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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Looking for a fresh take on value investing? ITAN helps investors modernize their U.S. value allocations, providing exposure to innovative, intangible-rich companies at attractive prices.

Learn more by visiting the ITAN Website or contacting the Sparkline Team.

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 Sparkline 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 Sparkline Capital and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

A Trillion Dollars in the Ground

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The four largest hyperscalers spent $416 billion on capex in 2025 and have guided to roughly $725 billion in 2026, while Amazon’s trailing-twelve-month free cash flow collapsed 95%, from $38.2 billion to $1.2 billion.

• Aggregate capex now runs about 3.9 times annual depreciation across the hyperscalers. Oracle sits at 8x. These ratios mean the eventual depreciation cliff is being engineered into earnings, not yet absorbed.

• AI-tied corporate bond issuance hit $121 billion in 2025, a 332% surge versus the 2020-2024 baseline. AI debt is now 14% of the JP Morgan US investment-grade index — a larger weight than US banks.

• Less than 5% of the fiber buried during the 1996-2001 telecom buildout was ever lit. Most of the builders went bankrupt. The shape of that capex curve and the current AI curve are almost identical.

• Microsoft’s annualized AI revenue is roughly $37 billion against $97 billion of LTM capex — about 38% coverage. MIT’s Project NANDA finds 95% of organizations report zero return on generative AI. The demand side is not keeping pace with the supply side.

Every great capex bubble looks the same in real time. The technology is real. The buildout is necessary. The CEOs sound brilliant. The bankers underwrite the bonds. And then, years later, the receiver shows up.

I have spent a lot of time this year trying to figure out where we are in the AI cycle. Not whether AI is real — it is. Not whether it will reshape industries — it already has. The question I keep coming back to is narrower: who pays for the infrastructure, on what timeline, and against what cash flows.

The numbers no longer add up. The four largest hyperscalers spent $416 billion on capex in 2025.^[1] Their guidance for 2026 implies roughly $725 billion, a 77% increase in a single year.^[2] Amazon’s trailing-twelve-month free cash flow collapsed from $38.2 billion to $1.2 billion — a 95% decline.^[3] That is not a slowdown. That is what a company does in the early stages of a buildout it cannot finance from operations.

The Capex-to-Depreciation Math

Here is the equation that matters. Capital expenditure today becomes depreciation expense tomorrow. When capex is roughly equal to depreciation, the business is in steady-state reinvestment. When capex is two times depreciation, the business is growing. When capex is four times depreciation — which is roughly where the hyperscalers sit — the business is making a bet that the future earnings stream will be large enough to absorb the eventual depreciation hit.

The aggregate capex-to-depreciation ratio across the five largest AI infrastructure spenders is approximately 3.9x on a trailing-twelve-month basis.^[4] Oracle is at 8x. Meta is at 3.8x. Microsoft is at roughly 3.5x. Alphabet at 3.2x. Amazon at 2.5x. None of these companies has ever operated with a capex-to-depreciation ratio this high for a sustained period.

And there is a second layer hidden inside the depreciation line. Every one of the five major hyperscalers extended the useful life of its server fleet toward six years between 2022 and 2024 — a non-cash accounting change that added roughly $8-9 billion in net income per company per year.^[5] Amazon, notably, reversed itself effective January 1, 2025, shortening its assumed useful life back to five years. The IRS, under the MACRS schedule, has always assumed five years.^[6] The divergence between GAAP and tax accounting is a flattering temporary distortion of earnings. It will normalize. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, made 100% bonus depreciation permanent — a fiscal tailwind that pulls tax shields forward but does not change the underlying economics of the equipment.^[7]

The Shape of Every Capex Bubble

History does not repeat, but the shape of a capex bubble has been remarkably consistent across two centuries. The 1873 railroad panic began when Jay Cooke & Co. failed on September 18, 1873, after overextending on the Northern Pacific.^[8] The collapse triggered bank runs and a decade-long depression. The technology — transcontinental rail — was real and transformative. The financing structure was not.

The 1996-2001 telecom buildout is closer in form. Telecom carriers deployed roughly $1 trillion in capital, laid an estimated 80 million miles of fiber, and less than 5% of that fiber was ever lit by 2004.^[9] WorldCom, Global Crossing, and Winstar filed for bankruptcy. The companies that financed the buildout disappeared. The companies that bought the assets out of bankruptcy at pennies on the dollar — the second-wave operators — became durably profitable. The fiber itself, twenty-five years later, still carries traffic. The technology was right. The first-wave investors were wrong.

Index the telecom capex curve and the AI hyperscaler capex curve to year zero, and the shapes are nearly identical for the first four years. The telecom curve broke in year five — capex collapsed 22% in 2001. The AI curve has not broken yet. The hyperscaler guidance for 2026 implies that capex grows another 77% from 2025. We are, on the buildout timeline, somewhere between 1999 and 2000.

The Bond Market Has Decided Already

Look at how the AI infrastructure is being financed and the picture sharpens. AI-tied corporate bond issuance was approximately $121 billion in 2025, against a 2020-2024 baseline of roughly $28 billion per year — a 332% surge in a single year.^[10] Meta priced $30 billion in September 2025. Oracle priced $18 billion in October 2025 and arranged an additional $38 billion in project finance.^[11] AI debt now represents about 14% of the JP Morgan US investment-grade index — a larger weight than US banks, the traditional anchor of the index.^[12]

Then there is the pure-play layer. CoreWeave carries approximately $14.8 billion in debt against a debt-to-equity ratio of roughly 4.5x, generated negative $7.25 billion in free cash flow last year, and derives approximately 70% of its revenue from a single counterparty, OpenAI.^[13] This is the WorldCom of the cycle. Not in the sense of fraud — nothing is suggested there — but in the structural sense. A pure-play infrastructure operator, levered, single-customer concentration, financing a buildout on assumptions about future demand from a customer that is itself unprofitable. That story has a known ending.

The Demand Side Is Not Showing Up

If the AI capex were producing commensurate revenue, none of this would matter. Microsoft’s annualized AI revenue is approximately $37 billion against LTM capex of approximately $97 billion — about 38% coverage, even if every dollar of that AI revenue dropped straight to free cash flow, which it does not.^[14] MIT’s Project NANDA reports that 95% of organizations are seeing zero return on generative AI investments.^[15] RAND finds that 80.3% of AI projects fail. Gartner projects that 60% of enterprise AI projects will be cancelled by the end of 2026. McKinsey finds that only 6% of companies see more than a 5% EBIT contribution from AI deployments.^[16]

Pivotal Research projects that Alphabet’s free cash flow will decline by approximately 90% between 2025 and 2026 if the company executes on its $180-185 billion capex guidance.^[17] That is not a number that survives contact with a shareholder base that has been trained for fifteen years to expect rising cash returns. The discipline cracks somewhere.

Power makes it worse. The PJM 2026/27 capacity auction cleared at $329.17 per megawatt-day — the FERC-approved cap, up from $269.92 the prior year.^[18] ERCOT projects peak demand of 367,790 megawatts by 2032, against an 85,508 megawatt peak in 2023 — a 4.3x increase driven primarily by data centers. The Department of Energy projects data centers will consume 12% of US power by 2028, up from 4.4% in 2023.^[19] The grid is not configured to deliver that power on the timeline the buildout assumes.

The Other Side

It is worth taking the bull case seriously. Three arguments deserve a full hearing.

First, Jensen Huang has argued repeatedly that compute is revenue — that the infrastructure being built today is the revenue base of tomorrow, and that the right comparison is not telecom fiber but the railroads after the panic, where the long-run economic surplus dwarfed the first-wave losses.^[20] He is not wrong about the long arc. He is potentially very wrong about who captures it.

Second, Mary Meeker’s 2025 AI Trends report documents that inference cost has fallen approximately 87% over twelve months.^[21] If that deflation curve continues, the gap between AI capex and AI revenue closes from the demand side. Cheaper inference unlocks workloads that today are not economic, and the addressable market expands faster than the supply.

Third — and this is the one I take most seriously — Stanley Druckenmiller opened new positions in Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet in the third quarter of 2025, after the free cash flow concerns had become widely understood.^[22] Druckenmiller is not a buy-and-hold investor. He is making a tactical call that the market has overcorrected on near-term cash flow and underpriced the optionality on AI revenue maturation. He has been right about turns like this before.

The contrarian thesis fails only if aggregate hyperscaler AI revenue exceeds aggregate AI capex on a trailing-twelve-month basis by the end of Q4 2026. The current ratio is approximately 0.3 to 0.4x. The gap closes if revenue triples or capex halves. Neither is in the guidance.

The Lead-Lag Dynamic: Capex Is the Lead

The lead-lag relationship in this cycle is unusually clean. Capex is the lead. Revenue is the lag. Bond issuance is concurrent with capex and decoupled from revenue. The spread between the two will close — it always does — and the direction it closes in determines whether this looks like the second wave of telecom or the third wave of railroads.

In every prior buildout, the technology was real, the demand was real, and the long-run economic surplus was enormous. The first-wave investors still lost. The reason is structural, not technological. When you finance a long-duration asset with short-duration capital, mark the depreciation through accelerated lives, and assume the demand curve catches the supply curve before the cash runs out, the math has to break before it heals.

I am not telling anyone what to do with this. I am noting that the shape of the curve, the structure of the financing, and the magnitude of the depreciation cliff all rhyme with episodes that did not end well for the people closest to the buildout. The technology survives. The fiber lights eventually. The companies that finance the first wave usually do not.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] Platformonomics, “Follow The CAPEX: 2025 Retrospective.” Aggregate four-hyperscaler capex: approximately $416B in calendar 2025. https://platformonomics.com/2026/02/follow-the-capex-2025-retrospective/

[2] CNBC, “Google, Microsoft, Meta and Amazon to spend more than $700B on AI.” 2026 guidance midpoint: approximately $725B. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/google-microsoft-meta-amazon-ai-cash.html

[3] TechTimes, “Amazon Free Cash Flow Falls From $38B to $1.2B,” May 19, 2026. Amazon TTM FCF as reported in Q1 2026 10-Q. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/316801/20260519/amazon-free-cash-flow-fall-38-billion-12-billion-bullish-memo-circulating-justify-bigger.htm

[4] Aggregate hyperscaler capex/depreciation ratio approximately 3.9x ($482B LTM capex / $125B LTM depreciation across Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, Oracle). Computed from latest 10-Q/10-K filings.

[5] WireSift, “AI Server Depreciation Schedule Changes.” Hyperscaler useful-life extensions added approximately $8-9B annually in net income per company.

[6] DeepQuarry, “Amazon Reverses Server Lifespan Revision.” Amazon shortened assumed useful life from 6 to 5 years effective January 1, 2025.

[7] ComputeLaw Blog, “Bonus Depreciation and AI Data Centers.” One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed July 4, 2025, restored 100% bonus depreciation permanently.

[8] Harvard Business School Baker Library, “1873: Off the Rails.” Jay Cooke & Co. failure on September 18, 1873.

[9] The Timeless Investor, “They Buried a Trillion Dollars Underground” and 7GC, “AI Capex and the Telecom Bubble: A Comparative Analysis.” Estimated 80 million miles of fiber laid 1996-2001; less than 5% lit by 2004.

[10] M&G Investments, “AI Debt Deluge Hitting Bond Markets” and Mellon Investments, “Record-Breaking AI Debt Issuance 2025.” 2025 AI-tied IG issuance approximately $121B vs $28B average 2020-2024.

[11] Blockchain.news / Kobeissi Letter, “AI Data Center Financing $126B.” Meta $30B September 2025; Oracle $18B October 2025 plus $38B project finance.

[12] Reuters Breakingviews, “Bond Investors Hitch One-Way Ride on AI.” AI debt approximately 14% of JP Morgan US IG index.

[13] Macrospire, “CoreWeave Q4 2025 Analysis” and CoreWeave IR. Approximately $14.8B debt, 4.5x D/E, -$7.25B FCF, approximately 70% revenue from OpenAI.

[14] Microsoft FY2026 Q3 results. Annualized AI revenue approximately $37B against LTM capex approximately $97B.

[15] Analysis Atlas, “Generative AI Enterprise Adoption 2026,” citing MIT Project NANDA. 95% zero-ROI finding.

[16] RAND, Gartner, McKinsey enterprise AI deployment surveys, 2025-2026. 80.3% project failure rate; 60% cancellation by end-2026; 6% material EBIT contribution.

[17] Pivotal Research, Alphabet capex/FCF projection. 2025 capex $91B to 2026 guidance $180-185B; approximately 90% FCF decline.

[18] PJM Interconnection, “2026/27 Base Residual Auction Official Results.” Clearing price $329.17/MW-day, FERC-approved cap.

[19] ERCOT, “Preliminary Long-Term Load Forecast 2026-2032” and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “2024 US Data Center Energy Usage Report.” ERCOT 2032 forecast 367,790 MW vs 85,508 MW 2023 peak; DOE projects data centers 12% of US power by 2028 up from 4.4% in 2023.

[20] Fortune, “Jensen Huang: $700B AI Capex Just the Start,” and Benzinga, “Nvidia CEO Pushes Back on Capex Fears.”

[21] TBPN Digest, “Mary Meeker AI Trends Report 2025.” Inference cost approximately -87% over twelve months.

[22] Yahoo Finance, “Druckenmiller All In on AI.” Q3 2025 13F filings showed new positions in Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet.

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.

Looking for a fresh take on value investing? ITAN helps investors modernize their U.S. value allocations, providing exposure to innovative, intangible-rich companies at attractive prices.

Learn more by visiting the ITAN Website or contacting the Sparkline Team.

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 Sparkline 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 Sparkline Capital and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC expressly disclaims any responsibility for action taken in connection with the information provided in the link.

The Fed Already Told You

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The Fed’s June 2026 Summary of Economic Projections raised year-end Core PCE 60 basis points to 3.3%, lifted headline PCE 90 basis points to 3.6%, and cut real GDP to 2.2%. The same release does not project a return to the 2% inflation target until 2028.

• Nine of eighteen FOMC voters now expect at least one hike before year-end, against zero in the March projections. Only one voter still sees a cut, down from twelve. That is the largest single-meeting hawkish shift in modern dot-plot history.

• Atlanta Fed GDPNow for Q2 has fallen from 4.3% on May 21 to 3.0% on June 17. Q1 2026 GDP was revised down to a 1.6% pace from the 2.0% advance estimate. The growth side of the equation is already softening.

• The 2s10s Treasury curve flattened from 44 basis points to 27 in twelve trading sessions in June. Gold trades above $4,150 while the lumber-to-gold ratio sits at roughly 0.15, the lowest reading on modern record. The cross-market signal set is not consistent with a soft landing.

• Seventy-one percent of economists in the June Reuters poll still expect the Fed to hold through year-end. Fidelity’s house view assigns 55% probability to a soft landing. The Fed’s own forecasts say something materially different.

There is a particular kind of denial that takes hold late in every cycle. The data shifts. The central bank moves with the data. Consensus refuses to update. Then the gap between what officials project and what investors price gets large enough that one side has to capitulate, and it is usually not the central bank that blinks.

That gap is open right now. On June 17, the Federal Reserve published its quarterly Summary of Economic Projections alongside a unanimous 12-0 decision to hold rates steady.^[1] The headline outcome was framed as boringly hawkish, a procedural pause while Chair Powell and his replacement-designate Kevin Warsh stitched together a transition. The dot plot, the inflation forecasts, and the growth revisions told a different story. The Fed marked up its inflation forecast, marked down its growth forecast, and moved its own voters into a hiking posture they had not held since 2022. The market reaction was muted. The financial press described the meeting as a hold.

That framing is wrong. The June SEP is a stagflation forecast in everything but the label. Higher inflation. Lower growth. A higher policy rate that does not bring inflation back to target for another two years. The Federal Reserve is telling anyone who is reading the same release I am that the soft-landing thesis is no longer their base case.

What the SEP Actually Says

Start with the numbers. The Fed raised its 2026 Core PCE forecast from 2.7% in March to 3.3% in June, a 60 basis point upgrade in a single quarter.^[1] Headline PCE went from 2.7% to 3.6%, a 90 basis point upgrade. Real GDP for 2026 was cut from 2.4% to 2.2%. Unemployment stays anchored at 4.3% through year-end. The forecast year-end fed funds rate moved up 40 basis points to 3.8%, which is materially above current spot pricing of about 3.625%.

Take those four numbers together. Inflation revised meaningfully higher. Growth revised lower. Unemployment revised lower. Policy rate revised higher. That is the textbook signature of a central bank that has lost confidence in its own transitory framework. In March, the median FOMC participant believed Core PCE would return to 2% by the end of 2027. In June, that path was pushed back to 2028.^[1] An additional year of above-target inflation, on top of the four years already accumulated since 2021.

None of this is in dispute. The numbers are published, archived, and available to any economist or investor who wants to read them. What is in dispute is the interpretation. The press release language continues to describe inflation as elevated and projections as conditional on incoming data. Powell’s press conference leaned on the framing that energy prices, tariffs, and Middle East conflict were transient supply-side shocks.^[2] Warsh, in his first SEP as a designated successor, signed off on the projections without commentary. Consensus heard a hold and a calming voice. The numbers say something else.

This matters because forecasting errors at the Fed are not random. They cluster. The 2021 transitory call missed the inflation acceleration by something like fourteen percentage points cumulatively before being abandoned. The 2018 hiking cycle ended when the Fed ran into a credit-spread blowout it did not see in its own dot plot two months earlier. Errors compound when the institution has to maintain narrative continuity while the data moves. The June SEP is the first projection in this cycle where the Fed’s own staff has stopped maintaining that continuity. The numbers no longer rhyme with the language.

The Dot Plot Moved Twelve Votes in Ninety Days

The dot plot is the most pointed piece of the June release. In March, twelve of eighteen voting and non-voting FOMC participants expected at least one rate cut by year-end 2026. Zero expected a hike.^[3] By June, that distribution had inverted. One voter still expects a cut. Eight expect a hold. Nine expect at least one hike. Twelve participants moved from cut to hike or hold in a single quarter.

Run a search across the FOMC dot-plot archive going back to 2012, when the projections were first published in their current form. There is no comparable single-meeting shift. The largest prior swing was the December 2018 capitulation, where the median voter dropped from three hikes to two over the course of one meeting. That move was three dots. The June 2026 move was twelve.

The mechanical reason for the shift is clear. Core PCE printed at 3.3% in April, accelerating from 2.8% in February.^[4] May payrolls came in at 172,000 against consensus of 84,000.^[5] The unemployment rate held at 4.3%, exactly where the Fed wants it. The labor market is not loosening, prices are reaccelerating, and the Fed has effectively no slack to lean on. When you cannot project a return to target on the existing policy path, you mark up the policy path.

The institutional implication is harder to digest. Twelve voters cannot all be wrong individually. Either the Fed’s internal models are flagging persistence risk that the press release will not name, or there is a coordinated read-through among voting members that consensus has not absorbed. Either way, when the median dot moves nine clicks in one quarter, the prudent assumption is that the central bank is signaling something it is not saying out loud.

The Reuters poll of 102 economists, conducted the week before the FOMC meeting, found 71% expecting the Fed to hold through all of 2026.^[6] Only one in three saw the possibility of a hike. Less than one percent saw a cut. The economists clustered around the Fed’s old narrative while the Fed itself was moving away from it.

The Growth Side Has Already Cracked

If the only data point were the inflation upgrade, the soft-landing crowd would have a fair argument. Inflation can run hot for a quarter or two without breaking the broader economic narrative. What it cannot do, comfortably, is run hot while growth is decelerating. That combination is the precise definition of stagflation.

The growth picture has already softened. Q1 2026 real GDP was revised down to a 1.6% annualized pace from the 2.0% advance estimate.^[7] The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker for Q2 sat at 4.3% as recently as May 21. By June 17, the same model had dropped to 3.0%.^[8] That is a 130 basis point downgrade in less than a month, driven primarily by softening retail trade and private investment components. The Bloomberg consensus track for Q2 is now closer to 2.2%.

The trajectory is unmistakable. Q1 came in below trend, Q2 is decelerating from a high starting point, and the Fed’s own SEP marks the full-year 2026 figure down. Against that softening growth backdrop, the Fed nevertheless raised its forecast policy rate by 40 basis points. There is only one configuration where a central bank tightens into a slowdown: when its inflation forecast forces it to.

Compare this to the dominant narrative. Fidelity’s house view, published in their May Quarterly Market Outlook, assigns 55% probability to a soft landing and 30% to a mild recession.^[9] The New York Fed’s 12-month-ahead recession probability sits at 16%, a multi-year low.^[10] The Sahm rule reading is 0.10, well below the 0.50 recession trigger threshold.^[11] Every consumer-facing risk indicator says we are nowhere near recession. None of them are calibrated to stagflation, because that regime has not existed in their lookback windows.

Cross-Market Signals Confirm the Setup

If the equity market and the consensus economist surveys are reading one regime, the bond market and commodities are reading another. The 2s10s Treasury curve flattened from 44 basis points on June 2 to 27 basis points by June 18.^[12] Seventeen basis points of flattening in twelve trading sessions is a meaningful move. The driver is not a short-end repricing. The two-year yield held roughly flat at 4.05% over the same window. The flattening came almost entirely from a rally in the long end, with the ten-year falling from about 4.50% to 4.43%.

That is not how the long end behaves when growth expectations are improving. It is how the long end behaves when the market is starting to price in either a deeper-than-expected slowdown or a flight-to-quality premium against an uncertain inflation regime. The fact that this is happening while five-year breakeven inflation sits at 2.27% and the five-year, five-year forward sits at 2.23%^[13] means the long end is anchored on the Fed eventually winning the inflation fight, even if the near-term path looks ugly.

The commodity signal is louder. Gold closed June 18 at $4,151.74 per ounce, up roughly 28% year-to-date and 70% from its 2024 trough.^[14] Lumber closed the same day at $633 per thousand board feet, almost exactly flat year-on-year.^[15] The lumber-to-gold ratio, which I have written about in this column before as a forward-looking proxy for the growth-to-debasement balance in the real economy, sits at 0.149. That is a record low going back to the start of available data. In every prior cycle where this ratio has compressed below 0.20, the macro regime has been characterized by some combination of weak growth, persistent inflation, and rising official deficits financed by monetary accommodation. We are in that configuration now.

The Michigan inflation expectations survey reinforces the read. One-year expectations sit at 4.6%, materially above the Fed’s target.^[16] Five-year expectations are at 3.4%, the highest reading since 1993. Consumers are not anchored anymore. That matters because the entire credibility argument for the Fed’s transitory framing rested on the assumption that long-run expectations would stay anchored at 2%. They are not.

The Historical Parallel That Should Make You Uncomfortable

The closest analog to the current setup is not 2008, not 2000, and not 2020. It is 1973-1975, and to a lesser extent 1979-1980. In both prior stagflation regimes, the proximate trigger was a Middle East oil shock combined with an already-tight labor market and a Federal Reserve that had spent the preceding cycle running policy too loose. In 1973, real GDP contracted 3.2% peak-to-trough while CPI peaked at 12.3%. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution drove a second oil-price shock that lifted CPI to 14.8% at a moment when unemployment was already drifting higher.

I am not arguing the magnitudes line up. They do not. The structural composition of the U.S. economy is less energy-intensive than it was in the 1970s, the labor share of GDP is lower, and the Fed has thirty years of credibility built up through Volcker and his successors. The mechanics are different. But the configuration is rhyming uncomfortably. Tight labor market. Elevated inflation refusing to return to target. A Fed that has run policy below its own neutral estimate for longer than any prior cycle in the modern era. Middle East tension driving the marginal commodity input. Long-end yields refusing to rally in proportion to the slowdown signals because the inflation tail is too fat to ignore.

The lesson from those prior regimes is that the equity duration trade is the most exposed. Long-duration growth equities, which derive most of their valuation from cash flows expected far in the future, get repriced violently when the discount rate refuses to fall on schedule. From 1973 to 1974, the S&P 500 fell 48% in nominal terms and a larger amount in real terms. The Nifty Fifty growth complex, which had been the consensus crowded trade, fell harder. From 1979 to 1981, real equity returns were essentially flat over two years despite a strong nominal rally, because inflation ate the cash flows.

The defensible exposures in those regimes were short-duration cash flows, real assets, and the parts of the energy and materials complex that had pricing power. Gold did well in both. The dollar did not. Long-duration sovereign bonds were terrible. Credit spreads widened materially in 1974 and stayed wide for three years.

The Steelman Argument

Let me give the soft-landing argument its fairest version. The June inflation upgrade was driven heavily by energy and tariff-related goods, both of which the Fed correctly identifies as supply-side. If those shocks fade through Q3, the data will mean-revert. The Fed projects a return to 2% by 2028 not because it expects a miracle but because the supply shocks have a known mechanical drag on year-on-year comparisons. The labor market has held in remarkably well. Real disposable income is still positive. Household balance sheets have not deteriorated meaningfully. The NY Fed’s 84% no-recession base case is grounded in actual coincident data, not in faith.

That is the steelman. It is not crazy. It is the consensus for a reason. The bear case I am sketching here requires inflation to remain sticky enough that the Fed cannot deliver the easing path the curve still partially prices. It requires the labor market to soften from a position of strength rather than from collapse. It requires the lumber-to-gold ratio to be reading something real about debasement risk rather than just reflecting structural changes in housing demand. None of those are guaranteed.

Here is the falsification condition I am willing to commit to. If Core PCE prints below 3.0% year-on-year for two consecutive months by the September 2026 release, and the Atlanta Fed GDPNow tracker for Q3 holds above 2.5% through the quarter, the stagflation thesis I am laying out here is wrong. The supply shocks will have rolled off, the Fed will be able to honor its 2028 path, and the soft landing will be the correct frame. I will write that piece if it happens. I do not expect to.

What to Do When the Forecast Diverges From the Narrative

The asymmetry here is what makes this worth writing. If consensus is right and the soft landing holds, the average portfolio is positioned correctly and incremental adjustments are unnecessary. If the Fed’s own SEP is right, the average portfolio is positioned for the wrong regime. Long-duration growth equity that compounded the 2023-2025 rally now has a discount-rate risk it did not have at the beginning of the year. Investment-grade credit spreads at 80 basis points have almost no cushion against a meaningful slowdown. The equity risk premium is at the lowest level since the dot-com peak.

Positioning that respects the SEP rather than the narrative is not exotic. It is the standard 1970s playbook updated for current instruments. Real assets that earn pricing power in nominal terms. Energy producers with disciplined capital allocation. Gold and gold miners, which have already telegraphed the regime. Short-duration Treasuries and TIPS that earn the carry without the duration risk. Modest commodity exposure across the broader complex. The trades that look boring against a backdrop of artificial intelligence and growth euphoria are the trades that survive when the central bank tells you, in its own published forecasts, that the regime has changed.

The Fed has done the work for us. It published the numbers. It moved twelve votes. It pushed the return-to-target out another year. The institution is signaling, in the only language it has available to it without breaking communication discipline, that the soft landing is no longer the central case. Consensus has not updated yet. That is the gap. That is what is left to trade.

Read the projections. They are not opaque. The Fed already told you.

Few understand this.

— — —

Notes

[1] Federal Reserve, Summary of Economic Projections, June 17, 2026 release. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260617.htm. Core PCE 2026 YE: 3.3% (March: 2.7%). Headline PCE 2026 YE: 3.6% (March: 2.7%). Real GDP 2026: 2.2% (March: 2.4%). Unemployment 2026 YE: 4.3%. Fed funds 2026 YE: 3.8% (March: 3.4%). Return-to-target path: 2028 in June projections vs 2027 in March projections.

[2] CF Insights, FOMC June 2026 recap, June 17 2026. https://cf.com/insights/fomc-recap-june-2026. First Warsh-attended meeting; 12-0 unanimous hold; removed easing forward guidance from statement.

[3] Federal Reserve FOMC Projection Materials, March 19 2026 dot plot. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260319.htm. Twelve of eighteen participants expected at least one cut in 2026; zero expected a hike.

[4] Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, April 2026 release. https://www.bea.gov/data/personal-consumption-expenditures-price-index-excluding-food-and-energy. Core PCE YoY: 3.3% in April, up from 2.8% in February.

[5] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation, May 2026 release. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/unemployment-rate-unchanged-at-4-3-percent-in-may-2026.htm. Nonfarm payrolls +172,000; unemployment rate 4.3%; consensus expectation 84,000.

[6] U.S. News / Reuters, ‘Fed to Hold Rates This Year, Cut Calls Fade,’ June 9 2026. https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2026-06-09/fed-to-hold-rates-this-year-cut-calls-fade-as-war-inflation-persists-economists-say-reuters-poll. Survey of 102 economists conducted June 2-6 2026: 71% expect hold through 2026; 33% see possibility of hike; 0.55% see cut.

[7] Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP second estimate for Q1 2026, released May 29 2026. Q1 real GDP revised to 1.6% annualized from 2.0% advance estimate. Coverage: Benzinga, May 30 2026. https://www.benzinga.com/markets/macro-economic-events/26/05/52835775/us-pce-inflation-report-april-2026.

[8] Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, GDPNow, Q2 2026 tracker. https://www.atlantafed.org/research-and-data/data/gdpnow. May 21 reading: 4.3%. June 17 reading: 3.0%.

[9] Fidelity Investments, Quarterly Market Outlook, May 2026. Soft landing assigned 55% probability; mild recession 30%; severe recession 15%.

[10] Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 12-Month-Ahead U.S. Recession Probability, May 2026 update. Reading: 16%, down from 24% in March. Coverage via whatisarecession.com, June 2026. https://whatisarecession.com/current-probability-2026.

[11] Sahm Rule recession indicator, FRED series SAHMREALTIME. May 2026 reading 0.10; trigger threshold 0.50. Three-month moving average of unemployment vs trailing 12-month low remains below the recession signal level.

[12] FRED, series T10Y2Y, Treasury yield curve 10-Year minus 2-Year, daily close. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y. June 2: 44 bps. June 18: 27 bps. Ten-year yield: 4.43% on June 18. Two-year yield: 4.05% on June 18.

[13] FRED, series T5YIE (5-year breakeven inflation rate) and T5YIFR (5-year, 5-year forward inflation expectation rate), June 18 2026 daily close. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE. Five-year breakeven: 2.27%. Five-year, five-year forward: 2.23%.

[14] Trading Economics, gold spot price, June 18 2026 close. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/gold. Settlement: $4,151.74 per ounce. Year-to-date return: approximately +28%.

[15] Trading Economics, lumber futures, June 18 2026 close. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber. Settlement: $633.00 per thousand board feet. Year-on-year change: approximately flat.

[16] University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, June 2026 preliminary release. One-year inflation expectation: 4.6%. Five-to-ten-year inflation expectation: 3.4%, highest since 1993. Coverage: Trading Economics. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/michigan-inflation-expectations/news/558747.

[17] Bureau of Labor Statistics historical CPI data, July 1974 peak: 12.3% YoY. October 1980 peak: 14.8% YoY. Real GDP contracted 3.2% from Q4 1973 to Q1 1975 peak-to-trough. Two-cycle stagflation regime 1973-1982 cumulative real S&P 500 return: approximately -25% despite roughly flat nominal index level.

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.

If you have been enjoying the free Lead-Lag Report, here are three paywalled pieces from the last few weeks that free readers consistently ask me about.

1) A Market Divided (2)Markets are sending a split signal across styles and sectors. Here is what the divergence tends to mean for positioning and risk appetite.Read here (paywalled)

2) When the Yields WonRates led, equities followed. The signal is not the headline move, it is what leadership did when yields took control.Read here (paywalled)

3) Streak Broken: Hot Jobs Print Kills Tech, Iran Strikes Revive Energy, AI Rotation BeginsA regime shift often shows up first in leadership breaks. This one came with a macro catalyst and a sector rotation tell.Read here (paywalled)

CTA: WELCOMEBACK30 ends Sunday. If you want the full Weekly Signals positioning math and full archive access, annual is $96 off here: https://www.leadlagreport.com/WELCOMEBACK30

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

A Conversation on the AI Trade Most Portfolios Are Missing — Monday June 1 @ 2pm ET

The AI conversation has fixated on the same six names for two years.

Matt Tuttle thinks the more interesting layer sits one step beneath the hyperscalers — in the **physical infrastructure** that AI cannot exist without.

On Monday, June 1 at 2:00 PM ET, Matt joins the Lead-Lag team for a 60-minute conversation on the **Heavy Assets, Low Obsolescence (HALO)** lens — a way of thinking about businesses with physical assets (mines, railroads, energy companies, and power utilities, for starters) that are unlikely to be disrupted by the next model release.

We’ll discuss:

- What “heavy asset, low obsolescence” actually filters for as a screen

- Why the AI capex cycle may rotate from compute toward heavy assets, infrastructure and materials over the coming years

- Sector-level implications for advisor portfolios

- Live Q&A with Matt Tuttle, Michael Gayed (Lead-Lag), xx, and zz [two RIA partners; will insert names and firm names]

**1.0 hour of CFP CE credit available** (Investment Planning, Intermediate).

📅 Monday, June 1, 2026

🕑 2:00 PM ET

🎥 Live on Zoom

**Register:** https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_FDWhyy9MTMy_wsGO2Tukyw

Hosted by Tuttle Capital Management and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. This webinar is educational; no specific product is being marketed.

Disclaimer:

This is sponsored advertising content for which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC has been paid a fee. The information provided is solely the creation of Tuttle Capital Management. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC does not guarantee accuracy or completeness. All statements are the sole opinion of Tuttle Capital Management. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investing involves risk including possible loss of principal. Nothing in this webinar should be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or as personalized investment advice.

The Rate Hike Paradox

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

● Fed funds futures are pricing roughly a 70% probability of a rate HIKE by year-end. The S&P 500 has responded by closing at fresh all-time highs for an eighth consecutive week.

● Textbook duration math says higher-for-longer rates compress growth multiples. Yet the Magnificent Seven contributed 85% of the S&P’s May advance — the highest-duration corner of the market grabbing the bid as a HIKE gets priced in.

● April CPI re-accelerated to 3.8% year-over-year — the highest reading since May 2023 — while the 10-year term premium has risen to roughly 0.83%. The bond market is telling a stagflation-adjacent story; the equity tape is celebrating.

● When markets violate their own textbook in real time, the question is no longer where the consensus is wrong. The question is which tail is being mispriced — and whose portfolio is positioned for the wrong one.

● The most dangerous regimes are not the loud ones. They are the regimes where the price action and the macro data point in opposite directions and nobody can explain why.

— — —

EIGHT UP-WEEKS AGAINST A HIKE

The S&P 500 just closed its eighth consecutive up-week. Fresh all-time highs. The Nasdaq right alongside it. Memorial Day weekend came and went with the index melting up through one round number after another — Dow 50,000, Nikkei 65,000, KOSPI 8,000. The mood music is unambiguous.

And yet, sitting underneath that tape, Fed funds futures are pricing roughly a 70% probability of a rate HIKE by year-end. Not a cut. A hike. Kevin Warsh, sworn in as Fed Chair earlier this month, is on record demanding the Fed defend its credibility against a CPI print that just re-accelerated to 3.8% year-over-year — the highest reading since May 2023.

If you went to bed in early 2024 with the consensus playbook in your head — duration math, growth-tech sensitivity to terminal rate, multiple compression on rising real yields — and you woke up to this tape, you would assume something was broken in your model. Because something is.

The textbook says higher-for-longer rates hurt long-duration assets. The Magnificent Seven are the longest-duration assets in the equity universe. And the Magnificent Seven contributed 85% of the S&P’s May advance. The thing that should be most under pressure is the thing that is leading the tape. The rate-hike trade is not killing growth. It is currently *bidding* growth.

THE DURATION PLAYBOOK IS NOT JUST WRONG. IT IS INVERTED.

Let’s be precise about what is happening, because this matters for how portfolios are positioned.

The 10-year Treasury term premium, as estimated by the San Francisco Fed’s Treasury yield premium series, sat at roughly 0.83% on May 22. That is meaningfully positive. Investors are demanding compensation for the uncertainty of holding long-dated paper. That uncertainty is being driven by exactly the variables you would expect — a CPI re-acceleration, an energy index up 17.9% year-over-year, and a new Fed Chair telegraphing a willingness to move in the opposite direction from the cut consensus.

In any normal cycle, a positive and rising term premium plus a hawkish policy reset is the macro setup that crushes high-multiple growth. We have seen this movie. 1994 under Greenspan. 2018 under Powell. 2022 under Powell again. Each time, the long-duration corner of the market took the heaviest losses.

This time, the long-duration corner of the market is what is making the highs.

There is a story Wall Street is telling itself to explain this — that NVIDIA’s $81.6 billion quarter, 85% year-over-year revenue growth, and Jensen Huang’s $50 to $80 trillion total addressable market commentary make the Magnificent Seven a ‘flight to quality’ destination during macro whipsaws. The earnings, the argument goes, are so dominant that duration sensitivity no longer applies. Cash flows have overtaken discount rates as the dominant variable.

Maybe. Or maybe the market is doing what it always does in late-cycle regimes — narrowing into the smallest possible cohort of names that can still tell a clean story while the macro distribution widens around them. That is not a ‘flight to quality.’ That is a flight to narrative.

SMALL CAPS, BREADTH, AND THE THING THAT IS NOT BEING SAID

Here is the part that is being underreported. Small caps are also rallying. The Russell 2000, by every textbook measure, should hate a rate-hike environment more than any other equity cohort. Higher refinancing costs. Floating-rate debt. Thinner balance sheets. And yet small caps have joined the move.

Read more

Two cities, two nights, last seats — Boston tomorrow, NYC ThursdayIf you have been wondering why equities can rally even as rate expectations rise, this frames the positioning setup and the risk signal to watch.https://www.leadlagreport.com/p/two-cities-two-nights-last-seats

Reminder: WELCOMEBACK30 ends Sunday. It takes 30 percent off annual (96 dollars off): https://www.leadlagreport.com/WELCOMEBACK30