, Small Caps Quietly Slip

Healthcare (XLV) – Weakening RRG — 2-week falling streak

XLV/SPY: 4.15% one-month, -0.38% three-month, -4.58% six-month, 0.07% one-year (Signal strength: -0.74σ — Weak)

Healthcare is the week’s biggest laggard by weekly move (-1.94%) and the most dramatic single reversal on the board — this is the same ratio that printed a +4.63σ Extreme leadership signal just one week ago in Run #21. The entire move has round-tripped from Extreme leader to Weak laggard in seven trading days, the cleanest evidence yet that last week’s defensive spike was a shock, not a structural rotation. Whether this is noise or signal depends entirely on next week’s print: a second consecutive negative Z-score would confirm the unwind as real; a snap-back toward positive would suggest last week’s spike still has legs.

Consumer Staples (XLP) – Deteriorating RRG — 2-week falling streak

XLP/SPY: -2.83% one-month, -7.26% three-month, -1.25% six-month, -12.19% one-year (Signal strength: -0.71σ — Weak)

Staples fell -1.90% this week, reversing sharply from last week’s +2.27σ Extreme defensive signal. The 4-week rate of change flipped from +1.04% to -2.83%, a full deceleration reversal that puts the ratio in a Deteriorating quadrant for the first time in several weeks. Seasonal context: XLP is entering its historically weak May–October window, which is broadly consistent with this fade.

Real Estate (XLRE) – Deteriorating RRG — 2-week falling streak

XLRE/SPY: -3.0% one-month, -5.88% three-month, 2.06% six-month, -9.51% one-year (Signal strength: -0.71σ — Weak)

Real estate’s -1.73% weekly move continues the unwind of last week’s +3.38σ Extreme print, one of the largest positive signals on the board just seven days ago. The 4-week ROC swing from +4.56% to -3.0% is one of the sharpest deceleration reversals in this week’s data, reinforcing the “one-week shock” interpretation of Run #21’s defensive cluster.

Utilities (XLU) – Weakening RRG — 2-week falling streak

XLU/SPY: 0.82% one-month, -12.43% three-month, -0.76% six-month, -7.27% one-year (Signal strength: -0.62σ — Weak)

Utilities — the Core Framework Check ratio — fell -1.86% this week, the second consecutive weekly decline after peaking at +2.42σ in Run #21. Critically, the underlying 4-week ROC that drives the Framework signal is still positive (+0.82%, decelerating from +1.15%), meaning the Risk-Off framework reading has NOT flipped despite the sharp weekly-level fade. This is the tension at the heart of this week’s report: the framework says Risk-Off, the tape says something closer to Risk-On.

Small Caps / Russell 2000 (IWM) – Weakening RRG — 2-week falling streak

IWM/SPY: 0.72% one-month, 3.43% three-month, 5.99% six-month, 11.84% one-year (Signal strength: -0.42σ — Background)

Small caps slipped -0.42% on the week and fall to laggard status for the first time in several editions, but the signal is background noise (-0.42σ) inside a still-strong 1-year uptrend (+11.84%). This looks more like digestion after a multi-week run than a genuine leadership change.

Materials (XLB) – Deteriorating RRG — 2-week falling streak

XLB/SPY: -1.53% one-month, -9.42% three-month, -0.21% six-month, -5.04% one-year (Signal strength: -0.36σ — Background)

Materials continued lower (-0.92% weekly), extending a 2-week falling streak and now trading below both its 20-week and 52-week moving averages. Cyclical-vs-defensive axis: materials’ weakness alongside industrials’ marginal leadership is a mixed cyclical signal this week, not a clean read in either direction.

Investment Grade Bonds (LQD) – Deteriorating RRG — 2-week falling streak

LQD/SPY: -1.48% one-month, -9.56% three-month, -8.04% six-month, -13.99% one-year (Signal strength: -0.36σ — Background)

Investment-grade credit fell -0.84% this week, unwinding part of last week’s +2.12σ Extreme defensive signal. Combined with JNK/GOVT’s narrowing, the overall credit complex is sending a mixed message: high-yield is confirming the risk-on equity move while investment-grade duration is still fading.

Long-Duration Treasuries (TLT) – Deteriorating RRG — 2-week falling streak

TLT/SPY: -1.53% one-month, -10.22% three-month, -9.03% six-month, -14.84% one-year (Signal strength: -0.33σ — Background)

Long bonds fell -0.94% this week, extending a 2-week losing streak and remaining well below both moving averages. Inflationary-vs-deflationary axis: TLT’s persistent weakness alongside a still-elevated FOMC hike probability (see Three Things below) suggests duration risk remains a live concern heading into the July 29 decision.

Energy (XLE) – Deteriorating RRG — 2-week falling streak

XLE/SPY: -8.43% one-month, -15.22% three-month, 6.06% six-month, 0.93% one-year (Signal strength: -0.29σ — Background)

Energy remains the weakest sector on a 1-month (-8.43%) and 3-month (-15.22%) basis, though this week’s -1.03% move is background noise on the weekly Z-score. Both energy and utilities lagging together is a slightly unusual combination — typically an inflationary-vs-deflationary tell worth watching if it persists.

Communication Services (XLC) – Recovering RRG

XLC/SPY: -2.54% one-month, -12.53% three-month, -13.61% six-month, -13.58% one-year (Signal strength: -0.03σ — Background)

Communication services fell -0.31% this week — essentially flat on a Z-score basis — but the RRG quadrant has improved to Recovering as the 4-week ROC decelerated its decline (-4.15% to -2.54%). This is the earliest-stage signal on the board and not yet actionable, but worth tracking for a potential flip to leader.

Consumer Discretionary (XLY) – Recovering RRG

XLY/SPY: -0.13% one-month, -5.51% three-month, -12.48% six-month, -11.81% one-year (Signal strength: +0.09σ — Background)

Consumer discretionary’s Z-score is technically positive (+0.09σ) but the ratio fell -0.11% on the week and remains below both moving averages, so it lands in the laggard camp on trend despite the marginally positive signal strength — a genuine edge case this week.

Lumber/Gold Macro Scenario

Lumber/Gold is currently in the “Both Falling” configuration (Lumber 4-week ROC -0.24%, Gold 4-week ROC -1.14%). Historically this favors watching JNK/GOVT for credit stress confirmation over favoring either cyclical or defensive sectors outright. The sector ratios above partially confirm this reading: credit (JNK/GOVT) is narrowing rather than stressing, which argues against the deflationary-pressure interpretation carrying much weight this week — a genuine cross-asset tension rather than a clean confirmation.

PREVIOUSLY ON LEADERS-LAGGARDS

Run #20 (June 23): “Streak Broken” edition — EEM, IWM, XLK, XLI, EUFN, TLT, XLF, and XLB led; XLE, XLV, XLC, XLRE, GLD, XLU, XLY, and XLP lagged. Extreme signals: EEM/SPY +1.81σ, XLE/SPY -1.95σ. Outcome: The XLC/SPY reversal call (7th week of underperformance, expecting a 3-5% bounce within 2 weeks) was partially correct — XLC did bounce, but only +0.32%, far short of the 3-5% target. Direction right, magnitude wrong.

Run #21 (June 30): “Defensive Sweep” edition — the most violent single-week reversal in the framework’s recent history. XLV, XLRE, IWM, XLU, XLP, LQD, XLF, XLI, TLT, and XLB led; XLK, EEM, GLD, XLC, XLY, EUFN, XLE, and JNK/GOVT lagged. Seven ratios printed Extreme |Z|>2.0 signals in a single week (XLV/SPY +4.63σ the largest). Outcome: two of three scored forward calls from this run were incorrect — the XLK/SPY reversal call missed (tech deepened -4.23% instead of bouncing) and the JNK/GOVT acceleration call missed (credit strengthened instead of widening further). The Quarterly Scorecard fired this morning and confirmed only 20% of evaluable Run #20-21 calls were fully correct.

Run #22 (this issue, July 7): Nearly the entire Run #21 Extreme cluster reversed direction this week, with none of the seven ratios reaching even Notable significance on the way back — the cleanest single-week unwind logged in this framework’s history to date.

WHAT WOULD CHANGE MY VIEW

This week’s dominant thesis — that Run #21’s defensive extreme was a one-week shock now unwinding — would be confirmed by a second consecutive week of tech/EM/financials leadership with Z-scores building toward Notable (|Z|>1.0). It would be broken by defensive sectors (XLV, XLU, XLP, XLRE) reasserting positive Z-scores next week, which would mean this week’s mean-reversion was itself the noise, not the signal. On the framework side, a move in XLU/SPY 4-week ROC below 0% would flip the Core Framework Check to Risk-On for the first time in three weeks — a meaningful confirmation the rotation beneath the surface is now catching up to the sector-level tape. And on credit: JNK/GOVT reversing back to widening while cyclicals keep leading would be a warning sign, not a footnote — that divergence pattern has preceded prior defensive snapbacks in this framework’s short history.

THE WEEK IN CONTEXT

The dominant regime signal this week is an unwind, not a new trend: the framework’s Core Check still reads Risk-Off (its second straight week), even as tech, EM, and financials quietly reclaimed sector leadership and the prior week’s violent defensive extreme fully round-tripped without a single ratio reaching Notable significance in either direction. The macro driver is a market pausing to digest a one-week shock rather than confirming a new cyclical impulse, with the July 29 FOMC decision — where CME FedWatch was pricing roughly a 30% chance of a hike as of July 1, up sharply from just 6% a month earlier — standing as the next real catalyst that could either validate this week’s quiet reversal or reignite the defensive rotation outright. Watch JNK/GOVT and XLU/SPY 4-week ROC most closely over the next two weeks; both are the tightest, most falsifiable signals this framework has in play right now.

DISCLAIMER

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell securities.

The price ratio charts shown in this report illustrate relative performance between assets and are intended for educational purposes. A rising price ratio means the numerator is outperforming the denominator; a falling ratio means the opposite. Past relative performance is not indicative of future results. All investments involve risk, including the possible loss of principal.

© 2026 Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC

What if you could target only the strongest performers in an index?

Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) leverages our firm’s quantitative research by investing in our highest-rated stocks from the Russell 1000. The result is an ETF with reduced drag and enhanced return potential at an attractive price point.

Potential benefits of RECS:

· Aims to optimize core equity exposure

· Sector-neutral to the Russell 1000

· Competitive expense ratio of 15 basis points¹

Learn more about RECS

¹ Net and gross expense ratio. The fund’s expense ratio is from the most recent prospectus.

Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the Fund before investing. To obtain a prospectus containing this and other important information, please visit https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/etf to view or download a prospectus. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Investing involves risks, including the risk of loss of principal. Market risk may affect a single issuer, sector of the economy, industry or the market as a whole. The fund is passively managed and seeks to track the performance of an index. There is no guarantee that the index and, correspondingly, the fund will achieve positive returns. Risk exists that the index provider may not follow its methodology for index construction. Errors may result in a negative fund performance. The fund’s net asset value will generally decline when the market value of its targeted index declines. The fund concentrates its investments in issuers of one or more particular industries to the same extent as the underlying index. Investments in a narrowly focused sector may exhibit higher volatility than investments with a broader focus. Investments selected using quantitative methods may perform differently from the market as a whole and may not enable the fund to achieve its objective. Investment in larger companies may involve certain risks associated with their larger size and may be less able to respond quickly to new competitive challenges than smaller competitors. Investments in mid-cap companies often involve greater risks that investments in larger companies and may have less predictable earning and be less liquid than the securities in larger firms. Growth securities, at times, may not perform as well as value securities or the stock market in general and may be out of favor with investors. Value securities may be unprofitable if the market fails to recognize their intrinsic worth or the portfolio manager misgauged that worth. Although the fund’s shares are listed on an exchange, there can be no assurance that an active, liquid or otherwise orderly trading market for shares will be established or maintained. The Fund may have portfolio turnover, which may cause an adverse cost impact. There may be additional portfolio turnover risk as active market trading of the fund’s shares may cause more frequent creation or redemption activities that could, in certain circumstances, increase the number of portfolio transactions as well as tracking error to the Index and high levels of transactions increase brokerage and other transaction costs and may result in increased taxable capital gains.

ETF shares are bought and sold at market price (not NAV) and are not individually redeemable. Investors buy and sellshares on a secondary market. Shares may trade at a premium or discount to the NAV. Only market makers or “authorized participants” may trade directly with the Fund(s), typically in blocks of 50,000 shares.

Shares are not FDIC insured, may lose value, and have no bank guarantee.

For broker/dealer or institutional use only.

Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC serves as the investment manager to the ETFs. The ETFs are distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc., which is not affiliated with Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC, Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc. or its parent company Ameriprise Financial, Inc. Columbia Management Investment Distributors, Inc., LLC (Member FINRA | SIPC) is a marketing agent for the ETFs. Columbia Threadneedle Investments is the global brand name of the Columbia and Threadneedle group of companies.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided in the link is solely the creation of Columbia Threadneedle. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the link or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in the link are the sole opinion of Columbia Threadneedle and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any

Jobs Cracked, Yields Climbed, Credit Stayed Calm

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• June payrolls rose +57K versus roughly 115K expected, while April and May were revised lower by a combined -74K.¹

• July hike odds fell from about 29% to about 18% after the payroll report, even as the 10Y yield finished near 4.49%.^1,5

• The S&P 500 rose +1.8% to 7,483.24, while the Nasdaq gained +2.1% to 25,832.67.²

• The Russell 2000 fell -0.5% to 2,996.10 while high yield OAS held near 275bps, around the 13th percentile.^2,3

THESIS STATUS

CROSS-ASSET WEEKLY MOVES

The Surface Narrative

Last week’s watch item was simple: Russell had to hold its outperformance over Nasdaq into the holiday close for the rotation thesis to keep gaining force. It failed. Russell fell while Nasdaq roared back, and the spread that had looked like a regime shift became a reversal.²

That failure matters because it changes the question. Run #32 treated small-cap strength as possible evidence that the market was moving beyond mega-cap dependency. This week, the tape said not yet. Mega-cap AI leadership reasserted itself, and the small-cap rotation paused before it could become a durable broadening signal.²

The surface narrative is easy to write. Equities finished the shortened week firm, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq higher while the Dow reached a record close. The market looked through a weaker labor print, embraced a lower expected Fed path, and kept rewarding the large-cap growth complex.²

June payrolls rose by +57K against roughly 115K expected, the biggest miss of the year. That should have been enough to challenge the premise behind the June hawkish dot plot.¹

Figure 1: Payroll Miss Breaks the Dot-Plot Foundation / The June labor print made the hawkish policy path harder to defend, but it did not produce a clean duration rally. / Source: BLS Employment Situation and CNBC June jobs report, July 2, 2026

The prior two months were revised lower by a combined -74K. The labor market the Fed thought it was seeing at the prior meeting no longer exists in the same form.¹

The consensus interpretation is that weaker payrolls are good for risk because they reduce policy pressure. That is reasonable. July hike odds fell from about 29% to about 18%, which means the front-end policy narrative moved in the direction equity bulls wanted.¹

That is the surface. The surface is incomplete. The problem is not that equities rose on dovish news. The problem is that the part of the market that should have rallied most did not.

The Real Catalyst

The real catalyst was not the jobs miss. It was the long end’s refusal to validate the jobs miss.

The ten-year yield rose about 12 basis points to 4.49% into news that should have pushed duration the other way. That is the week’s central contradiction.⁵

Figure 2: Dovish Odds, Higher Yields / The long end rose into softer labor data, shifting the story from Fed hawkishness to term premium and supply. / Source: Barchart Treasury Rates and Lighthouse Live Macro, July 2 to July 3, 2026

A normal dovish-growth scare sends yields lower. This did not. The long end looked less like it was debating the next Fed move and more like it was demanding compensation for supply, fiscal dominance, and term premium.⁵

That distinction matters. A hawkish story is about the Fed. A term-premium story is about the buyer of duration. When the buyer of duration asks for a higher yield while the labor market weakens, the signal is not cleanly bullish or bearish. It is unstable.

The June FOMC backdrop makes the reaction more important. The median dot had shifted higher, and half of the committee projected at least one hike this year. That posture depended on a labor market strong enough to absorb restrictive policy.¹

This week attacked that foundation. Payrolls disappointed, prior months were marked lower, and unemployment ticked to 4.2%. The case for pressing hawkishness became harder to defend on labor grounds alone.¹

Yet the bond market did not trade as if policy relief solved the problem. Treasuries generated negative returns across most maturities in the cache, even as the payroll data undercut the Fed’s hiking argument.³

That is why the week cannot be reduced to a Fed pivot story. The policy probability moved dovish, but the market price of long-term money moved the other way. That gap is the article.

Divergences Beneath the Surface

The first divergence is between rates and credit. If the labor miss were a true stress event, high yield should have complained. It did not. High yield OAS sat near 275bps, around the 13th percentile, which is not where broad credit fear usually announces itself.³

That does not make the data benign. It makes the signal narrower. Credit is saying default risk is still contained, while Treasuries are saying duration risk is not cheap enough. Those are different warnings.

The second divergence is inside equities. The Russell had the better first-half story, with the cache noting its strongest first-half gain since 1991. This week, the Russell slipped while Nasdaq led, meaning the broadening trade lost momentum at exactly the moment it was supposed to receive help from lower hike odds.²

That is not a collapse in risk appetite. It is a return to selectivity. The tape is directing capital toward the part of the equity market with the clearest earnings narrative, not the part most sensitive to cheaper money.²

The third divergence is between oil and yields. WTI fell toward $69.07 as geopolitical pressure eased and the ceasefire held through the week. A weaker energy tape usually makes the inflation story easier.⁴

But easier inflation pressure did not pull the long end lower. That reinforces the idea that the driver was not simply inflation fear. Supply and term premium kept doing the work that a pure inflation narrative cannot explain.⁵

There is a steelman for the bullish side. Equities rose, credit stayed tight, and the Fed’s hawkish labor argument took a hit. If one looks only at risk assets, the week looks like a clean soft-landing repricing.^2,3

The rebuttal is the Treasury market. A clean soft-landing repricing should not require higher long rates on weaker payrolls. If duration refuses to help, equity multiple expansion becomes more dependent on leadership concentration and less supported by broad macro relief.⁵

That is where the prior thesis evolves rather than breaks. Run #32 said bonds were starting to price growth more than inflation. This week says bonds may also be pricing supply more than the Fed. The growth signal did not disappear. It was joined by a term-premium signal.

The result is not panic. It is tension. Credit says no systemic stress. Mega-cap leadership says capital still wants earnings visibility. Small caps say the rotation is not yet durable. The 10Y says the market still has to pay for time.

That combination favors humility over narrative certainty. The weight of observable systematic evidence favors treating the rally as leadership-driven, not macro-broad. That is a very different claim than saying risk is broken.

Figure 3: Cross-Asset Weekly Moves / Equities rose while long-end Treasuries sold off and WTI slumped, capturing the week’s split personality. / Source: Seattle Times weekly recap, T. Rowe Price weekly update, and Barchart Treasury Rates, July 2, 2026

The Week Ahead

Next week is less about the economic calendar and more about whether the Treasury market confirms the message it just sent. The three-year, ten-year, and thirty-year auction sequence will test whether this week’s yield rise was a holiday-week distortion or a real demand signal.⁵

If the auctions clear cleanly and the 10Y drifts back below 4.37%, the term-premium interpretation weakens. If yields hold above this week’s close after the supply test, then the long end is saying the payroll miss did not solve the bond market’s problem.⁵

The labor picture was not one-way. JOLTS openings stood at 7.594M and initial claims were 215K, which helps explain why credit did not treat the payroll miss as recession confirmation.⁶

For the equity tape, the first thing to watch is whether Russell can regain leadership from Nasdaq. If small caps lag again while mega-cap AI carries the index, the failed Run #32 watch item becomes a broader warning about breadth rather than a one-week reversal.²

For credit, the trigger is high yield OAS. If spreads remain near 275bps, the market is not confirming recession stress. If they push above 300bps while equities hold near highs, the divergence becomes harder to ignore.³

The watch item for next week: if the ten-year yield closes above 4.55% after the auction sequence, the term-premium thesis strengthens; if it closes below 4.37%, the dovish-growth interpretation regains control.⁵

So what: if you take nothing else from this week, the Fed’s labor argument cracked, but the long end refused to validate easy-money relief, and next week’s auction response decides whether that refusal was noise or signal.

Signals lead. Markets lag. The gap between them is where the opportunity lives.

SOURCES

1. BLS Employment Situation June 2026, July 2, 2026, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf; CNBC June jobs report, July 2, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/jobs-report-june-2026-.html

2. Seattle Times weekly index recap, July 2, 2026, https://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-major-us-stock-indexes-fared-thursday-7-2-2026/; T. Rowe Price global markets weekly update, July 2, 2026, https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/global-markets-weekly-update.html; WSJ Small Stocks Biggest Run, July 4, 2026, https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/russell-2000-small-stocks-gains-83fade43

3. Lighthouse Live Macro (FRED), July 2, 2026, https://macrolighthouse.com/data/; FRED BB US HY OAS, July 3, 2026, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLH0A1HYBB

4. n-tv Oil July 3 close, July 3, 2026, https://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/der_boersen_tag/Der-Boersen-Tag-Freitag-3-Juli-2026-id31042544.html/; T. Rowe Price weekly update, July 2, 2026, https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/global-markets-weekly-update.html

5. Barchart Treasury Rates, June 29, 2026, https://www.barchart.com/economy/interest-rates; Lighthouse Live Macro (FRED), July 2, 2026, https://macrolighthouse.com/data/

6. T. Rowe Price weekly update, July 2, 2026, https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/resources/insights/global-markets-weekly-update.html; CNBC jobless claims / ISM, July 2, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/jobs-report-june-2026-.html

DISCLOSURE

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please consult with your investment, tax, and legal professionals before considering any transactions or if you have any questions. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

The framework still matters. The implementation, in my view, needs serious thought.

Stocks-and-bonds-when-they-decorrelate is no longer the diversification trade it was in the 1980s. Long-duration Treasuries break in inflationary regimes Browne’s original framing did not have to contend with. Gold trades like a risk asset half the time, depending on dollar dynamics. Cash earns real yield until it doesn’t, and the duration of cash regimes has gotten harder to forecast.

On Wednesday, July 8, at 1:00 PM ET, I am sitting down with Matt Tuttle (CEO, Tuttle Capital Management), Porter Stansberry (Founder, Porter & Company), and Frances Newton (CIO, Tuttle Wealth Partners) for a 60-minute educational discussion of what a thoughtful update to the permanent portfolio framework looks like at the conceptual level.

This is not a product conversation. It is a framework conversation.

The questions we will work through:

Where does Browne’s original thesis still hold?

The core insight, that you should not have to forecast the next regime to survive it, is more durable than any specific four-bucket weighting. We will spend time on why that insight matters more in 2026 than it did in 1986.

Where does the original implementation break?

Equal-weight stocks and bonds in a world where they correlate. Long-duration Treasuries in inflationary regimes. Gold sized as a uniform 25% when its behavior varies by dollar regime. These are real implementation gaps, and they are worth discussing as conceptual problems rather than product problems.

What does forecast-independent allocation look like today?

Quality screens on equity exposure. Separating duration risk from yield exposure on the fixed income side. Hard asset exposure sized to the role it actually plays. The mechanics matter, and we will walk through them at the level of framework, not vehicle.

What does this mean for advisors?

The practical conversations to have with clients who are tired of forecast-based portfolios. How to talk about regime-independent thinking without overselling certainty. The honest trade-offs.

CE credit has been approved for the session.

Live Q and A at the end.

The call is on Zoom, registration is required, and the recording goes to registered attendees only.

Register: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Z5gQ25OLRAqkCmsHxb5VSw

Wednesday, July 8. 1:00 PM ET. See you there.

Today’s Lead-Lag Report is brought to you by our friends at Alexis Investment Partners — the father-daughter RIA and ETF issuer behind the Practical Tactical framework and the NASDAQ-listed Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI).

High valuations and an aging secular bull market threaten to re-assert sequence of returns risks that can ravage retirement income plans. Practical Tactical was built for this — a multi-asset, model informed framework managed by Jason Browne and Alexis Browne Roberts, seeking to add value through market cycles by:

• Participating more in up than down markets

• Pursuing leading sectors and regions and minimizing exposure to laggards

• Incorporating a broader range of asset classes and strategies than traditional balanced portfolios

That framework is wrapped in an ETF — a tax efficient tactical allocation sleeve advisors can use to complement strategic portfolios.

To learn more about the ETF, visit www.lexietf.com. Access AIP’s media content, monthly newsletter and learn more about practical tactical investing at www.alexisinvests.com.

Before investing carefully consider the fund’s investment objective, risks, charges, and expenses contained in the prospectus available at www.lexietf.com. Please read the prospectus carefully.

Investing involves risk including possible loss of principal.

Distributor: Foreside Fund Services, LLC

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided in the link is solely the creation of Alexis Investment Partners. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the link or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in the link are the sole opinion of Alexis Investment Partners and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

The CLO Income Play That Doesn't Blow Up

Every week, we’ll profile a high yield investment fund that typically offers an annualized distribution of 6-10% or more. With the S&P 500 yielding less than 2%, many investors find it difficult to achieve the portfolio income necessary to meet their needs and goals. This report is designed to help address those concerns.

Macro and Market Context

A few weeks ago, this column profiled Eagle Point Credit Company, and the response was overwhelming. Readers are clearly hungry for collateralized loan obligation income, and for good reason. The CLO market offers some of the most attractive risk-adjusted yields available anywhere in fixed income. The problem is that most retail vehicles reaching for the highest headline yields do so by owning the riskiest slice of the capital structure, and when the cycle turns, that slice gets devastated. There is a smarter way to own CLO exposure, and it is what sophisticated institutional credit investors actually hold.

The Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) is built around that exact idea. Rather than chasing the equity tranche of a CLO, which sits at the very bottom of the waterfall and absorbs the first dollar of loss, CLOZ owns the BBB and BB rated mezzanine tranches. These sit higher in the structure, are protected by layers of subordination beneath them, and still pay a floating coupon of SOFR plus a spread. The result is a fund that currently distributes roughly 7.5% while carrying a maximum historical drawdown of just 6.1%. That is a rare combination in the income world.

The macro backdrop makes this fund especially interesting right now. With Kevin Warsh at the helm of the Federal Reserve, the rate trajectory is genuinely uncertain, and the higher-for-longer scenario remains very much alive. For most income vehicles, that is a threat. For CLOZ, it is a tailwind. Because the fund’s holdings pay a floating rate tied to SOFR, a Fed that holds or hikes actually means more income flowing to shareholders, not less. This is the mirror image of the rate-sensitive REIT and preferred-stock funds that suffer when the Fed stays restrictive. CLOZ is the fund that benefits from the same environment that hurts them.

Fund Background

Full name: Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF, formerly the Eldridge BBB-B CLO ETF.

Ticker and exchange: CLOZ, listed on NYSE Arca.

Structure: An actively managed exchange-traded fund, not a passive index tracker and not a closed-end fund, so it trades at or very near net asset value rather than at a persistent premium or discount.

Manager: Panagram Structured Asset Management, a specialist in structured credit.

Inception: January 24, 2023, giving the fund roughly three and a half years of track record.

Assets under management: Approximately 816 million dollars across 203 individual CLO tranches.

Expense ratio: 0.50%.

Benchmark: The JP Morgan CLO High Quality Mezzanine Index.

Price and NAV: The shares recently traded around 26.34 dollars, essentially flat to NAV, within a 52-week range of 25.23 to 26.95 dollars.

Yield: A 30-day SEC yield of 6.85% and a distribution yield of 7.46%, paid through monthly distributions of roughly 0.171 dollars per share, or about 2.02 dollars annually on a trailing basis.

Rate profile: Floating rate, SOFR plus spread, which means effectively no duration risk.

- Paid Subscriber Content -

Read more

Markets move across multiple dimensions: flows, sector rotation, breadth, momentum, fundamentals, positioning, and risk.

The challenge is not just getting more data. It is turning that data into a repeatable research workflow.

That is where TrendSpider Sidekick excels.

Sidekick is TrendSpider’s AI-powered market analyst and trading assistant designed to help active investors research markets, analyze holdings, review charts, compare fundamentals, and monitor positions from one connected platform.

Sidekick Portfolio Agent allows users to connect supported brokerage accounts and ask Sidekick to analyze their live holdings in real time. That means Sidekick can help review open positions, portfolio weights, current PnL, and exposure across one or multiple accounts.

You can use Sidekick to:

● Analyze your current holdings from a single prompt

● Identify portfolio themes and potential exposure gaps

● Review sector concentration and position-level risk

● Compare fundamentals, technicals, and market context

● Set alerts across active positions without opening every chart manually

● Scan for names that match specific market, technical, or fundamental criteria

● Build a more structured market research and monitoring process

Sidekick helps turn market information into a more actionable research workflow.

Sign up for TrendSpider and experience the power of Sidekick at a steep discount.

Save up to 42% off: https://trendspider.com?_go=leadlagreport

Receive $355 in free upgrades if you sign up by July 3.

Disclosure: This is a partner offer. Lead-Lag Media may receive compensation if you sign up through this link.

A Record Quarter, a 40-Year Yen Low, and a Refuted Peace Trade: Q3 Has Begun

Let me lead with the scoreboard, because for once it settles an argument rather than starting one. Seven days ago I titled this column “Gold Refused the Peace Trade But Couldn’t Refuse the Dot Plot.” Gold just closed the quarter at $3,969.30 on the COMEX August front-month, down another leg from the $4,129.90 I flagged on June 24, and down roughly 14% on the quarter — the worst three months for the metal since 2013. The $4,320 floor I said would break is not a floor anymore; it is a ceiling. The peace trade that everyone wanted to blame got upstaged by the one thing that actually reprices real assets: a Federal Reserve chair who told the market rates are going higher, and meant it. The verdict on that thesis is not ambiguous. Warsh’s higher-for-longer signal beat Hormuz, exactly as titled, and the same repricing that crushed gold quietly rewrote every other asset class in the closing weeks of Q2.

Here is the part the record-quarter headlines keep burying. The S&P 500 finished the quarter up about 14%, its best since the stimulus-fueled Q2 of 2020, the Nasdaq Composite added roughly 20%, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index put up something between 81% and 86% — the best quarter on record for the chip index, surpassing even the dot-com bacchanal of Q1 2000 and its 67.75% print. On Tuesday the S&P rose 1.18% to 7,440.43, the Nasdaq Composite jumped 2.07% to 25,820.14, and the Dow tacked on 0.59% to 52,182.74. That Dow number is a new all-time high. The index reclaimed the 50,000 handle it first crossed back on February 6, surrendered during the Iran war drawdown, and retook in May — so spare me the “first time” framing that is going to litter the financial press this week. What is genuinely new is the level, and the fact that it printed on a day the pension funds were supposed to be selling.

And they were supposed to be selling in size. JPMorgan penciled up to $165 billion in quarter-end equity rebalancing pressure into June 30, one of the largest such mechanical events on record, driven by equities crushing bonds all quarter. The market ate it whole. Alphabet, freshly added to the Dow, jumped 4.8% on its first day as a component; the semiconductors ripped; AeroVironment rose about 17% on earnings. The contradiction I keep coming back to is this: the AI hardware layer went vertical while the hyperscalers who are actually spending the money bled out. The Magnificent Seven are down about 4% year-to-date — Microsoft off 24%, Meta down nearly 15% — while the picks-and-shovels chip suppliers doubled. Markets have decided the near-term monopoly on AI cash flow belongs to whoever sells the shovels, not whoever digs with them. That is a rational bet against $754 billion of projected hyperscaler capex with no clean line of sight to return. It is also the kind of bet that works right up until it doesn’t.

Chart 1 — U.S. indices, indexed to January 2, 2026. The SOX semiconductor complex left every large-cap index behind.

(Continued for paid subscribers)

Cross the Pacific and the same trade shows up with the volume turned to eleven. The Nikkei 225 closed at 70,062.32, up about 37% on the quarter — the best quarter on record — and Korea’s KOSPI put up an almost cartoonish 67.77% to 8,476.48, its biggest quarterly gain since Q4 1998. Taiwan’s Taiex ran roughly 46%. Europe was the tortoise: the STOXX 600 gained about 9.7%, its best quarter since 2020, with the DAX up double digits and the FTSE 100 a comparative laggard near 4% as its commodity and political weightings dragged. The central banks moved with the tape rather than against it. The ECB delivered its first hike since September 2023 on June 11, lifting the deposit rate to 2.25%, and the Bank of Japan raised to 1.00% on June 16 — a 31-year high — while the Bank of England held at 3.75% on a 7-2 vote on June 18, with the two dissenters wanting a hike. This is a synchronized global tightening impulse, and it is happening while equities make records. That combination does not usually end with everyone getting paid.

The divergence between Japan’s equity euphoria and its currency is the single most instructive chart of the quarter. The Nikkei printed the best quarter in its history and the yen printed a 40-year low, settling at 162.42 per dollar — the weakest since December 1986 — even after the BoJ hiked. Rate differentials trump domestic tightening when the other side of the trade is a Fed being repriced toward hikes, and the carry trade that was supposed to unwind simply refused to. Tokyo’s finance ministry is back to jawboning about acting “at any time,” which is what officials say when the intervention clock is running but the ammunition is finite. Foreigners, notably, have been selling into both the Japanese and Korean rallies to rebalance — this is a domestic and retail melt-up, not fresh global conviction, and that is a more fragile foundation than the index levels suggest.

Chart 2 — International developed markets, indexed to January 2, 2026. KOSPI and Nikkei broke away from a plodding Europe.

Emerging markets tell the cleanest version of the whole story, because they separate the winners and the casualties by force. The MSCI EM index leads every major region year-to-date at +26.35%, but strip out TSMC, Samsung, and SK Hynix and that headline evaporates — three memory names carry the bloc. On the other end, MSCI China is down 14.64% year-to-date, its worst relative showing against developed markets since the aftermath of 2001, with Tencent and Alibaba each shedding more than 29%. The China story itself is split down the middle: the domestic CSI 300 is up roughly 26% on the year as A-share chip manufacturers ride the AI capex wave, while offshore Hang Seng fell about 7.5% on the quarter, the worst in Asia. Two markets, one country, opposite directions.

And the genuine wreck is Indonesia, where the Jakarta Composite closed at 5,643.19, down a staggering 35.49% on the year — the worst major equity index on the planet, undone by capital flight, a rupiah at record lows, and civil unrest that traces straight back to imported energy inflation. India held up better in relative terms; the Nifty 50 closed at 23,865.75 and the Sensex at 76,478.67, both slipping on the session as IT names took profit and rate-hike fear crept in, with the Reserve Bank still holding its repo rate at 5.25%. The three-speed EM — chip exporters, a bifurcated China, and Hormuz’s oil-importing victims — is not noise. It is the map of who pays when the war premium and the rate premium move in opposite directions at the same time.

Chart 3 — Emerging markets, indexed to January 2, 2026. EM leads on chips while Indonesia and China diverge sharply.

Which brings me to the corner of the market where my thesis lives and where the regime reset is most visible. Gold at $3,969.30 on the COMEX August contract — spot briefly touched $3,956.92 intraday, breaking the $4,000 handle to the downside — is not the peace-trade story the consensus keeps trying to tell. Brent fell about 38% on the quarter to $72.92 and front-month WTI settled at $69.50, the largest quarterly drop for crude since the COVID collapse, and it happened while the Strait of Hormuz sat physically closed for a 124th straight day. Read that again: the largest oil supply disruption in modern history is still in effect, and oil round-tripped back to pre-war levels anyway, because the market is pricing the probability of resolution ahead of the fact of it. Bitcoin closed near $58,056, down about 12% on the quarter as the AI trade vacuumed up the risk-on liquidity crypto used to command, and ether was worse, near $1,600 for a roughly 25% quarterly loss and its first-ever three straight quarterly declines. The dollar, meanwhile, ground out a fourth consecutive quarterly gain, with the DXY closing at 101.163.

In my view the market is missing that gold, oil, and crypto did not each break for their own idiosyncratic reason — they broke together, on one repricing, and the asset that quietly won the argument is the dollar. Real yields did this. The 10-year TIPS breakeven sits near 2.22% while the nominal 10-year yields 4.36%, an implied real yield above 2% that historically strangles gold, and PCE at 4.1% headline and 3.4% core — the hottest since 2023 — is the reason Warsh can say higher-for-longer with a straight face. Notably, bond volatility is down: the MOVE index sits near 65, off roughly 42% from its Q1 panic peak, which tells me the market believes the hawkish regime rather than fearing it. That is a market on borrowed time only if inflation cools on schedule — and the June flash prints out of Germany at 2.3% and France at 2.0% suggest Europe’s disinflation may arrive faster than America’s.

Chart 4 — FX, crypto, and gold, indexed to January 2, 2026. The rate-transmission sweep: real assets down, dollar firm.

What I’m watching next week: Warsh at the ECB’s Sintra forum yesterday, his first major communication since the FOMC, for any hint that the “hawkish hold” tilts toward an actual September move. I’m watching the July jobs report for confirmation that a 7.594-million JOLTS print and a robust labor market keep the hike alive. I’m watching whether the yen’s 40-year low forces Tokyo’s hand on intervention, and whether the ECB’s July path softens now that German and French inflation are undershooting. I’m watching the gold-refusal thesis one more week for a T+14 stamp, though the ink is nearly dry: refuter dominant. And I’m watching the one number that has quietly narrated the entire quarter and will narrate the next — the dollar. It won Q2 without anyone cheering for it. Q3 starts now, and it starts on the dollar’s terms.

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Register free — Wednesday, July 1 at 2:00 PM ET

Preferred stocks are one of the more misunderstood corners of the income market. They sit between common equity and fixed income, they can offer higher yields than either, they pay dividends that are often tax-advantaged, and they carry a senior claim relative to common stock. On paper, that combination should have made preferreds the darling of every income allocator through the rate-cycle reset.

Instead, most passive preferred exposure has been quietly bleeding for years — and a lot of allocators still cannot articulate exactly why.

Today at 2:00 PM ET, Jay Hatfield, the CEO and Chief Investment Officer of Infrastructure Capital Advisors, joins me for 40 minutes to walk through the active case for the asset class. The full session is approved for 1 CFP CE credit, and Jay is taking live questions the whole way through.

Register free here.

Why the passive version of this trade is broken

Roughly 62 percent of the U.S. preferred market sits in financials. That is not a rounding error — that is the market. If you own a passive preferred index, you own a concentrated bet on U.S. bank capital stacks. When Q1 2023 regional bank stress hit, that concentration was not a theoretical risk. It was the whole story.

Passive funds also have a call-risk problem that almost nobody talks about. A meaningful slice of the preferred market trades above par on callable securities. When you buy a callable preferred above par, your yield-to-call can go negative — the issuer has every incentive to call the security back at par the moment the coupon becomes uneconomic, and the index does not care. It owns what it owns. You inherit the negative yield-to-call whether you understand it or not.

And then there is the structural piece. Preferreds come in three main flavors — fixed-rate, fixed-to-floating, and floating-rate — and they behave very differently as the rate environment shifts. A passive index blends them. An active manager decides which flavor to own for the regime you are actually in.

What Jay does differently

Jay is running PFFA, the Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF. He has been doing this work for a long time — he founded Infrastructure Capital, co-founded NGL Energy Partners (NYSE: NGL), ran fixed income research at Zimmer Lucas, led the Global Utility investment banking practice at CIBC, and was a principal in Global Power and Utilities banking at Morgan Stanley before that. Wharton MBA. He knows this capital stack from every seat.

Four things Jay will walk through today:

Active sector rotation. When financials own 62 percent of the market and regional banks start cracking, an active manager can rotate. A passive fund cannot. Jay will use Q1 2023 as the case study.

Credit screening at the security level. Every preferred is not created equal. Coupon structure, call features, issuer capital position, sector — an active PM chooses which ones to own and which ones to skip. Screening out the negative-yield-to-call trap is table stakes.

Modest non-resetting leverage. PFFA uses a measured amount of leverage that does not reset with rates. In the right structural setup, that leverage is additive rather than punitive. Jay will explain when it works and when it does not.

New-issue participation. The preferred new-issue calendar is where the most interesting yield opportunities show up — and passive funds by definition cannot participate. Jay’s team can.

Who this is for

If you are a financial advisor, an RIA, an allocator, or a serious individual investor who has been staring at your fixed income sleeve wondering where the actual yield is hiding — this session is for you. Preferreds are not the answer to every question. But for the right allocation slot, in the right hands, they may be doing real work that a bond index cannot do.

The webinar is 40 minutes end-to-end with live Q&A. Jay will answer as many questions as we can get through before his 3:30 PM ET Fox appearance. If you cannot make it live, register anyway — the replay goes to every registrant.

Register free — Wednesday, July 1 at 2:00 PM ET

CFP CE Credit: Approved for 1 hour CFP Board CE. Knowledge Topic: Investment Planning. Level: Intermediate.

———

Speakers

Jay Hatfield, CEO and Chief Investment Officer, Infrastructure Capital Advisors. Founder and lead PM at ICA. Co-founded NGL Energy Partners (NYSE: NGL). Prior: PM at SAC Capital; MD and Head of Fixed Income Research at Zimmer Lucas; led Global Utility IB at CIBC; Principal in Global Power and Utilities IB at Morgan Stanley. Wharton MBA with distinction; BS UC Davis.

Host: Michael A. Gayed, CFA. Founder of Lead-Lag Media and publisher of The Lead-Lag Report.

———

Disclosures

Infrastructure Capital Advisors, LLC is an SEC-registered investment adviser. The PFFA ETF (Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF) is distributed by VP Distributors, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtus Partners, Inc. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the fund before investing. To obtain a prospectus containing this and other important information, please visit https://www.infracapfunds.com/potential-benefits-of-pffa or call 1-888-383-0553. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. This webinar is for educational purposes only and is not investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security.

Live Webinar TODAY: Investing in Preferred Stocks with Jay Hatfield

Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 2:00 PM ET

40 minutes | Live Q&A | 1 CFP CE credit approved

Speaker: Jay Hatfield, CEO and Chief Investment Officer, Infrastructure Capital Advisors

Preferred stocks have been one of the more misunderstood corners of the income market through the rate-cycle reset. On Wednesday, July 1 at 2:00 PM ET, Jay Hatfield joins Michael Gayed for a 40-minute live session walking through the active case for preferred stocks, where yield actually lives in this part of the capital stack, and the risks most allocators are still sleepwalking past. Live Q&A with Jay throughout.

This session is approved for 1 CFP CE credit.

Register free here: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_HFoXfunWRFmQl2n9MCYCYA

Infrastructure Capital Advisors, LLC is an SEC-registered investment adviser. The PFFA ETF (Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF) is distributed by VP Distributors, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtus Partners, Inc. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the fund before investing. To obtain a prospectus containing this and other important information, please visit https://www.infracapfunds.com/potential-benefits-of-pffa or call 1-888-383-0553. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. This webinar is for educational purposes only and is not investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security.

Every Equity Crisis Was a Currency Crisis First

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

● Across eleven major equity drawdowns since 1971, the currency market moved first — sometimes by weeks, sometimes by more than a year, but almost always before the stock market broke.

● The 2008 EUR/USD cross-currency basis blew out roughly forty-five trading days before the S&P 500 peaked. The 2020 basis went first by about ten trading days. The 1997 Thai baht float led the October S&P mini-crash by more than eighty.

● Today’s tape looks calm. Under the surface, USD/JPY sits above 162 after Japan spent roughly ¥11.7 trillion trying to defend it, DXY is at a fifty-two-week high, and JPMorgan’s emerging-market FX vol index crossed above its developed-market counterpart in March for the first time in 209 sessions — a record streak, now broken.

● The counterargument is real. 2013’s Taper Tantrum crushed emerging-market currencies and left the S&P 500 up thirty percent for the year. Currency stress is a necessary condition for global equity crises. It is not always sufficient.

● What would falsify the thesis: a sustained twenty-percent drawdown in US stocks while the dollar sits flat, EM FX volatility stays quiet, and cross-currency basis spreads hover near zero.

The Pattern Nobody Names

Investors talk about earnings. They talk about the Fed. They talk about positioning, sentiment, breadth, credit spreads. What they rarely talk about — until it is too late — is the currency market.

That is a mistake, because the historical record is unusually clean on this point. A currency is not a medium of exchange. It is a claim on the full productive and fiscal capacity of the sovereign that issues it. When that claim starts to break, the equity market that trades against it is next. Not sometimes. Not usually. Almost every time, in some form, since we abandoned the gold anchor in 1971.

Bruno and Shin formalized the mechanism in 2015: global banks fund cheaply in dollars and lend into local balance sheets. When the dollar rises or the local currency falls, leverage ratios collapse, margin calls fire, and something — usually equities — has to be sold to raise dollars.[1] Hélène Rey argued at Jackson Hole in 2013 that there is one Global Financial Cycle, not many, and it moves with the VIX and dollar liquidity regardless of what exchange-rate regime a country happens to have chosen.[2] The Bank for International Settlements has been documenting cross-currency basis violations as the real-time thermometer of dollar funding stress since 2008.[3] These are not exotic academic ideas. They are the plumbing.

Chart 1. DXY and S&P 500 across the modern floating-rate era, with four illustrative FX stress episodes marked.

What Fifty Years of Case Studies Say

The Nixon Shock of August 1971 broke the dollar’s gold anchor. The S&P 500 peaked seventeen months later, in January 1973, and lost forty-eight percent over the following twenty-three months — the worst bear market since the Great Depression.[4]

The Plaza Accord of September 1985 committed the G5 to depreciate the dollar. DXY fell from 164 in early 1985 to 90 by early 1987 — a forty-five percent decline. The Louvre Accord of February 1987 tried to stabilize the fall and failed. Treasury Secretary Baker publicly hinted at further dollar weakness in the week before October 19, 1987. The S&P 500 fell twenty and a half percent in a single session.[5] The proximate FX signal preceded Black Monday by three to five trading days.

June 1992: Italian lira bond futures broke first. On September 16, 1992, the Bank of England raised its policy rate to fifteen percent in a single afternoon before capitulating — an intervention that Treasury FOI documents later placed at roughly £3.3 billion in confirmed net losses.[6] Sterling devalued roughly ten percent against the deutschmark within days. Italian and Spanish equities lost fifteen to twenty-five percent that quarter.

The Mexican peso devaluation of December 20, 1994 began as a fifteen percent band-widening. Within two weeks the peso had lost roughly thirty percent against the dollar after the government abandoned the band entirely and let the currency float. The Bolsa lost sixty-seven percent in dollar terms between December 19, 1994 and March 9, 1995.[7] The Colosio assassination nine months earlier had already sent the first warning.

July 2, 1997: the Thai baht floated and fell seventeen percent on day one.[8] The rupiah lost eighty-three percent. The won lost fifty percent. Eighty-three trading days later the S&P 500 fell 6.86 percent in a session — the first day cross-market circuit breakers ever tripped.

August 17, 1998: Russia devalued the ruble and defaulted. The ruble lost roughly seventy percent in five weeks. Long-Term Capital Management collapsed. The S&P 500 fell 19.3 percent from its July peak to its October trough, and the VIX hit 49.53 intraday.[9]

August 9, 2007: BNP Paribas suspended redemptions from three money market funds. The EUR/USD three-month cross-currency basis, previously anchored at zero, went negative that day.[10] The S&P 500 peaked forty-five trading days later. By March 2009 it had lost 56.8 percent, and the basis had blown out to negative two hundred basis points above LIBOR.

August 11, 2015: the People’s Bank of China cut the daily yuan reference rate by 1.9 percent — the biggest single-day fix cut ever. Ten trading days later the S&P 500 traded down twelve percent from its July peak.[11]

March 9, 2020: the EUR/USD cross-currency basis blew out toward negative one hundred basis points as COVID triggered a global dollar hoarding scramble. DXY surged eight percent in six weeks. The Federal Reserve opened new swap lines with nine additional central banks. The S&P 500 troughed shortly after, having lost 33.9 percent in thirty-three days.[12]

September 2022: Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget triggered a three-day, 120-basis-point spike in thirty-year UK gilt yields. Sterling touched $1.035 in Asian trading. The Bank of England intervened to stop a liability-driven pension fund fire sale from becoming systemic.[13] The same month, Japan’s Ministry of Finance made its first yen-buying intervention in twenty-four years.[14]

Chart 2. Four representative episodes where currency stress preceded the equity break: 1997 Thai baht, 1998 Russian ruble, 2015 PBOC CNH fix, 2020 COVID USD scramble.

Why This Time Feels Different, and Why It Probably Isn’t

The mechanism runs through four channels: cross-border bank leverage, dollar reserve-currency dynamics, the Global Financial Cycle, and cross-currency basis violations that measure real-time dollar funding stress. Each channel is documented. Each has been tested in real crises. The signal is not perfect, but its false-positive rate is meaningfully lower than the standard equity signals investors watch every day.

The most-cited counterpoint is 2013. Bernanke’s Taper Tantrum sent the Brazilian real, Indian rupee, Indonesian rupiah, and South African rand down thirteen to seventeen percent.[15] The S&P 500 finished the year up thirty percent. The lesson is not that FX signals fail. It is that FX signals matter most when the dollar itself is under stress — 2008, 2020 — and matter less when the dollar is strong for benign reasons like a Fed tightening cycle.

The Other Side

The steelman is real and I take it seriously. First, causation runs both ways: during 2008 and 2020, dollar demand may have been a coincident consequence of equity liquidation, not its cause. Second, 2013 shows that severe EM FX stress can occur without a US equity drawdown. Third, quantitative easing regimes structurally suppress FX volatility, and a basis at negative twenty basis points today does not mean what it meant in 2006, because Basel III has widened the resting level. Fourth, the S&P 500 is now roughly thirty percent Magnificent Seven — a domestically-insulated cash-flow machine less exposed to global funding dynamics than the pre-2010 index was.

None of these arguments falsify the thesis. They constrain it. FX volatility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a globally-mediated equity crisis. It is most predictive when combined with widening basis swaps, a rising MOVE index, and dollar strength driven by risk-off flight rather than pure policy divergence.

What The Signal Says Right Now

June 2026 is not August 2007. It is also not August 1997. It is something else — a slow-motion coiling.

DXY sits at 101.2, near a fifty-two-week high after recovering from the “Liberation Day” tariff-shock lows of early 2026 near 95 — roughly a six-percent move in a few months.[16] USD/JPY sits at 162.6 despite the Ministry of Finance having spent ¥11.7 trillion — about seventy-three billion dollars — defending the yen in April and May. Former BOJ policymaker Sayuri Shirai has publicly warned the pair could reach 163 to 165 if the Fed tightens further.[17] USD/CNH drifts toward 6.80 as the People’s Bank of China widens its daily fixing band from two percent to two and a half percent — the same kind of quiet policy signal that preceded August 11, 2015.

Chart 3. USD/JPY 2020–2026. Three MOF intervention rounds have failed to reverse the underlying trend.

Cross-currency basis is the tell to watch. The three-month EUR/USD basis sits at roughly negative sixteen to negative twenty basis points — benign by post-2015 standards but tighter than the negative thirty-five to negative forty-five that prevailed from 2016 through 2020. A widening from here toward negative forty and beyond would be the classical dollar-funding stress signal that led the equity peaks in 2007 and the equity trough in 2020.

The subtlest signal is the JPMorgan VXY-EM index. In March 2026 it crossed above the G7 FX volatility index for the first time in 209 consecutive trading days — the longest such streak on record.[18] EM FX vol above DM FX vol is historically an early cycle signal, not a late one. It says the periphery is starting to move before the core does.

Chart 4. Current FX signal composite: DXY at fifty-two-week high, EM FX vol crossed G7, EUR/USD basis benign but tighter than the 2016–2020 baseline.

I referenced the yen and Bank of Japan carry-trade risk in the June 26 issue.[19] That piece narrowed the lens to one currency, one policy regime. This piece widens it. The Japan story is one instance of the general pattern: reserve-currency systems produce currency crises before they produce equity crises. Every time. The list above is not selective. It is the full major-drawdown history of the modern floating-rate era.

Falsification

I would be wrong about this thesis if the following happened: the S&P 500 falls twenty percent or more, and DXY thirty-day realized volatility stays below six percent annualized, and EUR/USD three-month cross-currency basis stays between zero and negative ten basis points, and the JPMorgan VXY-EM index stays below its two-year median. That combination would prove the equity drawdown was domestically driven — earnings, valuation compression, sector rotation — without a global funding-stress dimension. It would prove FX was not the transmission mechanism. That combination is what should end this thesis. Until it happens, watch the money.

Few understand this.

Notes

1. Bruno, V. and Shin, H.S. (2015), “Cross-Border Banking and Global Liquidity,” Review of Economic Studies 82(2), 535–564.

2. Rey, H. (2013), “Dilemma not Trilemma: The Global Financial Cycle and Monetary Policy Independence,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Jackson Hole Symposium Proceedings.

3. Bank for International Settlements (2008), “The Spillover of Money Market Turbulence to FX Swap and Cross-Currency Swap Markets,” BIS Quarterly Review, March 2008; BIS Quarterly Review, September 2016.

4. New York Federal Reserve Monthly Review, September 1971. S&P 500 peak-to-trough per Motley Fool historical database.

5. NBER Working Paper 21813, “The Plaza Accord, 30 Years Later”; Federal Reserve History, “Stock Market Crash of 1987.”

6. Bank of England historical account; IMF eLibrary, ERM Crisis Annex.

7. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 1996, “The Mexican Peso Crisis: Implications for International Finance.”

8. Bank of Thailand press release, July 2, 1997; Bloomberg, July 14, 1997.

9. Brookings Institution analysis; Richmond Fed Economic History; VIX intraday data.

10. New York Fed Current Issues, “The Global Financial Crisis and Offshore Dollar Markets”; ECB Financial Stability Review, December 2011.

11. Bloomberg, August 11, 2015; Hong Kong Exchange CNH Flash Report, August 11, 2015.

12. Dallas Fed Economic Research, 2024, “Fed Swap Lines During the COVID Crisis”; State Street Global Advisors, “US Dollar Funding Stress in the Time of COVID-19.”

13. Bank of England Working Paper 1046 (2023), “An Anatomy of the 2022 Gilt Market Crisis”; IMF Selected Issues Paper on LDI Crisis, United Kingdom, 2023.

14. Ministry of Finance Japan, Foreign Exchange Intervention Operations, July–September 2022.

15. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/14/09, 2014.

16. Trading Economics DXY series; FRED series DTWEXBGS, Nominal Broad U.S. Dollar Index, June 26, 2026 reading.

17. Reuters, June 23, 2026, “Fed hike could push yen to 165 per dollar, ex-BOJ policymaker says.”

18. Bloomberg, March 5, 2026, “Emerging-Market FX Swings Top Developed Peers After Record Lull.”

19. Lead-Lag Report Macro Observations, June 26, 2026, “The Yen, the Bank of Japan, and the Slow-Motion Carry Trade.”

DISCLAIMER

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Markets move across multiple dimensions: flows, sector rotation, breadth, momentum, fundamentals, positioning, and risk.

The challenge is not just getting more data. It is turning that data into a repeatable research workflow.

That is where TrendSpider Sidekick excels.

Sidekick is TrendSpider’s AI-powered market analyst and trading assistant designed to help active investors research markets, analyze holdings, review charts, compare fundamentals, and monitor positions from one connected platform.

Sidekick Portfolio Agent allows users to connect supported brokerage accounts and ask Sidekick to analyze their live holdings in real time. That means Sidekick can help review open positions, portfolio weights, current PnL, and exposure across one or multiple accounts.

You can use Sidekick to:

● Analyze your current holdings from a single prompt

● Identify portfolio themes and potential exposure gaps

● Review sector concentration and position-level risk

● Compare fundamentals, technicals, and market context

● Set alerts across active positions without opening every chart manually

● Scan for names that match specific market, technical, or fundamental criteria

● Build a more structured market research and monitoring process

Sidekick helps turn market information into a more actionable research workflow.

Sign up for TrendSpider and experience the power of Sidekick at a steep discount.

Save up to 45% off plus $355 in free bonus upgrades: https://trendspider.com?_go=leadlagreport

Sign up by June 30 to secure the best deal.

Disclosure: This is a partner offer. Lead-Lag Media may receive compensation if you sign up through this link.

Defensive Sweep: XLV +4.6σ Best Sector Signal in Years, Tech Crushed -2σ, Framework Flips Risk-Off, Credit Confirms

Below is an assessment of the performance of some of the most important sectors and asset classes relative to each other with an interpretation of what underlying market dynamics may be signaling about the future direction of risk-taking by investors. The below charts are all price ratios which show the underlying trend of the numerator relative to the denominator. A rising price ratio means the numerator is outperforming (up more/down less) the denominator. A falling price ratio means underperformance.

THIS WEEK’S DOMINANT THESIS

Defensive rotation is the trade. Health care, utilities, staples, REITs, and long-duration Treasuries all printed Extreme (|Z|>2.0) positive signals while technology printed an Extreme negative signal — and credit confirmed it.

The cleanest read is that the market has stopped paying for AI growth at any price and started repricing for a Fed-on-hold-with-no-cuts regime under Chair Warsh, with breadth narrowing in exactly the way that historically precedes a tradable correction in the cap-weighted index.

Weekly Snapshot

S&P 500 -2.38% · Nasdaq -4.6% (worst week since 2022) · Russell 2000 +1.01% · 10Y yield 4.40% (-12 bp WoW) · Dollar Index 101.36 · Gold -3.48% to $388.86 · WTI Crude -9.62% to $69.23 (Iran de-escalation continues) · VIX +12.26% to 18.83 · Lumber -2.37% to $621 · Best sector XLV +7.80% (best week since June 2022) · Worst sector XLK -5.28% (Nvidia -8.6% worst week since April 2025).

24-Asset Master Summary Table

Sorted by Status (Leaders → Neutral → Laggards), then by signal strength.

Z-score legend: |Z|<0.5 Background · 0.5-1.0 Weak · 1.0-1.5 Notable · 1.5-2.0 Significant · >2.0 Extreme. RRG: Strengthening (rising+accelerating) · Weakening (rising+slowing) · Recovering (falling+improving) · Deteriorating (falling+declining).

LEADERS: DEFENSIVE ROTATION GOES EXTREME — FIVE SECTORS HIT |Z|>2σ

Health Care (XLV) — Strengthening · The Single Largest Sector Signal In Over A Year

XLV/SPY ratio: +10.42% 1W · +11.14% 1M · Z-score: +4.63σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 1 week · Seasonal: XLV has historically been the best-performing sector in July of midterm years.

Health care is the headline. XLV gained 7.80% on the week — the best single-week sector performance since June 2022 — and the XLV/SPY ratio printed a +4.63σ reading, an ‘Extreme’ signal at a magnitude this framework has not generated in either direction in over twelve months. Eli Lilly led with an 11.6% weekly gain on renewed obesity-drug pipeline confidence and a broader sector bid that included biotech, large-cap pharma, and managed care simultaneously. The structural drag I have flagged for months — GLP-1 saturation, drug pricing pressure, mega-cap tech sucking flow — was overwhelmed in a single week by a defensive rotation impulse that was as broad as it was violent. The RRG quadrant is Strengthening because the ratio is rising and accelerating versus its prior 4-week pace, and the seasonal tailwind into midterm-year July adds confluence. The risk to the call: a +4.63σ reading is, by definition, statistically improbable to repeat next week — mean reversion in the magnitude is likely, but a Z above 1.0 even after a partial unwind would still confirm regime change.

Real Estate (XLRE) — Strengthening · From Forgotten Sector To Extreme Leader In One Week

XLRE/SPY ratio: +6.59% 1W · +5.00% 1M · Z-score: +3.38σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 1 week.

Real estate ripped. XLRE/SPY printed +3.38σ — the second-largest signal in the report — driven by a 12 bp decline in the 10-year yield, REITs catching a bond-proxy defensive bid, and Welltower leading individual names with +7.70% on the week. The same setup that hurt REITs for the past nine months — higher-for-longer rates, work-from-home overhang on offices, financing-cost pressure on commercial — partially reversed: rates fell on the de-escalation in Iran, the defensive bid arrived after the tech rout, and real estate suddenly had the cleanest set of supports it has had since 2024. The RRG is Strengthening but the prior week’s RRG was Deteriorating, so this is a fresh quadrant flip, not continuation. Treat the signal as confirmed but watch for the 10-year yield to reverse — REIT leadership is yield-sensitive and a single hawkish Warsh comment can unwind it.

Small Caps (IWM) — Strengthening · Third Consecutive Week Of Leadership While Mega-Cap Tech Bled

IWM/SPY ratio: +3.91% 1W · +6.28% 1M · Z-score: +2.58σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 3 weeks · Seasonal: small-cap July seasonality is mixed but post-July strong.

The Russell ground higher for a third straight week while the S&P fell 2.38%. The dispersion is the story: cap-weighted indices are dominated by names that just got crushed (Nvidia -8.6%, Broadcom heavy, software exodus), while the equal-weight S&P 500 rose 1.6% on the week — the widest gap in favor of equal-weight since June 2020. IWM/SPY printed +2.58σ Extreme on a 3-week rising streak with RRG accelerating into Strengthening. The lower 10-year yield helps small-cap balance sheets (Russell components carry far more floating-rate debt than S&P components), the defensive rotation lifts small-cap defensives that are nontrivial in the index, and the relative valuation gap continues to compress from extreme lows. The risk: if the Nasdaq selloff broadens into a full risk-off, small caps historically participate to the downside even though they led during the rotation.

Utilities (XLU) — Recovering · Bond-Proxy Defensive Catches Bid Even As Yields Stay Elevated

XLU/SPY ratio: +6.40% 1W · +5.76% 1M · Z-score: +2.42σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 1 week.

Utilities printed +2.42σ — the third Extreme defensive signal of the week — confirming the framework check flip. The trade is straightforward: when investors stop paying for AI growth and start hunting for income and stability, utilities are the cleanest sector expression. XLU rallied 2.91% absolute while SPY fell, and the data-center AI power demand narrative that has supported the sector for two years is now layering on top of a fresh defensive bid. The RRG is Recovering — the ratio is below its 20-week moving average but the 4-week ROC is now accelerating positive, meaning the early innings of what could become a sustained leadership move. Watch the 10-year yield: utilities live and die on duration sensitivity. A yield breakout above 4.50% takes air out of this trade fast.

Consumer Staples (XLP) — Recovering · Defensive Rotation Hits Every Sector In The Cohort

XLP/SPY ratio: +4.90% 1W · +3.55% 1M · Z-score: +2.27σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 1 week.

Staples completed the defensive sweep. XLP/SPY printed +2.27σ Extreme while the sector itself gained 2.4% on the week. The pattern is unmistakable: every defensive sector — health care, real estate, utilities, staples — is printing a |Z|>2.0 in the same week, which is the kind of clustered rotation signal that historically marks a regime change rather than a one-week tactical bounce. Nestle led individual names (+7.39%) on a combination of pricing power confirmation and EM consumer normalization. RRG is Recovering because the longer-term trend is still down, but the 4-week ROC is now accelerating positive — the same setup as utilities, with the same yield-sensitivity risk.

Investment-Grade Credit (LQD) — Recovering · Quality Credit Catches A Bid

LQD/SPY ratio: +3.95% 1W · +3.61% 1M · Z-score: +2.12σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 1 week.

LQD/SPY printed +2.12σ — quality credit outperformed equities by nearly 4% on the week — confirming the risk-off rotation across asset classes, not just within equities. Investment-grade spreads tightened modestly while the 10-year yield fell 12 bp, giving LQD a double-tailwind (lower duration component and tighter spread). The setup matters because investment-grade credit is the rare asset class where retail allocators and pension funds both add at the same time during defensive rotations — there is structural demand whenever quality fixed income looks attractive relative to equities. Continued leadership here would be the cleanest single confirmation that institutional flows are following the rotation.

Financials (XLF) — Strengthening · Banks Stay Up Even As Yield Curve Compressed

XLF/SPY ratio: +2.79% 1W · +7.35% 1M · Z-score: +2.04σ (Extreme) · Streak: rising 1 week.

Financials are the one cyclical that held on through the defensive rotation, printing +2.04σ Extreme with RRG accelerating into Strengthening. The 10-year yield fell 12 bp while the 2-year stayed anchored, which technically compressed the curve — but XLF still gained relative to SPY because the rotation away from tech freed up enormous capital that needed a home in something with both growth optionality and defensive quality. Banks remain the cleanest expression of a no-recession, Fed-on-hold, deregulation-tailwind macro: deposit base intact, net interest margin still wide enough, capital markets active enough. The risk is the same as every cycle: if the bond market starts pricing actual recession instead of just slowdown, XLF deflates with everything else.

Industrials (XLI) — Strengthening · Four Weeks Of Rising Ratio, Cyclical-In-Defensive-Clothing

XLI/SPY ratio: +2.86% 1W · +7.01% 1M · Z-score: +1.95σ (Significant) · Streak: rising 4 weeks.

Industrials are the most counter-narrative leader this week. While the macro tape rotated defensive, XLI/SPY extended its rising streak to four weeks and printed +1.95σ Significant. The reading is consistent with the ‘soft landing without cuts’ thesis — the economy is still expanding (May retail sales surprised at +0.9%), reshoring capex is real, and industrial automation orders are firming even as the AI software equity narrative cracks. The XLB/XLI spread that I flagged earlier in the quarter is now resolving in industrials’ favor because the inflation impulse is being expressed in services and defensives rather than raw materials. The 4-week streak makes this the most durable trend on the leader board after Lumber/Gold.

Long-Duration Treasuries (TLT) — Recovering · Bond-Proxy Defensives All At Once

TLT/SPY ratio: +4.07% 1W · +5.57% 1M · Z-score: +1.87σ (Significant) · Streak: rising 4 weeks.

TLT/SPY printed +1.87σ Significant — the long bond outperformed equities by 4% on the week even as the 10-year only fell 12 bp. The pattern matches LQD, XLU, and XLRE: every duration-sensitive asset is catching a defensive bid simultaneously, which is what happens when allocators reach simultaneously for both income and lower volatility. RRG is Recovering on a 4-week rising streak — the streak duration matches XLI and is the second-longest among leaders. The interpretation: bond investors are positioning for either a growth scare that forces Warsh dovish or for a flight-to-quality bid from continued equity rotation. Either way, treasuries finally have a tailwind after three months of pain.

Materials (XLB) — Recovering · The Quiet Cyclical Holdout

XLB/SPY ratio: +2.40% 1W · +3.91% 1M · Z-score: +1.04σ (Notable) · Streak: rising 1 week.

Materials threaded the needle. XLB/SPY held leader status with +1.04σ Notable even as the broader cyclical complex outside Industrials and Financials lost ground. Copper and aluminum names participated; chemicals lagged. The reading is consistent with a structurally tight commodities market combined with deregulation-friendly fiscal policy, but the weakness in lumber this week (-2.37%) is a warning sign that the broader cyclical pulse may be losing some velocity. RRG Recovering — the ratio is still below its 20-week MA but the 4-week ROC is now positive and accelerating. If next week brings continued positive Z, materials confirms the broader inflation-asset bid; if not, this becomes a Neutral within two weeks.

LAGGARDS: TECH CRUSHED, EM BREAKS DOWN, CREDIT TURNS

Technology (XLK) — Weakening · The First Sustained Tech Selloff Since April 2025

XLK/SPY ratio: -2.97% 1W · +0.95% 1M · Z-score: -2.01σ (Extreme) · Streak: falling 1 week.

Technology cracked. XLK/SPY printed -2.01σ Extreme, the only Extreme negative reading on the board, and Nvidia fell 8.6% on the week — its worst weekly performance since April 2025. The Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF is down 12.9% month-to-date. The proximate triggers were a consensus pivot away from ‘AI capex at any price’ toward concerns about return-on-AI-spending and weakening enterprise software signals (semiconductors -7.95% segment, software -2.98%, hardware -6.24%). XLC fell 8.46% as the mega-cap internet cohort got hit by the same flow. RRG flipped from Strengthening to Weakening — the ratio is still above its 20-week MA so this is not a full breakdown yet, but the 4-week ROC has clearly turned. The risk to a more cautious tech call: dip-buyers have shown up reliably for 18 months and one strong earnings beat (Microsoft, Apple report late July) can unwind half the damage in a single session. Stay short tech vs. defensives until either the JNK/GOVT confirmation reverses or XLK absorbs a hot earnings catalyst.

Emerging Markets (EEM) — Strengthening · The Counter-Trend Quadrant Breaks Down On Headline

EEM/SPY ratio: -2.78% 1W · +1.40% 1M · Z-score: -1.61σ (Significant) · Streak: falling 1 week.

EM gave back the gains it built over the past month. EEM/SPY printed -1.61σ Significant — the third-largest negative reading — even though the RRG technically still says Strengthening (because the longer-term trend remains intact). The driver was a combination of dollar resilience into the defensive rotation, China-specific tape weakness on tech and material names, and Brazil/India taking idiosyncratic hits. The story to watch is whether this is a single-week capitulation in a still-intact uptrend or the first crack. The dollar held 101.36 even as the Iran de-escalation continued, which is itself a tell: when DXY refuses to fall on objectively bullish-for-EM news, it means the defensive bid in the dollar is stickier than the geopolitical setup would suggest. If DXY breaks 102, EM unwinds harder. If DXY breaks 100, EM mean-reverts up.

Gold (GLD) — Deteriorating · Eight-Week Falling Streak Extended To Nine

GLD/SPY ratio: -1.13% 1W · -6.08% 1M · Z-score: -0.37σ (Background) · Streak: falling 9 weeks.

Gold extended its losing streak to nine consecutive weeks of falling vs SPY — one of the longest stretches in the past three years. GLD itself fell 3.48% on the week to $388.86, a fourth consecutive weekly decline, and is now -10.43% on a 4-week basis. The drivers compound on each other: Fed-on-hold-or-hiking under Warsh removes the falling-real-rates tailwind; the Iran de-escalation continues to bleed the safe-haven premium; and now the defensive rotation chose health care, utilities, staples, and Treasuries over precious metals — meaning even within the defensive trade, gold is being skipped over. The Z-score is only -0.37 because the magnitude of any individual week has been modest while the streak has been brutal — death by a thousand cuts. The level the trade needs to break this: a Warsh dovish surprise, a sustained dollar break under 100, or geopolitical re-escalation. Until then, the trend is the trade.

Communication Services (XLC) — Recovering · Eight-Week Falling Streak Despite Tactical Bounce

XLC/SPY ratio: -0.37% 1W · -5.98% 1M · Z-score: -0.04σ (Background) · Streak: falling 8 weeks.

XLC is the slow-motion bleed. The ratio has fallen for eight consecutive weeks and is -5.98% on a 1-month basis, but the individual weekly moves have been modest enough to print only Background Z-scores. The sector is dominated by mega-cap internet (Meta, Alphabet, Netflix) which has been the cleanest victim of the rotation away from secular growth. Communication Services itself fell 8.46% on the week per third-party segment data — among the worst-performing S&P groups. The technical RRG quadrant flipped to Recovering this week (ratio falling but 4-week ROC improving) which historically marks the early innings of a relief bounce, but with the broader defensive rotation accelerating, expect any XLC bounce to be sold.

Consumer Discretionary (XLY) — Recovering · Tesla Drag Plus Consumer Fatigue

XLY/SPY ratio: +0.19% 1W · -3.19% 1M · Z-score: +0.32σ (Background) · Streak: rising 2 weeks.

Discretionary is the laggard with a quiet tailwind. The 1-week reading flipped slightly positive (+0.19%) on a 2-week rising streak, but the 1-month picture is still -3.19% and Tesla’s +8.46% Monday rebound is doing real work to flatter the index relative to fundamentals. The consumer signal underneath is weakening: credit card delinquencies elevated, services-spending categories softening, and Amazon-specific risk into the Q2 print. The RRG Recovering classification suggests the bounce has another week or two of room, but the deeper trend remains down until either rates structurally fall or the labor market visibly loosens. Treat this as a tactical neutral, not a leader.

European Banks vs U.S. Banks (EUFN/XLF) — Weakening · The Best Bank Trade Quietly Reversed

EUFN/XLF ratio: -1.54% 1W · -2.84% 1M · Z-score: -0.91σ (Weak) · Streak: falling 1 week.

EUFN/XLF turned for the first time in months. With U.S. banks printing +2.04σ Extreme this week, EUFN’s relative leadership eroded — EUFN fell 1.19% while XLF gained 0.35%, and the ratio printed -0.91σ Weak with RRG flipped to Weakening. The ECB-Fed policy divergence trade still exists conceptually but is being overwhelmed by the U.S. defensive rotation flow that prefers domestic balance-sheet quality. The cleanest read: this is a tactical pause in a still-intact structural EUFN/XLF uptrend, but if next week prints another |Z|>0.5 negative, the structural call comes under review.

Energy (XLE) — Recovering · Surprising Strength Inside An Otherwise Bearish Week For Crude

XLE/SPY ratio: +3.30% 1W · -2.30% 1M · Z-score: +0.81σ (Weak) · Streak: rising 1 week.

Energy is the puzzle. WTI crude fell 9.62% on the week as Iran de-escalation continued, yet XLE/SPY rose 3.30% — printing +0.81σ Weak with RRG flipped to Recovering. The disconnect is partly mechanical (energy equity got too oversold relative to the move in spot) and partly because the broader defensive rotation lifted everything that was not tech or commodity-pure. Do not read too much into this — the underlying fundamental for XLE (oil price level) just confirmed a structurally lower regime, and the equity catch-up is a relief rally rather than leadership confirmation. Treat as Neutral with a downward bias until oil stabilizes above $75.

Lumber / Gold — Strengthening Statistically But Losing Velocity

Lumber/Gold ratio: +1.18% 1W · +14.91% 1M · Z-score: +0.25σ (Background) · Streak: rising 4 weeks.

The Lumber/Gold ratio still technically prints Strengthening on a 4-week rising streak, but the underlying components both deteriorated this week: lumber fell 2.37% (LBR=F $621) and gold fell 3.48% — meaning the ratio rose only because gold fell harder. This is the lowest-quality version of the leader signal: the lumber-vertical, gold-falling pro-cyclical regime is still mathematically intact on a 4-week basis (Lumber +5.19%, Gold -10.43%), but the lumber component itself is cracking, which is the pre-condition for either a stagflation pivot (BothDown) or a defensive-favoring pivot (Lumber↓ Gold↑). Watch lumber: a break below $600 in the next two weeks would mark a meaningful regime change in the macro framework.

Lumber/Gold Scenario Translation

Scenario this week: Lumber↑ Gold↓ (cyclical-favoring). Lumber 4W ROC +5.19%, Gold 4W ROC -10.43%. The mathematical reading still says cyclical-pro-growth, which is the historical confirmation pattern for materials and small-cap leadership. But this week’s individual components both fell, meaning the ratio improved on relative momentum rather than absolute strength — a degraded version of the signal. The implication: the cyclical regime is fading, even if it has not yet flipped. If lumber breaks $600 in the next two weeks while gold stabilizes or rebounds, the scenario flips to Lumber↓ Gold↑ (defensive-favoring) which would CONFIRM the equity defensive rotation across the cross-asset framework. That is the single highest-confluence setup to watch.

Previously On Leaders-Laggards

Last week (Jun 23 issue, Run #20) — Warsh’s First Strike: Hawkish Hold Sends EEM and Russell To Extremes, Energy Goes From Hero To Worst Performer. The leader board was EEM, IWM, XLK, XLI, EUFN, TLT, XLF, XLB; the laggards were XLE, XLV, XLC, XLRE, GLD, XLU, XLY, XLP. How it held up: the call on the hawkish Warsh pivot is intact and arguably the proximate driver of this week’s full defensive rotation — the FOMC’s higher-for-longer messaging is what gave permission to the rotation out of growth and into income. The XLE-to-laggard call held perfectly (WTI down another 9.6% this week). The XLK leadership call inverted hard — XLK/SPY went from +0.19σ last week to -2.01σ this week, a -2.20σ one-week swing that is itself an Extreme magnitude. The XLV-as-laggard call inverted from Weakening RRG to Strengthening RRG and printed the largest sector flip in the report. The IWM/EEM/TLT/XLF calls extended cleanly. Net: 5 of 8 leaders held or strengthened, 6 of 8 laggards held or weakened, the XLK/XLV pair was the principal miss.

What Would Change My View

The defensive rotation call is the highest-conviction read in this report. It would weaken materially if: (1) JNK/GOVT recovers above its 20-week moving average within two weeks, breaking the credit-side confirmation; (2) XLK/SPY prints |Z|>1.0 positive on a fresh weekly read, indicating dip-buyers absorbed the AI rotation; (3) the 10-year yield breaks above 4.50% on a sustained basis, removing the duration-defensive tailwind; (4) lumber breaks above $660 while gold stays soft, reinstating the BothDown-to-cyclical pivot; or (5) Warsh delivers an unexpectedly dovish FOMC statement in late July. The call would be invalidated if all five conditions print simultaneously. The call would be CONFIRMED with higher conviction if: (a) defensive sectors print another |Z|>1.0 positive next week (continuation, not single-week spike); (b) lumber breaks under $600 confirming the cross-asset cyclical regime change; (c) JNK/GOVT extends to a second consecutive |Z|>1.5 widening; or (d) DXY breaks above 102 forcing further EM and risk-asset unwind.

The Week In Context

The cleanest signal from this report in over a year is that five defensive sectors all printed Extreme positive readings (|Z|>2.0) in the same week — XLV +4.63σ, XLRE +3.38σ, XLU +2.42σ, XLP +2.27σ, LQD +2.12σ — while technology printed -2.01σ Extreme on the other side and credit confirmed risk-off with JNK/GOVT -1.53σ Significant widening. The cross-asset confluence is unusually high: defensive equities, long-duration bonds, investment-grade credit, and the framework’s own XLU/SPY 4W ROC all moved together. The single most important question for the next two weeks is whether the JNK/GOVT widening extends or reverses — that is the cleanest test of whether this rotation becomes a regime change or remains a sharp internal correction inside an intact bull market.

“Five defensive sectors at |Z|>2σ in the same week, with credit confirming. That is not a rotation — that is the breadth setup that precedes regime change.”

Data Sources

Yahoo Finance — Daily ETF & equity prices:

https://finance.yahoo.com

MarketWatch — Tale of Two S&P 500s, Equal-Weight Rotation: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/tale-two-p-500s-rotation-113000983.html

ValuEngine via The Globe and Mail — Week ending Jun 26, 2026: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/AMAT/pressreleases/3042235/06292026-valuengine-weekly-market-summary-commentary/

The Market Pulse — Healthcare Replaces Technology as Investors Rotate Into Defensives:

Dr. Robert Castellano’s The Market Pulse

Healthcare Replaces Technology as Investors Rotate into Defensive Sectors

What’s in This Article…

Read more

13 days ago · 7 likes · Dr. Robert Castellano

Cardinal Insights — Weekly Market Update Jun 28, 2026:

Cardinal Insights

Cardinal Insights — Weekly Market Update

Tech Had a Rough Week. Really Rough…

Read more

12 days ago · 1 like · Chris Cardinal

Stock Titan — 1-Week Sector Performance Jun 27, 2026: https://www.stocktitan.net/sector-performance

FRED — 10-Year Treasury Yield: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10

Intellectia.ai — Fed June 2026 Hawkish Pause Analysis: https://intellectia.ai/blog/fed-interest-rate-decision-june-2026-analysis

Opus Asset — Warsh Doctrine Era Special Report: https://www.opusasset.com/knowledge-centre/special-report-june-fomc-meeting-warsh-doctrine-era/

CIBC — June 2026 FOMC Update: https://private-wealth.us.cibc.com/insights/articles/june-2026-fomc-update

Disclosure

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Markets move across multiple dimensions: flows, sector rotation, breadth, momentum, fundamentals, positioning, and risk.

The challenge is not just getting more data. It is turning that data into a repeatable research workflow.

That is where TrendSpider Sidekick excels.

Sidekick is TrendSpider’s AI-powered market analyst and trading assistant designed to help active investors research markets, analyze holdings, review charts, compare fundamentals, and monitor positions from one connected platform.

Sidekick Portfolio Agent allows users to connect supported brokerage accounts and ask Sidekick to analyze their live holdings in real time. That means Sidekick can help review open positions, portfolio weights, current PnL, and exposure across one or multiple accounts.

You can use Sidekick to:

● Analyze your current holdings from a single prompt

● Identify portfolio themes and potential exposure gaps

● Review sector concentration and position-level risk

● Compare fundamentals, technicals, and market context

● Set alerts across active positions without opening every chart manually

● Scan for names that match specific market, technical, or fundamental criteria

● Build a more structured market research and monitoring process

Sidekick helps turn market information into a more actionable research workflow.

Sign up for TrendSpider and experience the power of Sidekick at a steep discount.

Save up to 45% off plus $355 in free bonus upgrades: https://trendspider.com?_go=leadlagreport

Sign up by June 30 to secure the best deal.

Disclosure: This is a partner offer. Lead-Lag Media may receive compensation if you sign up through this link.

A Market at the Edge

SIGNAL SUMMARY

Key Takeaways:

• Signal 1 (Beta Rotation) now Risk-Off with the XLU/SPY 4-week RoC at 7.93%. Utilities are outperforming the S&P 500 over the past four weeks, a defensive rotation signature. The allocation remains 100% XLU (Utilities).

• Signal 2 (Treasury Rotation) is RISK-OFF on the latest May month-end reading. TLT returned 0.16% in May versus IEF at -0.35%. Long-duration bonds outperformed intermediate maturities, a defensive risk-appetite indicator. The signal will hold this reading through the end of June. The current allocation tilts toward long-duration Treasuries (VLGSX/TLT).

• Signal 3 (Lumber/Gold) is RISK-ON on the latest 13-week relative-performance reading. Lumber’s 13-week return of 4.87% exceeds gold’s -9.70%. All seven sub-strategies are positioned offensively, with cyclical exposures favored over defensive bond pairs.

• The S&P 500 at 7,354.02 sits +6.2% above its 200-day SMA of 6,924.97. Signal 4 remains Risk-On, with the allocation set to SSO (2x leveraged S&P 500). Trend remains intact even after Thursday’s broad equity selloff.

MARKET COMMENTARY

The framework reads 2-2 Risk-On this week. 2 of four signals favor risk-on positioning and 2 signals flag defense. The S&P 500 closed at 7,354.02 on June 26, 2026, +6.2% above its 200-day moving average of 6,924.97.

The week ending June 26, 2026 closed with the S&P 500 at 7,354.02. The index continues to sit above its 200-day moving average, keeping the trend structure intact that has framed the year to date. Beneath the headline price action, defensive equity leadership has emerged — utilities are outperforming the broad market over the trailing four weeks, a rotation signature that often precedes broader risk-off behavior, and long-duration Treasury bids picked up versus intermediate maturities — a pattern consistent with this week’s Treasury Rotation reading. Earnings season has wound down with broadly stable forward guidance, and macro data continues to trace a soft-landing path, but valuations, positioning, and concentration risk all argue for tactical respect of the framework’s defensive readings.

At 7,354.02, the index sits +6.2% above its 200-day SMA of 6,924.97. That spread is comfortable enough to keep Signal 4 on the offensive 2x leveraged allocation. The technical setup remains constructive in the aggregate — price above a rising 200-day — but the divergence between the trend signal and the Beta Rotation and Treasury Rotation signals is the kind of split that historically precedes either a pause in the trend or a stronger rotation into defense.

The Beta Rotation signal is RISK-OFF with the XLU/SPY 4-week Rate of Change at 7.93%. Utilities are outperforming the broad market over the trailing four weeks, with the positive RoC reflecting persistent flows into defensive equity sectors. This rotation signature often emerges ahead of broader risk-off behavior and warrants attention. The framework’s allocation shifts to XLU (Utilities).

The Treasury Rotation signal is RISK-OFF on the latest May month-end reading. TLT returned 0.16% in May versus IEF at -0.35%, with the long bond outperforming the intermediate — a classic defensive risk-appetite signature. The signal will hold this May reading through the end of June. Long-duration outperformance during a backdrop of generally rising equity tells a story of yield-curve flattening pressure and creeping recessionary positioning at the long end. Combined with Signal 1’s utilities-led rotation, defensive positioning is broadening across multiple corners of the framework. A persistent Risk-Off Treasury signal alongside a Risk-On 200-day reading is the kind of divergence that historically signals an inflection point: either the equity trend resolves the divergence by following Treasuries lower, or Treasuries reconverge upward.

The Lumber/Gold signal is RISK-ON on the latest 13-week reading. Lumber’s 13-week return of 4.87% exceeds gold’s -9.70%. All seven Lumber/Gold sub-strategies are positioned offensively, with cyclical and growth-tilted pairs favored over defensive bond pairs. Lumber has held its bid as housing demand expectations firm, while gold has paused its rally near record levels. The relative dynamic stays Risk-On but the spread has narrowed week-over-week, and a re-acceleration in gold would flip the signal quickly.

The 2-2 Risk-On reading sits evenly split, an inflection-point posture where the framework offers neither full offense nor full defense. Mixed readings often precede broader pivots in either direction — either the defensive signals reconverge to risk-on, or the risk-on signals follow defense lower. The current setup demands tactical respect: maintain offensive allocations where signals call for them, recognize defensive allocations where they apply, and treat the disagreement among indicators as meaningful. The risks worth watching are an acceleration of the long-Treasury bid, further utilities outperformance that deepens the Beta Rotation defensive reading, equity selloffs that compress the cushion above the 200-day, or a flip of the Lumber/Gold spread back to gold-favored.

SIGNAL 1: BETA ROTATION

Based on: “Opposing Behavioral Forces: Beta Rotation” (SSRN 2417974)

Target Investor: Self-directed investors who want to capture relative strength between equity market segments. This signal uses the 4-week rate of change of the Utilities-to-S&P 500 price ratio to determine whether the market favors offense (broad equity) or defense (Utilities).

CURRENT INDICATOR: RISK-OFF

XLU/SPY 4-Week Rate of Change: 7.93%

Current Allocation: 100% SPY (S&P 500)

Growth of $100,000 | YTD from January 3, 2025 | Data: Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC

SIGNAL 2: TACTICAL RISK ROTATION

Based on: “A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation” (SSRN 2431022)

Target Investor: Conservative to moderate investors seeking a tactical overlay between equities and long-duration Treasuries. This signal compares the prior month total return of 10-year versus 30-year Treasury bonds to identify shifts in the yield curve’s risk appetite signal.

CURRENT INDICATOR: RISK-OFF

30yr Treasury (TLT) May Return: 0.16%

10yr Treasury (IEF) May Return: -0.35%

Current Allocation: 100% Long-Duration Treasuries (VLGSX/TLT)

Growth of $100,000 | Monthly Data from January 2025 | Data: Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC

SIGNAL 3: LUMBER/GOLD RATIO

Based on: “Lumber: Worth Its Weight in Gold” (SSRN 2604248)

Target Investor: Active investors seeking to rotate between offensive and defensive exposures across multiple asset class pairings. This signal uses the 13-week relative performance of Lumber futures versus Gold spot to determine the market’s risk appetite. When Lumber outperforms Gold, the economy is likely strengthening (Risk-On). When Gold outperforms, investors should favor defensive positioning (Risk-Off).

Read more

I sent a piece earlier tonight explaining why annual is the better deal - $320 versus $468 if you stay on monthly. That math holds for everyone.

But for this group - existing paid subscribers and complimentary subscribers who I have given access to over the last year or two - I am going one step further this weekend.

Use code WELCOMEBACK30 at c…

Read more

The future is highly uncertain, with potential challenges in growth, inflation, and geopolitics, making diversification crucial.

Most investors are unknowingly underdiversified. A traditional 60/40 portfolio is 98% correlated to the stock market, potentially exposing investors to more risk than they realize. The S&P 500 historically experienced extended periods of underperformance, including:

1. Underperforming cash from 1966 to 1982 during inflationary times

2. A 0% average return from 1929 to 1949

3. A lost decade prior to the recent 15-year bull market

Historical bear markets often started with high valuations. Given current high valuations, we may be on the verge of another challenging period for U.S. equities.

Risk parity seeks to offer a more diversified allocation than conventional mixes. By spreading risk across global equities, Treasuries, TIPS, and commodity producers and gold, investors can maintain a low-cost, tax-efficient passive mix seeking:

1. Equity-like long-term expected returns

2. Lower risk than stocks

3. Reduced risk of a lost decade

To learn more about the RPAR Risk Parity ETF, visit rparetf.com.

Before investing you should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus. A prospectus may be obtained by clicking here. Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest.

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC.

Data source: Bloomberg.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided in the link is solely the creation of Evoke Advisors. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the link or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in the link are the sole opinion of Evoke Advisors and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

The Warsh Regime

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• On June 17, Kevin Warsh chaired his first FOMC meeting and presided over a unanimous 12-0 hold in the 3.50% to 3.75% range. The statement was cut from 341 words to roughly 130, and every word of easing bias and forward guidance was removed. Consensus filed it as a procedural pause. It was a change in the reaction function.

• The dot plot inverted in a single quarter. In March, twelve of eighteen participants expected at least one cut and none expected a hike. In June, nine expected at least one hike, eight expected a hold, and only one still saw a cut. That is the largest single-meeting hawkish swing since the projections began in their current form.

• The June Summary of Economic Projections raised year-end Core PCE from 2.7% to 3.3%, lifted headline PCE from 2.7% to 3.6%, cut real GDP to 2.2%, and pushed the return to the 2% target out to 2028. Goldman Sachs scrapped its 2026 cut calls outright and moved them into 2027.

• Fed funds futures still imply easing inside twelve months despite all of it. The market is pricing the hold as a temporary stance. The Fed has restored its right to hike asymmetrically and consensus has not updated. That gap is the trade.

• On June 26, the inflationary trigger cracked. Oil collapsed and energy was the worst sector at -5.86%, yet the regime read held: credit began diverging, emerging markets ran +1.81 standard deviations, the Russell rose +2.03%, and the lumber-to-gold ratio jumped +8.11%. The signature survived the loss of its catalyst.

There is a particular kind of denial that takes hold when a central bank changes its mind faster than the people who watch it. The institution moves. The framework shifts. The language is rewritten. And the market, conditioned by a decade of being rescued, treats the move as a temporary deviation that will mean-revert the moment the data gives anyone an excuse. The gap between what the central bank has decided to be and what investors insist it still is gets wide enough that one side has to capitulate. It is rarely the central bank that blinks first.

That gap is open right now, and it has a name. On June 17, Kevin Warsh chaired his first meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee and the Committee voted unanimously, 12-0, to hold the federal funds rate in its 3.50% to 3.75% range.^[1] The financial press reported a hold. That is technically accurate and almost entirely beside the point. The hold was the least interesting thing that happened in that room. What happened underneath the hold was a doctrinal reset, the kind that does not come along in most careers, and the market is still pricing it as a one-meeting reaction to a hot inflation forecast.

I argued the first half of this case in two recent notes, Warsh’s First Strike on June 24 and Peace Broke Out, So Did The Hawkson June 26. This piece consolidates them. The June meeting was not a tactical pause the Fed will unwind once oil rolls off and inflation cools. It was the first expression of a new reaction function. The unanimous vote, the surgical removal of the easing language, and a twelve-vote swing in the dot plot from a cutting bias to a hiking bias inside ninety days are not transitory hawkishness. They are the regime.

The Statement Told You Before the Dots Did

Begin with the document, because the document is where intent lives. The post-meeting statement was cut from 341 words to roughly 130, and in the editing the Committee removed the language that had signaled a bias to ease.^[2] There was no reference to additional adjustments, no conditional promise that policy would lean toward accommodation as conditions allowed. Warsh has said for years that he does not believe in date-based or data-tied forward guidance, and at his first opportunity he stripped it out and left a statement that ends on the Committee’s commitment to price stability. He then declined to submit his own dot to the projection materials, calling the tool ill-suited to the present policy context, and announced task forces to review communications, the balance sheet, data sources, productivity, and the inflation framework itself.^[3] This is not the housekeeping of a caretaker. It is a chair rebuilding the machine.

None of this is in dispute as a matter of record. The statement is published, the word count is verifiable, the transcript is archived. What is in dispute is interpretation. The dominant read is that Warsh inherited a hot print and an oil shock, reacted to both, and will revert to the prior easing path once the supply side calms. I am arguing the opposite. The framework changed first, and the data merely gave the new framework an unambiguous moment to announce itself.

Forward guidance was never a neutral convenience. It was a commitment device. By telling markets which direction the next move would lean, the Fed surrendered optionality in exchange for easing financial conditions without spending a basis point. Removing it does the opposite. It restores the Committee’s right to surprise, and specifically its right to surprise in the hawkish direction. A Fed that has deleted its easing bias has told you, in the only language it uses without breaking discipline, that the next move is no longer presumed to be down. That is the asymmetry consensus has not absorbed.

Twelve Votes in Ninety Days

The dot plot is the cleanest evidence. In March, twelve of eighteen participants expected at least one cut by year-end 2026 and not a single participant expected a hike.^[4] By June the distribution had inverted. Nine participants now expect at least one hike before year-end, eight expect a hold, and exactly one still pencils in a cut.^[5] Six of the nine hike-leaning members see more than a single increase. The median year-end 2026 projection moved from 3.4% to 3.8%, a forty basis point upgrade that makes at least one hike the base case rather than a tail.

Run that against the archive. Since the projections were first published in their current form in 2012, there is no comparable single-meeting shift from a cutting bias to a hiking bias. The closest prior episode in the other direction was the December 2018 capitulation, when the median fell from three projected hikes to two over one meeting, a three-dot move. The June 2026 swing moved roughly twelve participants out of the cut column and into hold or hike. The magnitude is not a rounding difference. It is a different category of event.

The mechanical trigger is real and I will not pretend otherwise. Core PCE has been reaccelerating, headline inflation sat near 4.2% year-on-year at the end of May, and the labor market refused to loosen into the print.^[6] A Committee that cannot project a return to target on the existing path marks up the path. That is orthodox. But orthodoxy does not explain the unanimity. Stephen Miran, who had dissented toward easing at seven consecutive meetings, stopped dissenting and joined the 12-0 vote.^[7] When the most reliably dovish voice on the Committee signs a hawkish hold without a fight, the prudent assumption is that the institution has moved its center of gravity, not that one inflation print frightened everyone for a single afternoon.

The Forecast the Fed Will Not Label

The Summary of Economic Projections is where the reaction function becomes a forecast. The Committee raised its 2026 Core PCE projection from 2.7% in March to 3.3% in June, a sixty basis point upgrade in one quarter. Headline PCE went from 2.7% to 3.6%, a ninety basis point upgrade. Real GDP for 2026 was cut to 2.2%.^[8] And the projected return to the 2% target, which in March still arrived inside the forecast horizon, was pushed out to 2028. Higher inflation, lower growth, a higher policy rate, and an extra year of above-target prices. The Fed has produced a forecast with every feature of stagflation except the label, and it will not say the word because saying it would break the credibility the institution spends its existence defending.

This is where the regime call diverges sharply from the consensus call. Consensus treats the June SEP as the high-water mark of hawkishness, the worst the forecast will look, with disinflation and easing to follow. The regime read treats the June SEP as the new baseline from which the Committee will react asymmetrically. Under the old reaction function, a soft inflation print would have pulled the Fed back toward cuts because the easing bias was the default. Under the new one, the default is neutrality at best, and the burden of proof has shifted onto anyone arguing for accommodation. The same incoming data now produces a more hawkish policy response than it would have three months ago, because the function that maps data to policy has been rewritten.

Goldman Sachs read it the same way and acted. In early June, after a payrolls report that landed well above estimates, the bank removed its 2026 rate cut calls entirely and pushed its final two cuts of the cycle into June and December 2027.^[9] That deferral was published before the FOMC meeting, not in reaction to it. A house that builds its franchise on rate forecasting looked at the same setup and concluded the cutting path was gone for the year. The street’s most cited economics desk has updated. The price has not.

Consensus Hardened in the Wrong Direction

Here is the part that makes this a trade rather than a commentary. Consensus did update after the meeting, but it updated toward a hold, not toward the hikes the Fed itself is now projecting. In the Reuters poll conducted June 23 to 25, more than three-quarters of economists expected the federal funds rate to stay steady for the rest of 2026, up from roughly 70% before the June meeting and just under half a month earlier.^[10] The professional forecasting community has converged on the view that Warsh delivered a hawkish hold and will now do nothing. The Fed’s own dots say nine of eighteen participants want to do something, and that something is a hike.

Fed funds futures tell a third story again. Even after the dot plot inverted, the market still implies easing inside a twelve-month window, pricing the year-end hold as a temporary stance that gives way to cuts once the oil-driven inflation impulse fades.^[11]Stack the three together. The Fed projects hikes. Economists project a flat hold. Futures still lean toward cuts on a one-year horizon. Three reaction functions cannot all be right. The cheapest assumption an investor can make is that the institution setting the rate understands its own intentions better than the desks forecasting it, and that the gap between the dots and the curve closes by the curve moving, not the dots.

This gap is durable rather than self-correcting because the consensus model has no recent template for a Fed that hikes from already-restrictive policy into a slowing economy. Every reflex built since 2009 assumes the Fed’s instinct is to support markets, that holds are way stations to cuts, and that hawkishness is a phase to be endured. Those reflexes are calibrated to the old reaction function. They will misprice the new one for as long as it holds, which is precisely why the disconnect can persist long enough to matter.

The Tape That Proved the Point

A regime call is only worth the paper it sits on if it survives the disappearance of its catalyst. The obvious objection to everything above is that the hawkishness is just oil. The Iran conflict drove crude toward triple digits, that pushed the inflation forecast higher, and once a peace framework brings the oil premium back down, the hawkish posture should melt with it. June 26 was the test of that objection, and the test came back the wrong way for the consensus.

On June 26 the inflationary trigger cracked. Oil sold off hard on the U.S.-Iran de-escalation tape and energy was the worst-performing equity sector of the day at -5.86%.^[12] Under the it-is-just-oil thesis, that is the moment the hawkish regime should have unwound. Instead the regime-confirming signature printed. Credit began to diverge rather than rally in sympathy with the risk-on move in equities. Emerging markets ran +1.81 standard deviations. The Russell 2000 rose +2.03%. And the lumber-to-gold ratio, my preferred forward read on the balance between real growth and monetary debasement, jumped +8.11%.^[13] The catalyst for the inflation scare collapsed, and the cross-market read on a higher-for-longer, asymmetrically hawkish Fed held anyway.

That dispersion separates a regime from a reaction. A reaction to oil would have reversed when oil reversed. A regime persists because it is structural. Credit diverging from equities on a risk-on day is the bond market saying the cost of capital is not coming down on the old schedule. Lumber over gold rising while the headline inflation input falls is the real economy repricing the policy stance directly rather than the commodity that supposedly drove it. June 26 told you the Warsh Fed is the variable, and oil was only ever the occasion.

The Analog That Should Make You Uncomfortable

The closest historical parallel is not 2018 and not 2022. It is Volcker’s 1979 doctrinal reset. When Paul Volcker took the chair in August 1979, he did not merely tighten policy. He changed the operating framework and, with it, the market’s understanding of what the Federal Reserve was for. The shift from a cutting posture to a committed tightening posture happened faster than the market could absorb, and it took something on the order of six to nine months for investors to fully price that the rules had changed rather than the cycle having merely turned. The doubters spent those months betting on a reversal that did not come.

I am not arguing the magnitudes line up, because they do not. Volcker was fighting double-digit inflation with a policy rate that would climb above 11% and eventually far higher. Warsh is operating from a 3.50% to 3.75% range against inflation in the low single digits.^[14] The scale is an order of magnitude apart and nothing here forecasts a 1980-style rate path. What rhymes is institutional posture, not arithmetic. A new chair arrives with a defined view of what the central bank has been doing wrong, imposes a new reaction function against a market that expects continuity, removes the communication crutches his predecessor relied on, and accepts a period of being misunderstood as the cost of re-establishing that the Fed’s default is not to ease. The 1979 lesson is not about the level of rates. It is about how long a market will keep betting against a chair who has decided to be someone it has not met yet.

The portfolio implication of that analog is about duration and about the cost of capital, not about any single position. When the market finally accepts that the discount rate is not going to fall on the old schedule, the assets that repriced hardest in prior regime shifts were the longest-duration claims, the ones whose value depends most on cash flows far in the future and on a friendly central bank to discount them. That exposure is the one carrying a risk it did not carry at the start of the year, and it is carrying it precisely because consensus still believes the friendly central bank is coming back.

The Steelman

Let me give the soft-landing argument its fairest version, because it is the consensus for reasons that are not foolish. The hawkish surprise was disproportionately driven by oil and tariffs, both of which the Committee itself identifies as supply-side shocks with a known mechanical drag on year-on-year inflation comparisons. If the Iran de-escalation holds and crude stays near the levels it fell to in late June, the energy contribution to inflation rolls off through the third quarter and the data mean-reverts toward the Fed’s longer-run path on its own. Bloomberg Economics has argued exactly this, expecting inflation to approach target by next spring and reading the hike-leaning dots as low-conviction, with Warsh himself acknowledging that the hawkish members lacked much conviction and that a cut was barely discussed.^[15] Under that read, the June SEP is the peak of the hawkishness, not the baseline, and the futures market is correctly looking through a transient spike to the easing on the other side.

That is the steelman, and it is not crazy. If the supply shocks roll off cleanly it will be the right call. The regime thesis requires inflation to stay sticky enough that the new reaction function actually gets tested, requires the hawkish lean to prove conviction rather than posture, and requires Warsh to mean what his statement edits imply. None of those are guaranteed. A doctrine that is never forced to act looks the same on the tape as a bluff.

What Would Prove Me Wrong

So here is the falsification condition I am willing to commit to in writing. If Core PCE prints below 3.0% year-on-year for two consecutive months by the September Summary of Economic Projections, and any FOMC voter publicly endorses a cut over that window, the regime call is wrong. That combination would mean the hawkishness was a reaction to a supply shock that faded, the easing bias was dormant rather than dead, and Warsh’s framework rhetoric was cover for a Committee that quietly intends to ease the moment the data permits. I would write that piece. I do not expect to write it, because the statement edits, the unanimity, and the twelve-vote swing read as structure rather than reflex. But the bar is explicit, it is near-term, and it is falsifiable. A thesis that cannot be killed is not a thesis.

Until that bar is cleared, the asymmetry runs one direction. If consensus is right and this was a hawkish pause that reverts to cuts, portfolios positioned for the old reaction function are fine and nothing needs to change. If the regime read is right, the same portfolios are positioned for a Fed that no longer exists, carrying duration and cost-of-capital risk against a central bank that has restored its right to hike and removed the language that used to promise relief. When one outcome costs nothing and the other costs a repricing, the disconnect itself is the opportunity, and right now the disconnect is wide because three different reaction functions are trading against each other and only one of them sets the rate.

The Fed has done the work for anyone willing to read it instead of pattern-matching to the last decade. It deleted the easing bias. It moved twelve votes. It pushed the return to target out a year. It changed the chair and the chair changed the machine. And it held that posture even when the oil shock that supposedly explained all of it cracked on June 26. Consensus heard a hold and a calming voice and went back to waiting for the cut. The institution is no longer the one consensus is waiting for.

Warsh did not pause. He pivoted. The market is still waiting for him to pause.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FOMC statement, June 17, 2026. Unanimous 12-0 hold at the 3.50%-3.75% target range, Chair Kevin Warsh’s first meeting. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20260617a.htm

[2] Transcript of Chair Warsh’s Press Conference, June 17, 2026, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Statement pared down and easing-bias / forward-guidance language removed; commitment to price stability retained. https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20260617.pdf

[3] Federal Reserve, June 17, 2026 press conference and projection materials. Chair Warsh declined to submit a dot, citing skepticism of forward guidance, and announced reviews of communications, balance sheet, data sources, productivity, and the inflation framework. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260617.htm

[4] Federal Reserve, Summary of Economic Projections, March 18, 2026. March distribution: twelve of eighteen participants expected at least one cut by year-end 2026, none expected a hike. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20260318.pdf

[5] Federal Reserve, Summary of Economic Projections, June 17, 2026. June distribution of 18 dots: nine expect at least one hike, eight a hold, one a cut; median year-end 2026 fed funds projection 3.8%, up from 3.4% in March. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260617.htm

[6] Reuters and U.S. News & World Report coverage, June 17, 2026: headline inflation near 4.2% year-on-year at end of May; labor market firm into the meeting; six of nine hike-leaning members saw more than one increase. https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-06-17/nearly-half-of-fed-policymakers-see-a-2026-rate-hike-in-the-cards

[7] Yahoo Finance, New Era for the Fed: Kevin Warsh at the FOMC, June 17, 2026. Governor Stephen Miran did not advocate a rate cut for the first time in his seven-meeting tenure; the decision was 12-0. https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/era-fed-kevin-warsh-fomc-205600350.html

[8] Federal Reserve, Summary of Economic Projections, June 17, 2026. 2026 year-end Core PCE revised to 3.3% (from 2.7% in March); headline PCE to 3.6% (from 2.7%); real GDP to 2.2%; return to the 2% target pushed to 2028. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260617.htm

[9] Goldman Sachs Research, Why the Fed Is Unlikely to Cut Rates This Year, June 2026; reporting via Bloomberg and Reuters, June 6-8, 2026. Goldman removed its 2026 cut calls and moved the final two cuts of the cycle to June and December 2027. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/why-the-fed-is-unlikely-to-cut-rates-this-year

[10] Reuters poll of economists, conducted June 23-25, 2026. Over three-quarters expect the federal funds rate to hold for the rest of 2026, up from roughly 70% before the June meeting and just under half a month earlier, defying market pricing for hikes. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/fed-to-hold-rates-this-year-economists-say-defying-market-bets-for-hikes-ce7f5fd9dd88f021

[11] CME FedWatch fed funds futures, late June 2026; Raison.app weekly economic update, June 15-21, 2026. Market pricing continued to imply easing within a twelve-month horizon despite the inverted dot plot. https://raison.app/news/analytics/june-15-21-2026-weekly-economic-update

[12] Morningstar and Reuters coverage of the U.S.-Iran de-escalation tape, June 2026: oil fell roughly 5% and energy equities led declines as the geopolitical risk premium unwound. https://global.morningstar.com/en-nd/markets/oil-prices-fall-us-iran-peace-deal-signals-possible-end-energy-crisis

[13] Lead-Lag Report intermarket dashboard, session close June 26, 2026: XLE -5.86% (worst sector), EEM +1.81 standard deviations, Russell 2000 +2.03%, lumber-to-gold +8.11%, with high-yield credit diverging from the equity risk-on move. Lumber-to-gold ratio used as a forward proxy for the real-growth versus debasement balance.

[14] Federal Reserve historical data via FRED, St. Louis Fed. Effective federal funds rate exceeded 11% during the Volcker tightening that began in 1979; the June 2026 target range is 3.50%-3.75%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

[15] CRE Finance Council market commentary, June 23, 2026, summarizing Chair Warsh’s June 17 remarks and Bloomberg Economics’ view that hike-leaning members lacked conviction, a cut was barely discussed, and inflation may approach target by next spring. https://www.crefc.org/cre/content/News/Items/Research_and_Data/2026/Economy_the_Fed_and_Rates_6_23_26.aspx

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

The future is highly uncertain, with potential challenges in growth, inflation, and geopolitics, making diversification crucial.

Most investors are unknowingly underdiversified. A traditional 60/40 portfolio is 98% correlated to the stock market, potentially exposing investors to more risk than they realize. The S&P 500 historically experienced extended periods of underperformance, including:

1. Underperforming cash from 1966 to 1982 during inflationary times

2. A 0% average return from 1929 to 1949

3. A lost decade prior to the recent 15-year bull market

Historical bear markets often started with high valuations. Given current high valuations, we may be on the verge of another challenging period for U.S. equities.

Risk parity seeks to offer a more diversified allocation than conventional mixes. By spreading risk across global equities, Treasuries, TIPS, and commodity producers and gold, investors can maintain a low-cost, tax-efficient passive mix seeking:

1. Equity-like long-term expected returns

2. Lower risk than stocks

3. Reduced risk of a lost decade

To learn more about the RPAR Risk Parity ETF, visit rparetf.com.

Before investing you should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus. A prospectus may be obtained by clicking here. Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest.

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC.

Data source: Bloomberg.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided in the link is solely the creation of Evoke Advisors. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the link or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in the link are the sole opinion of Evoke Advisors and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

The BDC Bubble Hiding in Plain Sight

A yield does one thing better than any other number on a page. It sedates. Show an income investor a steady double-digit coupon and a chart of net asset value that barely moves, and the questions stop. Where does the cash actually come from. What is the collateral worth if it has to be sold rather than modeled. What happens to the marks when the credit cycle turns and the buyer of last resort is also the seller. Business Development Companies have spent five years answering none of those questions, because the yield answered them first. That is the function of sedation. It is not that the questions have been resolved. It is that the coupon made them feel impolite to ask.

The asset class has grown into the role. Industry assets under management for BDCs expanded from roughly $127 billion in 2020 to approximately $451 billion in 2025, a compound annual growth rate north of 28 percent.^[1] The broader private credit market it feeds is now estimated above $1.7 trillion.^[2] That growth did not happen because middle-market lending suddenly became safer. It happened because the yield was loud enough to be marketed as a Treasury substitute, and quiet enough about its risks to be slotted into the income sleeve of advisor portfolios alongside short-duration government paper. This piece is not about whether any single BDC is mispriced. It is about the regime, and about what a 13 percent yield is actually compensating you for at this point in the cycle.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• BDC industry AUM grew from ~$127B (2020) to ~$451B (2025), a 28%+ CAGR, while the underlying asset is the same late-cycle leveraged loan it always was.

• BXSL carries an ~11.7% yield on NAV and trades near or below book value; MAIN trades at roughly 1.6x NAV with a far lower headline price yield. The dispersion itself is the signal.

• The Houlihan Lokey BDC Monitor put the publicly traded BDC non-accrual rate at 1.4% as of Q4 2025, with PIK income at large BDCs near 8.2% of investment income in Q1 2026 and rising.

• High-yield OAS closed near 2.78% in late June 2026, within a hair of the 2007 record low, while leveraged loan default measures are inflecting higher — the exact configuration BDCs are most exposed to.

• In 2008-2009 the BDC sector saw assets shrink 30%+ and roughly 80% of surviving BDCs cut or suspended distributions; in March 2020 the sector fell ~50% in three weeks before NAVs were marked down a quarter later. The pattern is the point.

Read more

The future is highly uncertain, with potential challenges in growth, inflation, and geopolitics, making diversification crucial.

Most investors are unknowingly underdiversified. A traditional 60/40 portfolio is 98% correlated to the stock market, potentially exposing investors to more risk than they realize. The S&P 500 historically experienced extended periods of underperformance, including:

1. Underperforming cash from 1966 to 1982 during inflationary times

2. A 0% average return from 1929 to 1949

3. A lost decade prior to the recent 15-year bull market

Historical bear markets often started with high valuations. Given current high valuations, we may be on the verge of another challenging period for U.S. equities.

Risk parity seeks to offer a more diversified allocation than conventional mixes. By spreading risk across global equities, Treasuries, TIPS, and commodity producers and gold, investors can maintain a low-cost, tax-efficient passive mix seeking:

1. Equity-like long-term expected returns

2. Lower risk than stocks

3. Reduced risk of a lost decade

To learn more about the RPAR Risk Parity ETF, visit rparetf.com.

Before investing you should carefully consider the Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus. A prospectus may be obtained by clicking here. Please read the prospectus carefully before you invest.

Investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible.

Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC.

Data source: Bloomberg.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided in the link is solely the creation of Evoke Advisors. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the link or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in the link are the sole opinion of Evoke Advisors and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

When the Top 10 Carry the Tape

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The ten largest S&P 500 companies still command roughly 36 to 40 percent of the index, the most top-heavy structure in nearly a century and well above the dot-com peak near 27 percent.

• Yet 2026 has quietly broadened: by mid-June, equal-weight (RSP) and small caps (IWM) had both outrun cap-weight (SPY) year-to-date, reversing three years of mega-cap dominance.

• Roughly 66 percent of S&P 500 members were outpacing the index this year, against 29 to 31 percent in each of the prior three years.

• The tension is not that breadth is dead. It is that the structural concentration that built up through 2024 and 2025 has not gone away while the tape broadened, leaving the index dependent on the same handful of names if the rotation stalls.

There are two markets inside the S&P 500 right now, and they are telling opposite stories. The first is the index you read about, the one that closed at 7,431.46 on June 12, a level that owes its existence to a small cluster of mega-cap technology names that have done the heavy lifting for three straight years. The second is the market underneath it, where a growing majority of stocks have started to participate again. Both are true at once, and the gap between them is the most important thing happening in equities this year.

Consensus has spent the better part of two years treating concentration as a permanent feature, an immovable fact of indexing in the age of the Magnificent Seven. The contrarian observation is narrower and more uncomfortable. Concentration at the top has not unwound. What has changed is that the rest of the index finally started to move, and that broadening is precisely the kind of regime shift that looks healthy in the moment and dangerous in hindsight if the leadership it leans on cannot be replaced.

The structure: two-fifths of the index in ten names

Start with what is not in dispute. By the end of 2025, the ten largest companies in the S&P 500 represented more than 40 percent of the index, according to Bloomberg data cited by Tema ETFs. That is up from roughly 39 percent at the end of 2024 per Charles Schwab, and from the low-20s and high-teens that prevailed through most of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s. As of June 12, the live top-10 weight in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF stood at about 36.4 percent, with NVIDIA alone at 7.6 percent and Apple at 6.8 percent. The exact figure moves with the tape, but the order of magnitude is the point.

For perspective, the top-10 share at the height of the dot-com mania in 2000 peaked near 27 percent. Today’s structure is not a rhyme with that era. It is a meaningful step beyond it. By several broad-market measures, U.S. equity concentration is the highest in roughly a century. That alone is not a forecast. Concentration can persist for years, and high concentration has historically said far more about who led than about what happens next. But it does define the shape of the risk: an index this top-heavy has tied its fate to the continued execution of a very small number of companies.

There is a second layer to the structure that matters more than the headline weight. The top-10 names carried roughly 41 percent of the index weight at the end of 2025 while contributing only about 32 percent of its earnings, a gap that RBC notes has widened meaningfully since 2015, when weight and earnings contribution were far more closely aligned. Weight has outrun fundamentals. When price leadership leans on a group whose earnings share trails its index share, the margin for disappointment narrows.

The tape: breadth quietly came back in 2026

Here is where the story turns, and where it diverges from the lazy version of the concentration trade. Through the first half of 2026, the market broadened. The clearest read is the equal-weight comparison. Invesco’s equal-weight S&P 500 (RSP) returned about 10.5 percent year-to-date through June 12 on a price basis, ahead of the cap-weight SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) at roughly 8.8 percent. When equal-weight beats cap-weight, it means the average stock is doing better than the index’s largest stocks, the opposite of the 2023 through 2025 pattern.

Small caps tell the same story, only louder. The iShares Russell 2000 (IWM) returned roughly 19.0 percent year-to-date through June 12, more than double SPY’s gain over the same window. Small-cap leadership of this magnitude is historically a signal of risk appetite and broadening participation, not of a narrowing, defensive tape. For three years the small-cap complex was left behind by the mega-cap engine. In 2026 it has been out front.

The participation data confirms what the relative returns imply. Approximately 66 percent of S&P 500 constituents were outperforming the index year-to-date in 2026, a level that, if sustained, would mark the strongest market breadth since this series began in 1986. Compare that with the prior three years, when only 29 percent of members beat the index in 2023, 29 percent in 2024, and 31 percent in 2025. For most of the post-2022 cycle, owning the index meant owning a handful of winners and a long tail of laggards. In 2026, that arithmetic flipped.

Why a broadening tape does not cancel the concentration risk

It would be easy to read the breadth thaw as the all-clear, the moment concentration stopped mattering. That reading misses the asymmetry. Breadth improving and concentration unwinding are not the same event. The average stock can outperform for months while the ten largest names still anchor 36 to 40 percent of the index. That is exactly the configuration we have now: a broader tape sitting on top of an unchanged, historically extreme concentration base.

The risk lives in the dependency, not in the direction. As long as breadth is improving, the index gets a tailwind from both the leaders and the laggards, and the concentration looks benign. The fragility appears if the rotation stalls. If the broadening fades and leadership narrows back to the top names, the index is once again hostage to the earnings trajectory of a group whose weight already exceeds its profit share. A market can be broad and concentrated at the same time. It cannot stay resilient if it is concentrated and the breadth that masked it goes away.

This is the regime question that matters for positioning, framed as exposure rather than prediction. An investor who owns only the cap-weight index is, by construction, still making a concentrated wager on ten companies, regardless of how broad the tape has become beneath the surface. The 2026 broadening is the market offering an option on the rest of the index. Whether that option is worth holding depends entirely on whether the rotation is durable or merely a pause in mega-cap dominance.

None of this resolves cleanly in real time. The honest position is that the structural setup and the cyclical tape are pointing in different directions, and the reconciliation has not happened yet. Concentration this extreme has historically demanded an eventual mean reversion in leadership. The 2026 breadth thaw may be the early innings of exactly that. Or it may be a head-fake that ends with capital flooding back into the same ten names, leaving the index more dependent on them than ever. Both outcomes are live. What is not in dispute is that the index has never been more exposed to being wrong about which one arrives.

The market broadened in 2026 without ever loosening its grip on the top, and that combination, breadth on the surface and concentration underneath, is the risk hiding in plain sight.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] S&P 500 closing level of 7,431.46 on June 12, 2026 (index level provided in research context; corroborated by SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) close of 741.75 the same day via Realtime Finance Data).

[2] Top-10 S&P 500 weight exceeding 40 percent at year-end 2025 and the dot-com peak near 27 percent in 2000: Tema ETFs, citing Bloomberg as of Feb 13, 2026. https://temaetfs.com/insights/the-sp-500-has-a-concentration-problem

[3] Top-10 weight of roughly 39 percent at the end of 2024: Charles Schwab, It Was a Very Good Year. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/it-was-very-good-year

[4] Live SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) holdings as of June 12, 2026 (top-10 sum approximately 36.4 percent; NVIDIA 7.6 percent, Apple 6.8 percent): Realtime Finance Data ETF holdings. https://www.perplexity.ai/finance/SPY/holdings

[5] Historical top-10 weight range of high-teens to low-20s through the 1980s to 2010s, and U.S. concentration near a century high: Barchart, citing S&P Dow Jones Indices. https://www.barchart.com/story/news/2204907/the-s-p-500s-price-is-getting-better-every-week-but-this-indicator-keeps-getting-worse-why-52-could-be-the-markets-tragic-number

[6] Top-10 representing about 41 percent of index weight versus roughly 32 percent of earnings, with the gap widening since 2015 (RBC): summarized at Art of Truth. https://artoftruth.org/market-concentration-sp500-record-2026/

[7] RSP (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF) year-to-date price return of approximately 10.5 percent and SPY approximately 8.8 percent, 12/31/2025 to 6/12/2026: computed from daily closes via Realtime Finance Data. https://www.perplexity.ai/finance/RSP/historical-data

[8] IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) year-to-date price return of approximately 19.0 percent, 12/31/2025 to 6/12/2026: computed from daily closes via Realtime Finance Data. https://www.perplexity.ai/finance/IWM/historical-data

[9] Approximately 66 percent of S&P 500 constituents outperforming the index year-to-date in 2026, on track for the highest breadth since records began in 1986: Investing.com. https://www.investing.com/analysis/record-share-of-sp-500-stocks-now-outperforming-the-index-200675542

[10] Share of S&P 500 stocks beating the index of roughly 29 percent in 2023, 29 percent in 2024, and 31 percent in 2025: market-breadth data compiled by Bloomberg/Investing.com, as summarized in market commentary. https://www.investing.com/analysis/record-share-of-sp-500-stocks-now-outperforming-the-index-200675542

[11] S&P 500 Equal Weight relative performance context: S&P Dow Jones Indices, Index Dashboard: S&P 500 Factor Indices, May 2026. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/performance-reports/dashboard-sp-500-factor.pdf

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.

Many advisors who’ve added semiconductor exposure to client portfolios over the last three years have done so through broad ETFs or large-cap single names. The thesis has generally been right. The returns, in many cases, have been strong.

But that exposure comes with a structural limitation: it generates limited to no income. The entire return profile is potential price appreciation, which is variable.

For clients who need regular distributions — retirees, those drawing from managed accounts, income-focused mandates — that’s not a portfolio solution. It’s a potential growth position with no yield.

There’s a different way to express a view on the memory semiconductor ecosystem.

The Tuttle Capital Memory Stack Income Blast ETF (ticker: DRMP) is an actively managed ETF that seeks current income through a combination of equity exposure to Memory Stack Companies and a systematic put credit spread overlay on semiconductor-linked reference instruments.

The strategy seeks to generate weekly distributions, funded primarily by net options premiums collected through the spread program — not from return of capital by default, and not from liquidating the equity sleeve.

That distinction matters. Income from options premium is structurally different from a distribution policy that depletes the portfolio.

Advisors evaluating DRMP for income-oriented sleeves should review the prospectus for full details on how distributions are sourced and the risks associated with the options strategy.

Discover DRMP here.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

DISCLOSURES (verbatim, must be included):

This communication is intended for investment professionals and institutional investors only and is not intended for, and should not be distributed to, retail investors.

Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the Tuttle Capital Memory Stack Income Blast ETF (DRMP) (the “Fund”) before investing. This and other important information about the Fund is contained in the prospectus and summary prospectus, which can be obtained by visiting the website or by calling (347) 852-0548. The prospectus and summary prospectus should be read carefully before investing.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. The Fund is a newly organized, non-diversified exchange-traded fund and has a limited operating history. The Fund invests primarily in equity securities of companies involved in the memory semiconductor ecosystem (“Memory Stack Companies”), including those focused on DRAM, NAND, high-bandwidth memory (HBM), advanced packaging, outsourced semiconductor assembly and test (OSAT), substrates, interconnects, and related equipment and materials. As a result, the Fund is subject to risks associated with the semiconductor and technology industries, which may be volatile and can be affected by rapid technological change, product cycles, supply-demand imbalances, significant capital expenditure requirements, and regulatory and geopolitical developments.

The Fund seeks current income in part by employing a systematic options strategy that sells put credit spreads on semiconductor-related reference instruments. The use of options and other derivatives involves additional risks and may result in losses that exceed the amount invested in those instruments. Derivatives may be illiquid, difficult to value, and sensitive to changes in market conditions. The Fund’s put spread strategy is subject to market risk, leverage risk, volatility risk, valuation risk, counterparty risk, liquidity risk, and the risk of substantial losses in the event of sharp or “gap” moves in the price of the underlying reference instruments. While the long put in each spread is intended to define the maximum loss on an individual spread, the Fund may still experience significant losses over short or extended periods.

The Fund’s focus on Memory Stack Companies means its performance may be closely tied to trends affecting the memory semiconductor market and related technologies and may be more volatile than that of funds with more diversified exposure across sectors or industries. The Fund may invest in securities of issuers located outside the United States, including in emerging markets, which involve additional risks such as currency fluctuations, political and economic instability, less developed legal and regulatory systems, and less transparent financial reporting.

The Fund may invest in other investment companies, including ETFs, which means shareholders will indirectly bear a proportionate share of the expenses of those underlying funds, in addition to the Fund’s own expenses. The Fund expects to effect creations and redemptions primarily for cash, which may cause it to realize capital gains and may result in less tax efficiency than an ETF that effects creations and redemptions in-kind. Shares of the Fund are bought and sold on an exchange at market price (not NAV) and are not individually redeemed from the Fund. Market price returns may differ from the Fund’s net asset value, may trade at a premium or discount to NAV, and may be more volatile than NAV.

There is no guarantee that the Fund will achieve its investment objective, generate income, or avoid losses. Distributions may vary over time and may include net investment income, realized capital gains, and return of capital. A return of capital reduces a shareholder’s tax basis in Fund shares and is not itself a return on investment.

Foreside Fund Services, LLC is the distributor of the Fund.

DISCLAIMER – PLEASE READ: This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided in the link is solely the creation of Tuttle Capital. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in the link or make any representation as to its quality. All statements and expressions provided in the link are the sole opinion of Tuttle Capital and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

The Yen, the BOJ, and the Global Liquidity Lever Everyone Forgets Until It Snaps

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• USD/JPY pushed back to roughly 160 in the first quarter of 2026, the same politically uncomfortable line that has repeatedly invited official intervention. The yen has spent the period since 2021 sliding from near 103 to the high-150s and 160s.

• The Bank of Japan raised its policy rate to 1.0% on June 16, 2026, the highest in about 31 years, by a 7-1 vote. Even after that move it remains the slowest of the major central banks to normalize, leaving a wide differential against US yields.

• Japan spent a record 11.73 trillion yen, roughly 73.6 billion dollars, supporting the yen between April 28 and May 27, 2026, the first confirmed intervention since 2024 and larger than the entire 2024 campaign.

• The canonical reference case is August 5, 2024, when a sudden yen surge forced a global deleveraging: the Nikkei 225 fell 12.4% in a single session, its worst day since 1987, and the VIX spiked above 60. That tail has not been retired; it has only been forgotten.

There is a particular kind of risk that markets are structurally bad at pricing. It does not announce itself with a deteriorating trend. It sits quietly inside a trade that works almost every day, generates small and consistent gains, and lulls everyone into treating leverage as if it were yield. Then a single variable moves the wrong way and the whole structure reprices in hours, not weeks. The yen carry trade is the largest living example of this pattern, and as of mid-2026 every ingredient that made it dangerous is back on the table.

Start with the price the entire world watches without admitting it. USD/JPY climbed back toward 160 in the first quarter of 2026, the same level that has triggered official intervention before and the same level Japanese officials describe, in careful language, as disorderly. ^[1] The yen has been on a multi-year slide, falling from roughly 103 per dollar at the start of 2021 to the high-150s and 160s by 2026. ^[2] That is not a quote on a screen. It is the mechanical output of a rate differential that refuses to close.

None of this is hidden. The exchange rate is published in real time, the intervention totals are confirmed by the Ministry of Finance, and the policy rate is set in public. The disagreement is not about the data. It is about whether a wide and persistent rate gap is a stable equilibrium or a coiled spring. Consensus has decided it is the former. The August 2024 episode is the reason that confidence should be held loosely.

The differential is the whole story

A carry trade is mechanically simple. Borrow in a currency where money is nearly free, convert, and hold a higher-yielding asset somewhere else. The yen has been the world’s preferred funding currency for a generation because Japanese rates sat at or below zero while the rest of the developed world paid real coupons. The profit is the interest differential, harvested daily, as long as the exchange rate does not move against the position faster than the carry accrues.

The engine of that trade is the gap between US and Japanese long yields. Through 2021 the US 10-year and the Japanese 10-year were both near the floor. Then the Federal Reserve tightened aggressively, the US 10-year ran toward 5%, and the Japanese 10-year stayed pinned near zero under yield curve control. ^[3] That blew the differential wide open and made yen funding extraordinarily attractive. The gap has narrowed somewhat as Japanese yields finally climbed toward the 2.3% area in early 2026, but it remains large enough that the funding-currency logic is fully intact.

The narrowing matters less than it looks. A carry position does not unwind because the differential shrinks by a few tenths of a point. It unwinds because the funding currency suddenly strengthens, vaporizing months of accrued carry in a single move and triggering margin calls on the leverage that sat underneath. The differential determines how attractive the trade is. The exchange rate determines how violently it ends.

The slowest central bank in the room

The Bank of Japan has been the laggard of the major central banks by design. It exited negative interest rate policy only in March 2024, lifted the rate to 0.25% on July 31, 2024, and continued in measured steps to 0.75% by late 2025. ^[4] On June 16, 2026 the Policy Board raised the uncollateralized overnight call rate to around 1.0% by a 7-1 vote, the highest level in roughly 31 years, and signaled it would hold its monthly government bond purchases steady rather than continue tapering. ^[5] By the standards of the post-2021 tightening cycle, this is still glacial.

Here is the uncomfortable part for the comfortable view. The same 1.0% rate that looks like meaningful normalization to a domestic audience is, against a US 10-year still well above 4%, barely a dent in the funding advantage. The yen has been unable to push durably below the 160 area even as the BOJ hikes, precisely because the gap to the Fed remains wide. ^[6] That is the consensus comfort: differentials this large keep the carry alive and make a disorderly unwind unlikely. It is also exactly the reasoning that was in place in July 2024, days before the unwind arrived.

Officials are not relaxed. Between April 28 and May 27, 2026 Japan spent a record 11.73 trillion yen, about 73.6 billion dollars, to support the currency, the first confirmed intervention since 2024 and larger than the four-tranche 2024 campaign that had set the prior record. ^[7] Governments do not deploy that kind of reserve firepower against a market they believe is stable. The intervention is the tell. The 160 line is not a number, it is a policy boundary, and the authorities are spending real money to defend it.

August 2024 is the reference case, not a footnote

On July 31, 2024 the BOJ raised its rate to 0.25%. Two days later a soft US payrolls report reset Fed cut expectations and compressed the very differential the carry depended on. The yen, which had been near 161 in mid-July, surged toward 142 in a matter of days. ^[8] That move was not a slow grind. It was a stampede for the exit by leveraged positions that had been short the yen, and it cascaded into every asset those positions had funded.

On August 5, 2024 the Nikkei 225 fell 12.4% in a single session, its largest one-day drop since the 1987 Black Monday crash, erasing roughly 113 trillion yen, near 790 billion dollars, of market value from its July peak. ^[9] The Bank for International Settlements documented the mechanics directly: the TOPIX lost 12% on the day, the VIX briefly spiked above 60 in off-hours trading, and FX carry trades funded in yen were, in its words, the hardest hit. ^[10] The BIS put the rough scale of the yen carry book entering the event near 40 trillion yen, around 250 billion dollars, and noted that figure was probably biased low.

The chart above shows the signature of a carry unwind rather than an ordinary selloff: the yen and the equity indices move in opposite directions with unusual force. As the yen rallied, the Nikkei and, to a lesser degree, the S&P 500 fell together, because the same leveraged dollars that had been long risk were funded by short yen. When the funding leg reversed, the risk leg had to be liquidated. Markets stabilized within the week, which is precisely why the episode has been so easily filed away as a one-off.

It was not a one-off. It was a demonstration of how the plumbing behaves under stress. The structure that produced August 2024 is still in place: a wide differential, a heavily used funding currency, a yen pressed against an intervention line, and a Japanese central bank that must keep tightening to defend its own inflation mandate. The levers that matter now are knowable in advance. The next BOJ decision and its published reasoning, the Ministry of Finance intervention posture, and the US-Japan rate spread are the three dials. The BOJ has already told the market it expects to keep moving. ^[11]

What this regime is asking of positioning

The lesson is not a directional call on the yen or on Japanese equities. It is a statement about correlation and tail behavior. In calm periods, yen-funded leverage is invisible. It does not show up in any single asset’s volatility, and it makes diversified portfolios look better diversified than they are, because the same funding trade quietly sits beneath many of the positions an investor believes are independent. That is the asymmetry. The carry pays a little, steadily, until it costs a great deal, suddenly.

So the relevant question for exposure is not whether the carry will unwind on a particular date. It is whether a portfolio is implicitly relying on the yen staying weak and volatility staying low, without the holder having chosen that bet on purpose. A sudden yen strengthening of the kind seen in August 2024 is the scenario under which seemingly uncorrelated risk assets reprice together. Sizing, liquidity, and the willingness to hold through a fast deleveraging are what determine whether that scenario is survivable.

The consensus reading is that a 1.0% policy rate, a still-wide differential, and a year of relative calm since the last scare mean the carry is durable and the August 2024 event was an aberration. The contrarian reading is that durability and fragility are the same property viewed at different time horizons. A trade that works every day until it does not is not stable. It is quiet.

The yen carry trade is the global liquidity lever almost no one watches until it moves, and every condition that made it dangerous in the summer of 2024, a wide rate gap, a yen at the 160 line, and a central bank that must keep tightening, is present again in the summer of 2026.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] Ministry of Finance, Japan, Foreign Exchange Intervention Operations, https://www.mof.go.jp/english/policy/international_policy/reference/feio/monthly/index.html. On the 160 area as the intervention threshold, see Reuters, May 31, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/japanese-data-confirm-fx-intervention-yen-weakness-persists-2024-05-31/.

[2] USD/JPY daily fixings, OTC Interbank series via Perplexity Finance, January 2021 through March 2026. Levels: roughly 103 in early 2021 to the high-150s and 160s in early 2026.

[3] US 10-year Treasury yield (^TNX) and Japan 10-year government bond yield (Ministry of Finance, Japan), weekly and daily series via Perplexity Finance, 2021 through March 2026.

[4] CNBC, July 31, 2024, Japan confirms intervention as BOJ hikes rates to around 0.25%, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/31/japan-confirms-36point8-billion-yen-intervention-as-boj-hikes-rates.html.

[5] Bank of Japan, Change in the Guideline for Money Market Operations, June 16, 2026, https://www.boj.or.jp/en/mopo/mpmdeci/mpr_2026/k260616a.pdf; CNBC, June 16, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/16/boj-rate-hike-historic-inflation.html.

[6] Reuters, June 16, 2026, Bank of Japan raises rates to 31-year high, flags more to come, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bank-japan-set-raise-rates-31-year-high-vow-further-increases-2026-06-15/; Seoul Economic Daily, June 16, 2026, https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/06/16/japan-resumes-rate-normalization-but-wide-us-gap-to-keep.

[7] Kyodo News, May 29, 2026, Japan spends record 11.73 tril. yen on forex intervention, https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/76981; Bloomberg, May 29, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-29/japan-used-record-73-6-billion-to-support-yen-in-past-month.

[8] MUFG Research, August 6, 2024, Will the great unwind continue, https://www.mufgresearch.com/fx/asia-fx-talk-will-the-great-unwind-continue-6-aug-2024/; Reuters via The Japan News, August 5, 2024, https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/news-services/reuters/20240805-202848/.

[9] Reuters via The Japan News, August 5, 2024, Japan’s Nikkei plummets in biggest rout since 1987 Black Monday, https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/news-services/reuters/20240805-202848/.

[10] Bank for International Settlements, BIS Bulletin No. 90, The market turbulence and carry trade unwind of August 2024, August 27, 2024, https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull90.pdf.

[11] Bank of Japan, Monetary Policy Meeting schedule and decisions, https://www.boj.or.jp/en/mopo/mpmsche_minu/index.htm. The Summary of Opinions for the June 2026 meeting was scheduled for June 24, 2026, with minutes on August 5, 2026.

The Lead-Lag Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Lead-Lag Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing.