Key Takeaways:

• The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +1.65%) remains Risk-Off for the sixth consecutive week. Despite the S&P 500’s 3.4% weekly rally, utilities maintained their relative edge. XLU at $46.34 continues to attract defensive flows, reflecting persistent uncertainty even as equity markets bounced from oversold conditions.

• Signal 2 has flipped to Risk-On for the first time since February. With March monthly data now in, TLT returned -4.55% versus IEF at -2.60%. The 30-year bond’s underperformance versus the 10-year signals improving risk appetite on the long end of the curve — the exact flip we flagged in last week’s report. This rotation back to equities from long-duration Treasuries marks a meaningful shift.

• The Lumber/Gold signal remains Risk-On with lumber’s 13-week return of +11.91% outpacing gold’s +7.96%. Lumber’s 12% gain over the trailing quarter reflects housing resilience, while gold’s more modest advance signals less panic demand than in prior weeks. Unlike the previous forced-liquidation dynamics, this week’s reading carries more genuine economic signal.

• The S&P 500 at 6,582.68 sits -0.9% below its 200-day SMA of 6,644.6. Last week’s powerful 3.4% rally — the biggest weekly gain since May — has narrowed the gap from -3.9% to under 1%. The index is testing its 200-day from below, setting up a pivotal week. A decisive close above could flip Signal 4, bringing three of four signals to Risk-On for the first time since January. Trump’s Iran ultimatum expires today (April 6), creating a binary catalyst.

MARKET COMMENTARY

For the first time since February, the intermarket framework is evenly split: 2 signals read Risk-Off and 2 read Risk-On. The composition has shifted meaningfully from last week’s 3-1 defensive tilt. The Treasury Rotation signal flipped to Risk-On as March monthly data confirmed what we previewed: TLT’s -4.55% return underperformed IEF’s -2.60%, signaling the long end of the curve is under more stress than the intermediate. Combined with the persistent Lumber/Gold Risk-On, the framework has moved from defensive conviction to genuine ambiguity. The S&P 500 rallied 3.4% on the week — its biggest weekly gain since May — but at 6,583, it remains just below the 200-day moving average. Trump’s Iran ultimatum expires today, creating a binary catalyst that could break the deadlock in either direction.

The week of March 31–April 3 delivered a powerful relief rally. The S&P 500 surged 3.4%, snapping a five-week losing streak with the biggest daily gain since May on Tuesday. Goldman Sachs noted the sell-off had improved the near-term technical setup, with Q1 earnings season (12% growth expected) providing a potential fundamental floor. The index clawed back from 6,369 to close at 6,583, erasing roughly half of March’s decline. But the rally came on falling volume and narrowing breadth — hallmarks of a bear market bounce rather than a durable trend reversal. The S&P 500 remains 4.6% below its year-end close and roughly 5.7% below its January peak of 6,978.

The 200-Day Moving Average is the critical level to watch this week. The S&P 500 at 6,582.68 sits just -0.9% below its 200-day SMA of 6,644.6 — a dramatic improvement from -3.9% last week. This convergence sets up one of the most consequential technical tests of the year: a decisive close above the 200-day would flip Signal 4 to Risk-On, potentially bringing three of four signals to Risk-On for the first time since January. April is historically the second-best month for the S&P 500, and Q1 earnings provide a potential catalyst. But the index has failed at its 200-day twice already in 2026, and the Iran resolution (or escalation) could overwhelm any technical setup.

The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +1.65%) remains Risk-Off for the sixth consecutive week. Despite the broad market rally, XLU at $46.34 maintained relative strength. The 4-week RoC has moderated from +3.33% last week to +1.65%, suggesting the defensive tide may be receding — but has not yet turned. The ratio has been positive since late February, one of the longest sustained defensive streaks in recent memory. If the S&P 500 clears its 200-day and the rally broadens, we would expect this signal to be the next to flip, potentially by mid-April.

The Treasury Rotation signal has flipped to Risk-On — exactly as we flagged in last week’s report. March monthly data shows TLT at -4.55% versus IEF at -2.60%. Both lost ground, but the 30-year bond’s steeper decline signals that long-duration is being sold more aggressively than intermediate. This is not a “safe haven” signal — it’s a yield curve signal. The 30-year yield remains elevated near 5% as the market prices in persistent inflation from $111+ Brent crude and the possibility that the Fed may not cut rates this cycle. The signal’s rotation from Treasuries back to equities (SPY) reflects the market’s judgment that stocks offer better risk-adjusted exposure than long-duration bonds in an inflationary regime.

The Lumber/Gold signal remains Risk-On with lumber’s 13-week return at +11.91% versus gold’s +7.96%. Unlike prior weeks when this reading was dismissed as a forced-liquidation artifact, the signal is now carrying more genuine economic information. Lumber’s 12% gain reflects resilience in housing demand despite higher mortgage rates, while gold’s more modest 5% gain — while still positive — suggests the panic bid has subsided from the $5,000+ levels of early March. All seven Lumber/Gold sub-strategies remain in offensive positioning, and for the first time in several weeks, that positioning feels more aligned with underlying economic reality.

The framework’s shift from 3-1 defensive to 2-2 split is the week’s most significant development. The Treasury flip was anticipated, but its timing coincides with the most consequential geopolitical deadline of the crisis: Trump’s Iran ultimatum expires April 6 (today). Israel struck dozens of targets across Iran over Easter weekend, with Brent crude surging above $140 on the Dated Brent benchmark before settling near $111. A diplomatic resolution would be a massive risk-on catalyst — potentially flipping the 200-day MA signal and pushing the framework to 3-1 offensive. Continued escalation would likely reverse the Treasury signal as investors flee back to long-duration safety. Warren Buffett’s comment that stocks “haven’t reached low enough” for him to invest adds a cautionary note from the most respected voice in value investing. The 2-2 split is the framework’s way of saying: this is a coin flip.

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: 1.65%

Current Allocation: 100% XLU (Utilities Select Sector SPDR)

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-ON

Read more

Week Ending March 30, 2026 | By Michael A. Gayed, CFA

Key Takeaways

• The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +3.33%) remains Risk-Off for the fifth consecutive week. XLU at $45.59 rebounded modestly from last week’s $44.65 level, while SPY at $634.09 fell another 2.2%. Utilities continue to demonstrate relative resilience as investors seek lower-beta exposure amid escalating geopolitical risk and crude above $110.

• Treasuries remain Risk-Off on February monthly data (TLT +4.24% vs IEF +2.14%). This signal updates after March month-end on March 31. Based on current prices (TLT at $85.64 vs Feb-end $90.82, IEF at $94.60 vs Feb-end $97.99), March returns would be TLT -5.70% vs IEF -3.46% — IEF outperforming, which would flip this signal to Risk-On. Watch closely on Tuesday.

• The Lumber/Gold signal remains Risk-On as gold’s 13-week return has turned negative at -0.49%, while lumber posts +7.61%. Gold fell to $4,494, extending its decline from $5,000+ three weeks ago. This remains a technical artifact of forced gold liquidation rather than genuine economic optimism — lumber itself fell from $609 to $594 on the week.

• The S&P 500 at 6,368.86 has plunged -3.8% below its 200-day SMA of 6,622.74 — a dramatic widening from -1.6% last week. Five consecutive weekly losses mark the longest losing streak since the 2022 bear market. The Dow has entered correction territory at 10%+ below its February peak. Trump’s 10-day ultimatum to Iran (expiring April 6) and Pentagon plans for 10,000 ground troops have shattered what remained of market confidence.

Market Commentary

Five weeks into the US-Iran crisis, 3 of four intermarket signals read Risk-Off. The signal composition is unchanged from last week — Beta Rotation, Treasury Rotation, and the 200-Day MA all favor defense, while Lumber/Gold remains technically Risk-On due to gold’s liquidation-driven crash. But the severity of the risk-off readings has intensified across the board. The S&P 500 has broken nearly 4% below its 200-day moving average, the Dow entered correction territory, and the fifth consecutive weekly loss marks the longest losing streak since 2022. The geopolitical catalyst is clear: Trump’s 10-day ultimatum to Iran, expiring April 6, and Pentagon plans to deploy 10,000 ground troops have transformed what began as a naval standoff into a potential full-scale conflict.

The week of March 24–27 brought a sharp acceleration of selling pressure. The S&P 500 posted its fifth consecutive weekly loss — the longest losing streak since 2022 — falling 2.2% on the week to close at 6,368.86. The Dow lost 793 points on Friday alone and has now entered correction territory, more than 10% below its February peak. The proximate cause: Trump gave Iran a 10-day ultimatum on Wednesday (expiring April 6) to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on energy infrastructure. The Pentagon is reportedly considering deploying 10,000 ground troops. Iran’s foreign minister said Tehran is “not inclined” to negotiate. Brent crude settled at $112.57 and WTI at $99.64 as markets priced in the possibility of a full-blown energy war.

The 200-Day Moving Average breakdown has accelerated sharply. The S&P 500 at 6,368.86 now sits -3.8% below its 200-day SMA of 6,622.74, widening from -1.6% last week to nearly -4% — the deepest penetration since the April 2025 correction. The index is now roughly 9% below its January peak of 6,978. FactSet’s bottom-up S&P 500 target stands at 8,349, implying 29% upside — the widest gap between Wall Street targets and actual prices since October 2022.

The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +3.33%) remains Risk-Off for the fifth week. XLU rebounded to $45.59 from $44.65, while SPY fell to $634.09. The 4-week RoC moderated slightly from +2.45% to +3.33% — still firmly positive. The ratio has been positive since late February, one of the longest sustained defensive streaks in recent memory.

The Treasury signal remains Risk-Off on February data (TLT +4.24% vs IEF +2.14%), but this is the last week before a potential flip. March closes on Tuesday, and based on current prices — TLT at $85.64 and IEF at $94.60 — March returns would be approximately TLT -5.70% vs IEF -3.46%. Since IEF would outperform (less negative), this would switch Signal 2 to Risk-On next week. The 30-year yield is pushing toward 5%, reflecting a toxic mix of inflation fears and potential Fed rate hikes.

Read more

Key Takeaways:

• The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +2.45%) remains Risk-Off for the fourth consecutive week. Utilities continue to outperform the S&P 500 despite both selling off sharply on Friday. With oil above $110 and the Fed on hold, investors continue favoring lower-beta exposure.

• Treasuries remain Risk-Off. The February monthly data (TLT +4.24% vs IEF +2.14%) is unchanged and won’t update until March month-end. But the bond market reversed hard on Friday — TLT fell to $85.83 as traders began pricing a potential Fed rate hike. The safe-haven bid that dominated earlier in the week gave way to inflation fears as Brent crude held above $110.

• The Lumber/Gold signal remains Risk-On as gold’s liquidation-driven crash deepened. Gold fell to $4,497 on Friday, extending its decline from above $5,000 two weeks ago. Lumber’s 13-week return of +9.34% now exceeds gold’s +2.25% by a wider margin. This continues to be a technical artifact of forced selling in gold, not genuine economic optimism.

• The S&P 500 has now broken decisively below its 200-day moving average. At 6,506.49, the index sits -1.6% below its 200-day SMA of 6,612.54, widening from -0.5% last week to -1.6%. The S&P 500 has posted four consecutive weekly losses — the longest streak since the April 2025 correction.

MARKET COMMENTARY

Four weeks into the US-Iran conflict, 3 of four intermarket signals read Risk-Off. The signal composition is unchanged from last week — Beta Rotation, Treasury Rotation, and the 200-Day MA all favor defense, while Lumber/Gold remains technically Risk-On. But the underlying picture has deteriorated. The S&P 500 broke further below its 200-day moving average, gold’s liquidation accelerated, and the bond market cracked on Friday as traders began pricing a potential Fed rate hike. The fourth consecutive weekly loss for equities underscores the damage being done by triple-digit oil and geopolitical uncertainty.

This was a week of escalation on every front. On Wednesday, the Fed held rates at 3.5-3.75% with its hawkish hold, and Chair Powell reiterated that inflation was “not coming down as much as hoped.” On Thursday, Brent crude spiked to $119 per barrel after strikes on Iran’s South Pars gas field and Qatar’s Laff LNG facility — the world’s largest. By Friday, oil had settled to $112 but the damage was done: the S&P 500 fell 1.5% on the day to 6,506, extending its losing streak to four weeks. Markets are now pricing roughly a 50% chance of a Fed rate hike by October, up from 6% just days ago.

The 200-Day Moving Average breakdown is accelerating. The S&P 500 at 6,506.49 now sits -1.6% below its 200-day SMA of 6,612.54, widening sharply from -0.5% last week. This is no longer a flirtation with the trendline — the index is now decisively below it. UBS maintained its year-end S&P target of 7,700 on Monday, but the technical damage is mounting. The last time the S&P 500 broke its 200-day average, in March 2025, the index fell roughly 15% before stabilizing.

The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +2.45%) remains Risk-Off, though the gap is narrowing. Both XLU and SPY fell sharply on Friday — XLU dropped to $44.65 from $46.54 the prior day, while SPY tumbled to $648.57 from $659.80. The 4-week RoC has moderated from +5.03% last week to +2.45%, suggesting the defensive trade is still in play but less extreme. Friday’s broad liquidation hit utilities too, but the signal remains clearly in defensive territory.

The Treasury signal remains Risk-Off on the February monthly data (TLT +4.24% vs IEF +2.14%), unchanged until March closes. But the real-time bond market told a different story this week. TLT dropped to $85.83 on Friday, a sharp reversal from $87.49 just the day before. The catalyst: traders are now pricing a meaningful probability of a Fed rate hike rather than a cut. Fed Governor Bowman’s comment that she has “written in three cuts before year-end” was drowned out by the market’s inflation fears. With oil above $110, the bond market is shifting from recession-hedging to inflation-hedging — a dangerous regime change for long-duration positions.

The Lumber/Gold signal remains Risk-On as gold’s forced liquidation deepened. Gold fell to $4,497 on Friday, down from $4,607 last week and from above $5,000 just two weeks ago — a decline of roughly 10% that WSJ called the worst weekly drop since 2011. Lumber held steady at $609, posting a 13-week return of +9.34% versus gold’s now-shrunken +2.25%. The widening spread reinforces the technical Risk-On reading, but this remains entirely an artifact of gold’s liquidation. All seven Lumber/Gold sub-strategies remain in offensive positioning, though investors should treat this signal with skepticism given the forced-selling dynamics at play.

The intermarket framework remains heavily tilted toward defense. Three signals favor caution: Utilities are outperforming (Beta Rotation), long bonds led last month (Treasuries), and the 200-day MA is now decisively broken. The one Risk-On reading (Lumber/Gold) is driven by gold’s ongoing liquidation crash. The new development this week is the bond market’s shift toward pricing rate hikes rather than cuts — a potential headwind for both equities and long-duration Treasuries. If oil stays above $100 and the Fed pivots hawkish, even the defensive positions could come under pressure. Late Friday, President Trump announced the U.S. is considering a “winding down” of military activities in Iran, and Israeli PM Netanyahu suggested the conflict could end “sooner than anticipated.” If geopolitical tensions genuinely de-escalate, the signal framework could shift rapidly.

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: 2.45%

Current Allocation: 100% XLU (Utilities Select Sector SPDR)

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

Read more

Key Takeaways

• The Beta Rotation signal (XLU/SPY 4-week RoC of +5.03%) remains Risk-Off. Utilities continue to outperform the S&P 500, reflecting persistent flight to defensive sectors. The war-driven oil shock and the Fed’s hawkish hold have kept investors favoring lower-beta exposure.

• Treasuries remain firmly Risk-Off. The February monthly data (TLT +4.24% vs IEF +2.14%) maintains the signal, though the bond market is now caught between competing forces: safe-haven flows into duration and inflation fears from $119 oil. TLT edged higher Thursday even as equities sold off, suggesting the flight-to-safety bid is winning for now.

• The Lumber/Gold signal has flipped to Risk-On — but not for the reason you might expect. Gold crashed from above $5,000 to $4,607, a dramatic reversal likely driven by forced liquidation and margin calls across commodities as the oil shock rippled through futures markets. Lumber’s 13-week return of +9.34% now exceeds Gold’s +4.74%. This is a technical flip, not an improvement in economic fundamentals.

• The S&P 500 has breached its 200-day moving average. At 6,578.77, the index now trades -0.5% below its 200-day SMA of 6,609.56. This is the critical technical level we flagged last week — the last line of defense has been broken. Signal 4 has flipped to Risk-Off, replacing SSO (2x leverage) with SPY.

Market Commentary

Three weeks into the US-Iran conflict, 3 of four intermarket signals now read Risk-Off. This week marks a significant reshuffling of the signal framework: the S&P 500 has finally broken below its 200-day moving average, flipping Signal 4 to Risk-Off for the first time since the April 2025 correction. Meanwhile, gold’s violent crash from above $5,000 to $4,607 — a 9% decline in days — has paradoxically flipped the Lumber/Gold signal to Risk-On. The net result remains strongly defensive, but the composition has changed materially.

The catalyst for this week’s selloff was twofold. On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve held rates at 3.5-3.75% with an 11-1 vote, and Chair Powell struck a hawkish tone, stating inflation was “not coming down as much as hoped.” Then on Thursday, Israel and the United States struck Iran’s South Pars gas field — the world’s largest natural gas reserve — sending Brent crude surging above $119 per barrel. The S&P 500 dropped from 6,716 on Monday to 6,579 by Thursday’s close, a 2% decline in four sessions.

Read more

MARKET COMMENTARY

As we enter March, three of our four primary intermarket signals are flashing Risk-Off — and this time, the signals proved prescient. The escalating US-Iran conflict and the resulting spike in crude oil prices were precisely the kind of exogenous shock that our intermarket indicators had been warning about for weeks. The rotation into Utilities, the bid for long-duration Treasuries, and Gold’s relentless ascent were not noise. They were the market quietly positioning for a geopolitical event that has now arrived.

The sole holdout remains the 200-Day Moving Average signal, which stays Risk-On as the S&P 500 trades 4.9% above its 200-day simple moving average at 6,878.89 versus 6,559.93. But the divergence between a still-intact price trend and the deteriorating intermarket backdrop is itself the story: the headline index held up even as the internals rotated aggressively toward defense.

The most notable development continues to be the strength in Utilities relative to the broader S&P 500. The XLU/SPY ratio’s 4-week rate of change surged to +11.32%, a decisive Risk-Off reading that suggests institutional capital had already been rotating toward defensive, income-oriented sectors well before the oil shock made front-page news. Historically, Utilities outperformance of this magnitude has preceded periods of market weakness or consolidation — and in this case, the catalyst is now clear.

The Treasury signal confirms the flight to safety. Long-duration Treasuries (TLT) returned +4.24% in February, sharply outperforming intermediate-duration bonds (IEF) at +2.14%. Investors bidding up the safest duration assets is a classic risk-aversion response, and the US-Iran escalation only reinforces the bid for quality. When geopolitical risk rises, the long end of the Treasury curve tends to outperform, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

Perhaps most telling is the Lumber/Gold divergence. Gold has returned +25.03% over the past 13 weeks while Lumber has returned just +7.08%. Gold’s surge to record highs near $5,278/oz reflects a confluence of safe-haven demand, fears of energy-driven inflation, and the geopolitical premium now being priced into the commodity complex following the US-Iran confrontation. Meanwhile, Lumber — a cyclically-sensitive commodity tied to housing and construction — has lagged badly, signaling that the real economy may bear the brunt of higher energy costs. All seven Lumber/Gold sub-strategies are currently positioned defensively.

The oil spike is the connective tissue across all three Risk-Off signals. Rising crude prices act as a tax on consumers and corporations alike, compressing margins, dampening growth expectations, and driving capital toward safe havens. The intermarket framework captured this risk rotation weeks before the geopolitical flashpoint, which is precisely what these signals are designed to do: lead, not lag.

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: 11.32%

Current Allocation: 100% XLU (Utilities Select Sector SPDR)

Read more

• Federal Reserve minutes explicitly flagged historically low credit spreads and opaque private-market financing tied to the AI infrastructure buildout as financial-stability risks.¹

• A high-profile data center financing tied to CoreWeave failed to secure third-party debt at desired terms, illustrating emerging underwriting friction.²

• Big Tech’s 2026 capex guidance implies a historic scale of spending, with UBS forecasting a surge in investment-grade issuance to fund it.⁵⁶⁷⁹

• Investment-grade and high-yield spreads sit near cycle tights, leaving limited buffer if growth expectations soften.¹¹¹³

• If spreads widen while growth expectations cool, high-quality duration may outperform spread-heavy credit.

Financing Friction: When a Spending Boom Meets Underwriting Reality

Credit markets rarely collapse without warning. More often, they tighten incrementally—through failed syndications, tougher covenant demands, or rising skepticism toward marginal borrowers.

Two February developments brought that shift into focus. The Federal Reserve’s January meeting minutes noted “historically low credit spreads” and highlighted the need to monitor opaque private-market financing linked to the technology infrastructure buildout, alongside elevated equity valuations and concentration risk.¹ This language signals that policymakers now see credit conditions as central to the cycle.

At the same time, Business Insider reported that Blue Owl Capital struggled to arrange third-party financing for a large data center project tied to CoreWeave, with lenders citing concerns about tenant credit quality.² Blue Owl disclosed roughly $500 million of bridge financing through March 2026.² The deal’s difficulty does not constitute systemic stress. It does, however, illustrate how quickly lender appetite can shift when projects rely on sub-investment-grade counterparties.

This matters because much of the data center expansion uses short “mini-perm” construction loans—two-to-five-year facilities that must later refinance into longer-term project debt.³ That structure works when capital markets remain open and tenant credit is strong. It becomes fragile if refinancing windows narrow.

The Financial Times reported that developers are increasingly pursuing formal credit ratings—even mid-construction—to broaden the pool of institutional buyers.⁴ That shift from “easy syndication” to credit-structured placement reflects a market that is reassessing risk.

When spreads are tight, even modest underwriting friction can alter repricing dynamics.

Capex Scale, Issuance Scale, and Spread Asymmetry

The capex numbers now carry macro significance.

Read more

• Utilities and long-duration Treasuries have recently moved in tandem, signaling a revival of classic risk-off behavior.

• The recoupling suggests growth concerns are outweighing inflation fears at the margin.

• Correlation regimes shift depending on whether markets are dominated by inflation shocks or growth shocks.

• Defensive sectors like utilities remain sensitive to rates, but structural AI-driven electricity demand complicates the traditional narrative.

• The XLU + TLT relationship can serve as a practical weekly risk barometer.

The Return of a Familiar Pattern

A funny thing happens when markets get uneasy. The same “boring” corners of the market begin to show relative strength. Utilities. Long-term Treasuries. The quiet assets that rarely trend on social media.

That pattern has reemerged in recent weeks. The Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLU) and the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) have frequently moved in the same direction across multiple sessions.¹ ² The pairing matters because it reflects a classic defensive alignment that many investors had written off during years when diversification seemed unreliable.

This is not merely about two ETFs rising together. It is about what that co-movement signals. Utilities represent defensive equity exposure. Long-duration Treasuries represent high-quality duration. When both attract capital simultaneously, the market is revealing its macro preference.

The key distinction lies between growth fear and inflation fear. When inflation dominates, bonds and equities can decline together. When growth concerns dominate, bonds often resume their traditional role as ballast.³ ⁴ The recent recoupling suggests investors are leaning toward the latter.

Utilities and long Treasuries belong in the same conversation for structural reasons.

Utilities are defensive because electricity demand is relatively inelastic. Consumers may delay discretionary purchases, but they continue paying utility bills. Charles Schwab’s sector outlook notes that utilities historically hold up better during slowdowns due to the essential nature of their services.⁵

At the same time, utilities behave like bond proxies. Their capital-intensive balance sheets and steady cash flows make them sensitive to interest rate movements. Rising rates can pressure valuations while increasing financing costs.⁶

Long-duration Treasuries operate differently but respond to similar macro impulses. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission explains that bond prices and interest rates generally move in opposite directions.⁷ When investors anticipate slower growth and lower future rates, long bonds often benefit.

BlackRock states that TLT tracks U.S. Treasury bonds with maturities greater than twenty years, emphasizing that interest-rate risk remains central to its behavior.⁸ Fixed income carries duration risk, but in growth scares, duration can become protection.

Put together, utilities and long Treasuries tend to align when investors prioritize stability, income consistency, and rate sensitivity. That alignment appears to be resurfacing.

When the Hedge “Broke”

The resurgence of this relationship feels notable because it follows a period when traditional diversification seemed unreliable.

Inflation shocks, aggressive rate hikes, and uncertainty surrounding central bank policy created stretches where stocks and bonds declined simultaneously. The familiar negative stock-bond correlation weakened or even reversed.

The Bank for International Settlements provides a useful framework. When inflation is low and stable, growth shocks tend to dominate. In that environment, weak economic news pushes equities lower while boosting bonds through expectations of easier policy.⁹

When inflation is high and volatile, the dynamic changes. Inflation surprises can pressure both bonds and equities at the same time because both are sensitive to discount-rate adjustments.⁹

Vanguard reaches a similar conclusion. Its research shows that inflation shocks increase stock-bond correlation, while growth and volatility shocks tend to restore diversification benefits.¹⁰

That explains the frustration many investors experienced. During inflation-dominated regimes, bonds failed to cushion equity drawdowns. Utilities also struggled, as rising rates weighed on valuations and financing costs simultaneously.⁶

Recent headlines help contextualize the shift.

Market commentary during the latest volatility described a renewed flight-to-quality tone, with defensive sectors strengthening alongside government bonds.¹¹ ¹² Meanwhile, Reuters reported episodes of geopolitical and tariff uncertainty that pressured multiple asset classes at once, creating the kind of “sell America” move that challenges diversification assumptions.¹³

MSCI refers to these episodes as “triple-red” scenarios, when U.S. equities, Treasuries, and the dollar decline together.¹⁴ Such environments undermine confidence in traditional asset allocation.

The recent utilities-plus-Treasuries rally does not resemble that pattern. Instead, it resembles the older template: cyclicals soften, defensives hold up, duration firms. That implies growth sensitivity has reemerged as the dominant concern.

Correlation regimes do not disappear. They rotate.

What the Recoupling Signals Now

When utilities and long Treasuries strengthen together, the market often implies three underlying beliefs.

Read more

• Gold and silver suffered historic single-day collapses after an extended speculative surge.

• The crash followed a sharp reversal in U.S. dollar strength and interest-rate expectations.

• Policy credibility and shifting Federal Reserve leadership played a central role in the reversal.

• Precious metals revealed vulnerabilities when positioned as crowded “safe haven” trades.

• U.S. Treasuries may be regaining relevance as the preferred risk-off asset amid slowing growth signals.

Precious Metals Euphoria Meets Reality

Gold and silver have long occupied a privileged place in the investor psyche. They are widely viewed as financial shelter during periods of uncertainty, inflation, or geopolitical stress. That perception was put to the test in late January when both metals experienced a sudden and violent collapse following an extraordinary rally. After spending much of the prior year climbing relentlessly, gold had surged to record levels while silver posted gains rarely seen outside periods of acute financial stress. The optimism proved fragile.

In a single trading session, gold suffered its steepest daily decline in more than a decade, while silver endured its worst one-day plunge since 1980.¹ Prices that had appeared unstoppable reversed with stunning speed. The episode rattled investors who had embraced precious metals as reliable ballast against volatility, raising uncomfortable questions about whether these assets had become less of a hedge and more of a speculative vehicle.

The rally itself had been fueled by a convergence of macro anxieties. Persistent geopolitical tensions, skepticism toward fiscal discipline, and lingering concerns about inflation all contributed to strong demand for hard assets. At the same time, a growing “sell America” narrative took hold. Capital flowed out of the U.S. dollar and into commodities, particularly gold and silver, as confidence in monetary stability wavered.²

By late January, speculative momentum reached a fever pitch. Silver, in particular, rose at a pace that far exceeded traditional inflation expectations. That divergence hinted that something other than price stability fears was driving demand. Instead, metals appeared to be absorbing broader systemic unease—concerns about policy credibility, financial leverage, and the durability of growth.

The unraveling was swift. As prices peaked, leverage was elevated and positioning heavily skewed toward further upside. When sentiment shifted, liquidity evaporated. Margin calls accelerated selling, stop-loss orders cascaded, and what had been framed as a safe haven quickly behaved like a high-beta risk asset. The resulting crash delivered a stark reminder that even historically defensive assets can become unstable when crowded and overextended.³

Policy Shock and the Fragility of “Safe Havens”

The immediate catalyst for the metals collapse came from an abrupt shift in U.S. policy expectations. President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Chair of the Federal Reserve surprised markets and altered assumptions about the future path of monetary policy. Warsh is widely viewed as more hawkish on inflation than his predecessor, and his nomination triggered a rapid repricing across asset classes.

Bond yields jumped to their highest levels in over a year, while the U.S. dollar strengthened sharply. For gold and silver, which offer no yield and typically benefit from a weaker dollar, the implications were immediate. The conditions that had supported their ascent—falling real rates, loose financial conditions, and currency skepticism—reversed almost overnight.⁴

The reaction exposed how dependent the metals rally had become on a specific macro narrative. Once the perception of an increasingly accommodative and politicized Federal Reserve faded, the rationale for extreme positioning in precious metals weakened. The “debasement trade,” which assumed persistent dollar erosion and policy complacency, lost traction.²

Silver’s behavior leading into the crash offered additional insight. Historically, silver tends to outperform gold during periods of economic stress rather than pure inflationary episodes. Its outsized gains suggested that investors were responding to deeper concerns about growth and liquidity. In that sense, the metals rally functioned as a warning signal rather than a straightforward hedge. When confidence in policy discipline improved, that warning abruptly unwound.

The episode also highlighted the unusual market dynamics of recent years. Traditional correlations have repeatedly broken down. Stocks and bonds fell together during the inflation shock of 2022, undermining the effectiveness of diversified portfolios. Treasuries, long considered the cornerstone of risk-off positioning, struggled under the weight of rising yields and expanding fiscal deficits. As a result, investors increasingly turned to gold and silver as alternative refuges.

That shift may now be reversing. The violent repricing in metals underscores their vulnerability when expectations change. While gold retains long-term strategic appeal, particularly for central banks and long-horizon investors, its recent behavior challenged the assumption that it will always serve as a stabilizing force during market stress.³

Treasuries and the Re-Emergence of Traditional Risk-Off Behavior

For much of the past several years, U.S. Treasuries have occupied an unfamiliar position: distrusted as a hedge and avoided as a source of stability. Rising inflation, aggressive rate hikes, and ballooning government debt undermined confidence in bonds just as equity volatility increased. The breakdown of the classic stock-bond relationship left many investors searching for alternatives.

That backdrop makes the recent metals crash particularly significant. It may mark a turning point in the hierarchy of safe assets. With yields now meaningfully higher than they were during the previous decade, Treasuries once again offer income alongside potential price appreciation in the event of economic slowing. The risk-reward profile has improved materially.

Read more

• Defensive sector leadership signaled rising uncertainty before geopolitical headlines emerged.

• The utilities-to-S&P 500 ratio flipped risk-off ahead of the Greenland tariff news.

• U.S. tariff threats tied to Greenland introduced a new and destabilizing form of geopolitical risk.

• Safe-haven flows suggest investors are reassessing risk after a prolonged period of complacency.

• The episode may represent the catalyst needed for a broader market correction, even if tensions ease.

Markets Whisper Before They Shout

Markets rarely wait for headlines to adjust. Capital often moves quietly first, leaving subtle signals behind for those willing to look. In the days leading up to the latest geopolitical shock, one of those signals appeared in an area many investors tend to overlook: the relative performance of utility stocks versus the broader equity market.

Utilities typically outperform when investors grow cautious, favoring stability over growth. That rotation began before any major news involving Greenland surfaced. The utilities-to-S&P 500 ratio turned higher, indicating that institutional investors were already positioning defensively.¹ This behavior matters because it has shown up repeatedly ahead of periods of rising volatility. Research examining prior market cycles has found that sustained utility leadership often precedes equity drawdowns, particularly when broader sentiment remains optimistic.²

The context makes the signal more compelling. Equity markets had been advancing steadily, supported by confidence that geopolitical risks would remain contained. Valuations expanded as investors discounted downside scenarios. The quiet shift toward utilities suggested that some participants were no longer comfortable with that assumption. This was not panic selling. It was measured repositioning, consistent with risk management rather than fear.

These early defensive moves resemble the subtle change in weather before a storm. They rarely attract attention at the time, but they often look obvious in hindsight. In this case, the market’s internal signals were already pointing toward caution just before an unexpected geopolitical catalyst arrived.

Greenland and a New Kind of Political Risk

That catalyst emerged abruptly with reports that the United States would impose tariffs on several European nations unless Denmark agreed to allow the U.S. to acquire Greenland.³ The proposed tariffs targeted a broad group of allies, including Denmark, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and multiple Nordic countries, with escalation planned later in the year.⁴

Read more

As 2026 begins, equity market leadership looks notably different from what investors have grown accustomed to over the past several years. Instead of mega-cap technology stocks dictating the market’s direction, small-cap equities have emerged as the primary drivers of performance. For investors conditioned to measure risk appetite through the lens of a handful of technology giants, this shift may feel unfamiliar. Yet the market’s early-year message is unambiguous: risk appetite remains intact, even as leadership migrates away from Silicon Valley and toward Main Street.¹

This distinction matters because leadership regimes influence how investors express optimism. A tech-led market often reflects a search for growth scarcity and long-duration earnings. A small-cap led market signals confidence in the broader economy, domestic demand, and cyclical momentum. Early 2026 price action suggests that investors are increasingly comfortable embracing that latter narrative.²

Small-Cap Leadership and the Return of Market Breadth

One of the most important features of the current rally is its breadth. Unlike prior advances driven by a narrow set of stocks, participation has expanded meaningfully. Small- and mid-cap equities have outperformed, while gains have spread across a wider range of industries.³ This broadening is significant because rallies supported by many stocks tend to be more durable than those dependent on a few dominant names.

The macroeconomic backdrop helps explain why this shift is occurring. By late 2025, inflation pressures had moderated and monetary policy had clearly pivoted away from restriction. The Federal Reserve signaled greater comfort with easing financial conditions, reducing fears of an imminent recession.⁴ As uncertainty around rates diminished, investors became more willing to reallocate capital toward economically sensitive areas of the market.

Small-cap companies are particularly responsive to this environment. They tend to rely more heavily on external financing and domestic economic activity, making them natural beneficiaries of stabilizing credit conditions. As borrowing costs ease and confidence improves, earnings expectations across this segment tend to rise more quickly. The resulting rotation has improved overall market breadth, reinforcing the perception that the rally is grounded in broader economic participation rather than narrow speculation.⁵

At the same time, mega-cap technology stocks have paused after years of outsized gains. This moderation has been orderly rather than disruptive, reflecting valuation digestion rather than structural weakness.⁶ The leadership transition does not suggest technology has lost relevance. It suggests investors are redistributing risk across the market as opportunities widen beyond the most crowded trades.

Sector Rotation in a Small-Cap Led Environment

When small-caps lead, sector performance tends to follow well-established historical patterns. Cyclical and value-oriented sectors usually outperform, while defensive areas lag. That pattern has reasserted itself as 2026 gets underway.

Financials, industrials, and energy stocks have been among the primary beneficiaries of renewed risk appetite.⁷ These sectors are closely tied to economic activity, credit availability, and capital investment. As growth expectations stabilize, banks benefit from improved lending conditions, industrial companies gain from rising infrastructure and manufacturing demand, and energy firms see stronger support from firming consumption trends.

Read more

• The JOJO.INDEX has shifted into “junk-off,” signaling increased probability of near-term volatility.

• Utility stock leadership triggered the rotation, a historically reliable early warning signal.

• Credit spreads remain near historic lows, leaving little margin for error.

• Investor sentiment shows extreme optimism despite signs of economic cooling.

• The signal does not predict a crash, but it does suggest risk is being underpriced.

Why the JOJO.INDEX Matters Right Now

Markets have been remarkably calm, even as macro crosscurrents continue to build beneath the surface. Equity volatility has stayed compressed, credit spreads remain tight, and investor sentiment is broadly confident that any economic slowdown will be shallow and manageable. Against that backdrop, the JOJO.INDEX quietly flipped into “junk-off” mode late last week, rotating fully out of high-yield bonds and into long-duration Treasuries.

The JOJO.INDEX, formally known as the ATAC Credit-On/Credit-Off Index, is a rules-based allocation model designed to respond to changes in market risk appetite. It toggles between high-yield corporate bonds and long-duration Treasuries based on a single signal: the short-term relative performance of utility stocks versus the broader equity market. When utilities outperform, the index adopts a defensive posture. When they lag, it takes on credit risk.

This recent switch matters because defensive rotations have been rare over the past year. When they do occur, they have often preceded periods of rising volatility rather than followed them. The index is not reacting to headlines or forecasts. It is responding to market behavior that has historically led stress rather than confirmed it.¹

The Mechanics Behind the Junk-Off Signal

The logic of the JOJO.INDEX is intentionally simple. Utilities are among the most defensive equity sectors, with stable cash flows and bond-like characteristics. When investors begin rotating into utilities relative to the S&P 500, it often reflects a subtle shift toward safety before risk assets broadly reprice.

Academic and industry research has shown that short-term utility outperformance tends to precede higher volatility and weaker equity returns.² This relationship forms the backbone of the JOJO.INDEX methodology. Each week, the index evaluates the recent performance spread between utility stocks and the broader market. If utilities lead, the model moves entirely into Treasuries. If not, it allocates to high-yield bonds.

Late last week, that threshold was crossed. Utilities had quietly begun outperforming despite ongoing strength in major equity indices. The result was a full rotation into Treasuries. While the move may appear abrupt, the underlying behavior had been developing for weeks. Historically, such divergences have tended to resolve through volatility rather than continued calm.

Utilities as an Early Warning Signal

Utilities are often dismissed as dull or backward-looking. In reality, they have functioned as a reliable early warning signal across multiple market cycles. Because they sit at the intersection of interest rates, economic expectations, and risk tolerance, changes in their relative performance can reveal investor intent before it becomes obvious elsewhere.

Read more

• Large-cap value appears to have bottomed against large-cap growth, ending a multi-year stretch of relative underperformance and signaling a potential shift in market leadership.

• Valuation extremes favor value stocks, with discounts versus growth near historically rare levels, increasing the odds of sustained mean reversion if expectations for mega-cap growth moderate.

• Easing monetary policy historically supports value leadership, particularly when rate cuts occur without a recession, as economically sensitive sectors respond to improving financial conditions.

• A value-led market typically broadens participation, creating tailwinds for small-cap stocks and international equities that have lagged U.S. large-cap growth for years.

• Risk-on may increasingly be expressed outside of technology, with leadership rotating toward health care, financials, industrials, and overseas markets rather than Nasdaq-heavy exposures.

• Portfolio concentration risk rises when leadership narrows, making diversification across styles, regions, and market capitalizations more important as the market regime evolves.

For much of the past decade, investing success has felt increasingly narrow. Large-cap growth stocks, led by a small group of dominant technology firms, captured a disproportionate share of market gains, while value stocks consistently lagged. That imbalance shaped investor behavior, portfolio construction, and even perceptions of what “risk-on” meant in equity markets. Recently, however, evidence has begun to accumulate that this long-standing leadership may be changing. After years of underperformance, large-cap value appears to have bottomed relative to growth, a shift that could carry broader implications across asset classes and regions.¹

A Decade of Growth Dominance Meets Its Limits

Since the global financial crisis, growth stocks benefited from an unusually favorable backdrop. Persistently low interest rates supported higher valuations, while technological innovation concentrated profits among a small group of mega-cap firms. By the early 2020s, enthusiasm around artificial intelligence further amplified this dynamic, pushing growth indices to historically concentrated levels. At one point, a handful of stocks accounted for more than 40 percent of global growth benchmarks.¹

Value stocks, by contrast, spent much of this period on the sidelines. Traditional value sectors such as financials, industrials, and energy struggled with slower growth, regulatory pressure, and shifting investor preferences. As a result, value lagged growth for most of the past two decades, reinforcing the perception that its style was structurally disadvantaged.²

That narrative may now be fraying. The relative performance of large-cap value versus large-cap growth appears to have reached a trough in late 2025 and has since turned higher. In practical terms, value stocks have begun to outperform growth following an extended drawdown. Market leadership late in the year reflected this shift, as several high-profile growth names stalled while previously overlooked value sectors gained traction.³

Valuations and Policy Create a Different Setup

One reason the recent turn matters is how extreme the valuation gap had become. By late 2024, value stocks were trading at discounts to growth that exceeded long-term norms by a wide margin. On normalized earnings measures, the discount reached levels rarely seen outside major regime shifts.¹ Such extremes tend to coincide with inflection points, particularly when investor expectations for growth stocks are elevated.

At the same time, macroeconomic conditions have begun to evolve. After an aggressive tightening cycle, central banks are shifting toward easier policy as inflation pressures moderate. Historically, the period following the first rate cut in a cycle has often favored value stocks, provided the economy avoids recession.¹ Lower borrowing costs tend to benefit cyclical industries and balance-sheet-sensitive businesses, many of which reside in value indices.

This does not imply that growth companies lose their relevance or profitability. Instead, it suggests that much of their expected success may already be reflected in prices. As expectations rise, the margin for disappointment narrows. Value stocks, by contrast, enter this phase with lower expectations and greater valuation support, creating asymmetric upside if economic conditions stabilize.¹

Broader Market Implications: Size and Geography

Shifts in value leadership rarely occur in isolation. Historically, periods of value outperformance have often coincided with stronger performance from smaller companies and non-U.S. markets. Recent data hint at a similar pattern emerging.

Read more

Every December, the same question resurfaces on Wall Street: will the market end the year with a seasonal gift, or deliver a lump of coal? The so-called “Santa Claus rally” has become one of the most enduring patterns in market history. Far from a holiday cliché, it reflects a persistent tendency for equities to strengthen during the final stretch of the calendar year, particularly in the last two weeks of December.

Over long market cycles, December has ranked among the stronger months for U.S. equities, with gains clustering disproportionately late in the month. Since the mid-twentieth century, the S&P 500 has finished December higher in roughly three-quarters of all years, and a significant share of those advances has occurred during the month’s closing weeks.¹ This concentration of strength has made late December one of the most consistently positive short windows on the market calendar.

That reliability has elevated the Santa Claus rally from statistical curiosity to sentiment gauge. When the rally appears, it often reinforces confidence heading into the new year. When it fails, investors tend to take notice.

A Seasonal Pattern With Staying Power

The Santa Claus rally was formally defined in the early 1970s by market historian Yale Hirsch as the final five trading days of December and the first two trading days of January.² Despite spanning just seven sessions, that window has historically produced gains far more often than losses. Since the mid-1940s, the market has finished that period higher roughly three-quarters of the time, an unusually high success rate for such a narrow slice of the calendar.³

This tendency has earned a place in market folklore, captured by Hirsch’s well-known rhyme: “If Santa Claus should fail to call, bears may come to Broad and Wall.” The message is not mystical. Instead, it reflects a recurring observation that weak year-end performance can signal deteriorating investor confidence beneath the surface.

History offers several examples. The absence of a Santa rally heading into 2000 and 2008 preceded two of the most severe bear markets in modern history.⁴ More recently, a muted year-end advance in late 2015 was followed by heightened volatility and a difficult start to 2016. These episodes do not imply causation, but they reinforce the idea that late-December performance often reflects prevailing risk appetite.

Seasonality does not override fundamentals, but it does shape probabilities. November and December together have formed a durable pocket of strength across multiple economic regimes, monetary cycles, and political environments.⁵ The persistence of the pattern suggests that structural and behavioral forces, rather than chance, are at work.

Why Late December Tends to Favor Stocks

Several factors converge as the year draws to a close. Investor psychology plays a central role. The holiday season often coincides with improved sentiment, lighter news flow, and a collective inclination to look ahead rather than dwell on recent setbacks. That shift alone can influence short-term market behavior.

Read more

Bitcoin’s sharp decline in November 2025 revived a familiar debate: whether crypto weakness is an early warning for equities. Bitcoin had climbed above $125,000 in early October before losing roughly one-fifth of its value during November, its largest monthly drawdown since the 2021 crash.¹ Other tokens followed. A top-ten crypto index fell more than 20 percent.² Crypto-exposed equities—from Coinbase to several miners—also traded lower as selling intensified.³

Equities, however, didn’t break anywhere near as aggressively. The stark contrast between crypto’s turbulence and the stock market’s resilience prompted speculation that Bitcoin’s weakness might eventually spill into equities. Commentators warned that Bitcoin had become a barometer of risk appetite, implying stocks could be next.

That assumption overlooks how both markets actually absorbed the same macro shocks. In mid-November, Federal Reserve officials signaled less enthusiasm for near-term rate cuts. That message hit risk assets broadly, yet the impact diverged. Bitcoin fell sharply, while equities more or less absorbed the news. The following weeks brought additional jitters around inflation, pushing both tech shares and digital assets lower, though again with different magnitudes. These moments underscore an important point: Bitcoin and stocks often react to common catalysts, but the reactions do not have to match.

Correlation Breakdowns and Crypto’s Independent Forces

The correlation data reinforces that separation. During 2020–21, Bitcoin and tech stocks frequently moved together, but that environment was shaped by extraordinary liquidity conditions. In 2025, the relationship weakened substantially. Researchers at Analytics Insight tracked Bitcoin’s correlation with the Nasdaq-100 and found it had drifted toward zero.⁸ Around the same time, TradingView reported Bitcoin’s correlation with the S&P 500 falling from meaningfully positive in early November to effectively flat by month’s end.⁹ Charts that once suggested a tight link between digital assets and equities now showed two markets moving on different paths.

Several structural factors help explain why. One of them is the rise of spot Bitcoin ETFs. These products create a direct pipeline between investor flows and Bitcoin itself—flows that do not require equities to move in any particular direction. As Reuters reported, crypto investment vehicles pulled in billions of dollars in recent weeks even as stocks traded quietly.¹¹ New ETF launches, changes in fund flows and internal liquidity dynamics can push Bitcoin significantly without any corresponding shift in corporate earnings, economic data or stock-market sentiment.

Another factor is how crypto’s internal mechanics increasingly overpower macro messaging. The 2024 halving reduced the rate at which new Bitcoin enters circulation, making supply tighter and price reactions sharper. ETF flows have more influence in that environment, and on-chain data cycles can drive trading activity independent of Wall Street. Analytics Insight documented how these idiosyncratic drivers—mining economics, liquidity on global exchanges, regulatory developments—shaped crypto behavior throughout 2025.⁸ None of these forces are especially relevant to large-cap equities.’

Read more

The market has spent most of 2025 celebrating its loudest winners — Big Tech, high-beta favorites, and the speculative trades that dominated the narrative. Yet beneath that noise, a quieter story is unfolding. Low-volatility stocks, ignored for much of the year, have begun to outperform. The shift is subtle, easy to overlook, and exactly the sort of early rotation that often hints at a deeper change in market character.

The SPLV:SPHB ratio — which compares low-volatility stocks (SPLV) with high-beta stocks (SPHB) — just bounced off a decade low and has turned higher. Historically, that kind of inflection has often marked the beginning of a rotation toward caution, even while headline indices continue rallying.

A Barometer for Risk Appetite

The logic behind this ratio is straightforward. SPHB represents the 100 most volatile stocks in the S&P 500 — the companies that swing the most on both upside and downside. SPLV holds the 100 least volatile stocks — utilities, staples, and other steady operators. When SPLV outperforms, investors are gravitating toward safety; when SPHB leads, the market is embracing risk.

For several years, the ratio pointed clearly toward aggressive sentiment. After a brief defensive surge during the 2020 pandemic shock, high-beta stocks dominated the recovery. Ample liquidity, stimulus, and a preference for growth pushed investors toward the riskiest parts of the market, and the SPLV:SPHB ratio drifted steadily lower.¹

High-beta names widened the performance gap across multiple periods, sending the ratio to its lowest level in roughly a decade.² That dominance created a long trend — one now showing early signs of reversing.

The First Break in the Trend

After years of pressure, the SPLV:SPHB ratio has begun to move higher. Low-volatility stocks have quietly outperformed, marking the first meaningful break in the multi-year downtrend.

The rotation has appeared across sector behavior as well. Capital has been drifting toward value, defensives, and lower-beta stocks. Some of the market’s most crowded high-beta positions — particularly among megacaps — have lost momentum. While the move isn’t dramatic, it has been persistent enough to suggest that investors may be becoming more selective and less willing to chase risk.

These transitions rarely begin with fireworks. They often start with a small but steady shift — low-volatility stocks outperforming on up days, defensive sectors rising while growth cools. These quiet turns frequently mark the early stages of a maturing cycle.

A Defensive Tone Beneath Strong Headlines

Even as the S&P 500 pushes to new highs, the market’s internals express growing caution. Research from October highlighted a “quiet rotation” into defensive areas while the index advanced.³ Utilities, healthcare, and consumer staples — sectors that had not meaningfully led since 2022 — suddenly became relative outperformers. Historically, these sector shifts carry weight.

Several forces contributed to this pivot. Valuations in high-beta areas stretched after months of strong performance. Economic data exposed uneven momentum beneath the surface. Credit pockets softened. And throughout early 2025, defensives repeatedly outperformed cyclicals whenever uncertainty re-emerged.⁴

Even in sectors fueling the year’s excitement — including AI — traders quietly trimmed winners and redistributed toward steadier holdings. When the market’s leaders falter despite strength in the index, it usually indicates that institutional money is preparing for a different environment.

Why Defensive Leadership Matters

Defensive leadership doesn’t guarantee a correction, yet history suggests it should not be dismissed. Utilities — a significant component of low-volatility strategies — have long functioned as an early warning indicator. When utility stocks begin outperforming broadly, higher volatility has often followed.⁵

Read more

After the November 17 sell-off, the Weekly Signals framework is sending an early warning that the market’s risk environment may be shifting. The clearest sign comes from the Utilities vs. S&P 500 relative strength ratio. Although still officially in “Risk-On,” utilities’ defensive behavior during the decline puts the signal on the edge of turning. Such a flip would challenge the typical late-November seasonal tailwinds that usually support equities. In a year that has repeatedly broken from historical patterns, this potential shift deserves attention.

The Utilities vs. S&P 500 Signal Nears a Turn

Utilities’ relative strength remains among the most reliable early indicators of changing market regimes. When investors grow uneasy, they tend to move toward essential services like electricity and water. When confidence is strong, cyclicals and growth stocks have the advantage. Because of this dynamic, utilities often outperform ahead of volatility spikes or equity pullbacks.

As of mid-November, the model still shows “Risk-On,” but the quiet resilience in utilities points to rising defensiveness under the surface. That kind of behavior often precedes a formal risk-off signal. A similar pattern occurred in 2019, when utilities strengthened steadily before a burst of tariff-driven volatility. The setup today looks similar, suggesting the risk-on stance may not last much longer. A confirmed flip would push recommended positioning toward safety—namely utilities, Treasuries, or low-volatility equity segments.

The takeaway is simple: when utilities start leading, the market is often sending a message. It’s not contrarian, quirky, or a random rotation. It’s a shift in tone. And when that tone turns, managing volatility becomes more important than chasing upside.

Today’s Market Action Echoes Prior Defensive Episodes

The November 17 decline carries many hallmarks of a risk-off day. High-beta sectors fell hardest, while defensive groups held steady. Treasuries rallied, gold firmed, and volatility climbed. These are not characteristics of a market in a stable risk-on environment.

The pattern recalls the sell-off on October 10, when the S&P 500 logged its steepest one-day drop in months and the Nasdaq tumbled. Utilities, however, barely moved. Their stability during that earlier episode—like today—was not coincidental. It reflected money rotating intentionally toward safety.

If this leadership pattern continues, the Weekly Signals model is increasingly likely to flip to risk-off. Historically, such flips precede periods of higher volatility. Market internals often shift before the headline indices react, and ignoring them can leave investors unprepared.

Seasonality Collides With 2025’s Reality

A risk-off turn in late November stands out because this period normally provides strong seasonal support. November and December have historically delivered some of the best monthly returns, contributing to the well-known “Santa Claus rally.” Markets often benefit from holiday optimism, year-end positioning, and improved sentiment.

But 2025 has not followed any seasonal script. The year has seen rallies during typically weak periods and weakness during times that normally carry strong seasonal winds. Investors who relied on seasonality alone have been repeatedly wrong-footed.

Seasonality is probability, not guarantee. Even historically strong months can experience turbulence when broader forces are at work. The failed 2018 holiday rally remains a clear reminder that seasonal patterns can collapse quickly when markets become stressed.

With uneven inflation dynamics, tightening financial conditions, and geopolitical risks shaping the year, historical patterns have had little influence. As complacency builds around expectations of a holiday rally, the quiet rise in defensive signals demands greater respect.

Risks Building Beneath the Market Surface

The shift toward defensiveness is not happening in isolation. Several structural pressures have been building over the past few weeks:

Read more

This pattern has inspired the familiar “Santa Claus Rally” narrative. Charts of long-term monthly returns consistently show November and December towering over other months. Even when markets have stumbled earlier in the year, this late-year stretch has frequently delivered a recovery as optimism builds around earnings, holiday spending, and the coming year’s outlook.

Consistency Over Decades

The reliability of this effect stands out. In a half-century sample, about three out of four Novembers or Decembers end positive¹³. By contrast, September’s historical win rate is barely above 40 percent. Staying invested through the holidays has simply paid off more often than not.

The gains are not driven by a few outliers either. Yardeni Research shows that since 1928, December produced 70 positive years versus 27 negative, and November 60 versus 37. That breadth of positive outcomes underlines how durable the pattern has been.

Average late-year returns reinforce the point. November’s +2 percent and December’s +1.5 percent returns²³ far exceed the long-term monthly average near +0.7 percent. These numbers have held across multiple cycles—from inflationary 1970s recoveries to the post-pandemic bull market.

Year-to-Year Examples

Recent years illustrate how persistent the effect remains. In 2023, the S&P 500 surged roughly 9 percent in November and another 4 percent in December as recession fears faded. In 2024, November again posted a gain near 5.7 percent⁴, far exceeding its long-term average.

Even difficult years haven’t fully broken the pattern. In 2022, while equities finished down sharply for the year, December still managed a modest rebound of roughly +2.5 percent after a weak September. Looking across the past two decades, at least one of those two months—November or December—has ranked among the top performers in most years.

Read more

The S&P 500 sitting comfortably above its 50-day moving average often looks reassuring—an emblem of momentum and calm. Yet beneath the surface, a different picture emerges. Like a towering tree among wilted saplings, a handful of giant stocks can lift the index while most others struggle. This is precisely what has been happening in recent months: the market’s apparent strength has been fueled by a small number of mega-caps, disguising fragility in the broader market.

The Mirage of Index Highs

Market headlines continue to celebrate the “Magnificent Seven,” whose gains have kept the S&P 500 elevated even as the average stock falters. By early August 2025, the share of S&P 500 constituents trading above their 50-day moving averages had dropped from roughly 75 percent in late July to near 50 percent. In other words, the index neared record highs while half its members were trending lower.

This pattern of bad breadth has often foreshadowed future volatility. Historically, rallies sustained by only a handful of stocks prove less stable than those supported by hundreds. The concentration is striking: by early 2025, the ten largest companies represented about 35 percent of the index’s market capitalization—the highest since the dot-com bubble¹. When leadership narrows to that extent, any stumble among those few names can rattle the entire index.

An internal “X-ray” of the market confirms the imbalance. As of late October 2025, only about 40 percent of S&P 500 stocks remained above their 50-day average. A soccer team relying on one star scorer may still win—until the star gets hurt. Likewise, today’s market strength rests precariously on a handful of corporate superstars.

Above the 50-Day: Signal or Mirage?

Being above a moving average is often interpreted as a bullish sign, but it tells us as much about volatility as direction. Stocks generally move with smoother, lower-volatility trends when above their 50-day MA; below it, price action tends to be erratic and full of whipsaws. Thus, the 50-day line is more a barometer of market calm than a guarantee of strength.

The current rally illustrates the risk of mistaking calm for health. The S&P 500’s break back above its 50-day line looks constructive, yet that movement has been powered by only a small cadre of giants while the majority of stocks remain weak. Such conditions often precede reversals: the index can stay aloft briefly before deteriorating breadth pulls it back down.

Confirmation from classic indicators is also missing. The Dow Jones Transportation Average, a proxy for the real economy, has failed to confirm the S&P’s rise and instead turned lower—a divergence that preceded earlier corrections. A market can appear strong technically while its foundation quietly erodes.

Narrow Rallies, Higher Risk

Breadth isn’t a statistic for technicians alone; it’s a health check for the entire market. When participation narrows, risk rises. During the late-1990s tech bubble, record-high indices masked broad weakness that ended in a painful bear market. Similar conditions are visible today. Analysts increasingly warn that a rally driven by so few participants “is not healthy” and could falter without broader support².

Read more

Utilities Weakness: A Contrarian Bullish Signal

Utilities may not seem glamorous, but their performance often foreshadows changes in market volatility. Historically, when utilities outperform the broader market, volatility tends to rise; when they underperform, calm and risk-taking prevail. Short-term utilities leadership often preceded major market drawdowns, while utilities lagging coincided with low volatility periods¹².

The logic is straightforward: utilities are safe-haven assets. When fear dominates, investors flock to them; when confidence returns, they sell them. The recent steep drop in utilities relative to the S&P 500—one of the weakest in years—implies investors are comfortable shifting into cyclical and growth stocks. If traders truly sensed danger, they’d be hiding in utilities, not abandoning them.

This setup echoes a key principle from intermarket analysis: utilities tend to lead volatility. Their current underperformance therefore suggests a near-term environment of reduced fear and potential equity gains. The last time utilities surged—prior to the tariff tantrum—it preceded a spike in volatility and a brief market pullback³. Now, the opposite dynamic appears to be in play.

Seasonality: Historical Tailwinds for Equities

The timing couldn’t be better for bulls. The November-December stretch is historically the most favorable for stocks. Over the past century, the S&P 500 has risen about 62 percent of the time in November and 74 percent in December, averaging monthly gains near 1 percent and 1.3 percent respectively⁴. This “Santa Claus rally” often reflects holiday optimism, portfolio rebalancing, and new-year expectations.

The convergence of two forces—weak utilities and strong seasonality—creates a classic melt-up setup. When defensive sectors lag while calendar trends turn positive, markets often drift higher. Combined with easing inflation expectations and potential Fed rate cuts, conditions seem aligned for a late-year push.

Still, history warns against complacency. Utilities’ weakness may flag calm conditions, but it doesn’t eliminate risk. Contrarian indicators lose their edge when everyone believes in them.

Complacency Creeps In

As bullish momentum builds, sentiment data reveal a concerning countercurrent: complacency.

Read more

That’s why traders have long treated lumber as a macro signal. I somewhat popularized this approach through my award-winning paper “Lumber: Worth Its Weight in Gold,” which compares lumber’s behavior to gold’s. When lumber outperforms gold, it tends to reflect optimism and risk-taking. When gold leads, it often signals fear and market stress. Recently, however, that once-reliable signal has turned fuzzy: gold and stocks have been rising together, leaving lumber’s warning light blinking but hard to interpret.

Lumber Prices Cool After the Pandemic Rollercoaster

Lumber’s pandemic boom and bust remains one of the most dramatic commodity cycles in memory. In 2021, prices soared above $1,500 per thousand board feet—triple the pre-COVID record—before crashing more than 70% in months². Since then, the market has calmed but not fully normalized.

Through 2024 and 2025, lumber prices have drifted modestly lower. As of September 2025, softwood prices were roughly 5–6% below last year’s levels according to the National Association of Home Builders³. The NAHB’s framing lumber composite reached its lowest level in over a year, reflecting cooling builder demand.

Volatility, though milder than the pandemic chaos, remains part of lumber’s DNA. Month-to-month moves of 10% or more are still common as weather, interest rates, and speculative trading all play roles. The commodity currently trades in the low $600 per thousand board feet range—well below its 2021 peaks, yet still higher than the pre-COVID norm. The market has steadied, but not yet settled.

Housing Starts Slow Under Higher Rates

If lumber is the thermometer, housing is the fever. Construction has slowed as mortgage rates hover near two-decade highs. U.S. housing starts stood at about 1.31 million annualized units in August 2025, roughly 6% below the prior year⁹. Single-family starts fell to under 0.9 million, while building permits—a leading indicator—declined by 11%¹¹.

Builders remain cautious as affordability challenges weigh on demand. The Federal Reserve’s aggressive tightening cooled the pandemic housing boom, though the broader economy has so far avoided recession. Historically, that’s unusual. Leamer’s research found residential investment typically rolls over before recessions and rebounds before recoveries¹.

For investors, lumber’s softening mirrors these dynamics. Each new single-family home requires over 14,000 board feet of lumber⁷. When builders slow down, demand drops fast. The correlation between housing starts and lumber prices remains one of the tightest in the commodity world—and both are flashing “cooling,” not “collapse.”

The Lumber-to-Gold Ratio: A Signal of Risk Appetite

The logic is simple but powerful: lumber represents growth and risk-taking; gold represents fear and defense¹³.

When lumber outperforms gold over a 13-week stretch, markets tend to be calm, cyclical sectors outperform, and volatility subsides¹⁹. When gold leads lumber, risk aversion often rises and equities stumble.

For years, the ratio worked beautifully. Lumber’s weakness signaled trouble before the 2008 crisis; its rebound flagged recovery ahead of the bull market. Rotating between offense (stocks) and defense (bonds) based on this ratio historically boosted risk-adjusted returns and reduced drawdowns²³.

Why the Signal Is Blurry Now

In the post-COVID market, the lumber-gold compass seems off-kilter. Over the past year, gold has handily outperformed lumber—a traditional “risk-off” warning—yet equities have rallied. The reason lies in gold’s changing role.

Read more