Momentum
As I noted last week, our Fear and Greed Momentum Barometer has fallen; and while it is not yet exactly in “extreme fear” territory (below 25 points), it is very close to reaching it following Iran’s retaliation against U.S. bases in the Gulf countries.
As we discussed with Hugo Ferrer on the Esfera Wealth podcast, observing a momentum indicator in isolation—without considering which phase of the economic cycle we are in—is akin to looking solely at a traffic light without checking to see if there is congestion further down the road.
In other words, the very same indicator can be interpreted quite differently depending on the macroeconomic context. If we assume we are in the early or middle stages of a bull market cycle (or an “expansion” phase, as described in my model), an episode of market fear typically presents an opportunity to increase equity exposure; this is because the underlying trend remains positive, and market corrections tend to reverse relatively quickly.
However, if the market is situated in the late stages of a bull market cycle, a more cautious interpretation is warranted. At this point in the cycle, episodes of volatility or panic may simply represent corrections within the ongoing bull market; alternatively, they could signal the onset of a transition toward the next phase of the economic cycle—a phase that, historically, has taken the form of an economic slowdown or recession.
Assuming we are currently at the beginning of the late stage of the bull market cycle, it remains reasonable to anticipate that the market could sustain a positive trend for a few more months. Nevertheless, at this juncture, the margin for error narrows, and investment decisions demand heightened discipline, selectivity, and risk management.
Ultimately, the objective is not to predict the precise end of the cycle—something no model can do with absolute accuracy—but rather to understand the context in which we are operating and to adjust our expectations and market positioning accordingly.
For this reason, I have included our economic cycle “clock” model below. In my view, we are currently situated in the late stage of the bull market cycle. The only indicator that still reflects a clearly expansionary bias is corporate earnings (labeled “EPS” in the clock diagram below), which continue to demonstrate growth. The remaining indicators suggest that the economy is shifting toward the final stage of the cycle.
It is also typical during this phase to observe a downward trend in interest rates, as markets begin to anticipate an economic slowdown and eventual monetary policy rate cuts. This is precisely the type of market behavior we are currently beginning to witness. Historically, during this phase, the leading sectors tend to be Energy, Materials, and Industrials (which is precisely what we are currently observing), while the strategies that tend to perform best are Quality and Momentum. However, in the current environment, the top-performing strategies have been Value and Low Volatility, with Quality ranking third and Momentum last.
No model is perfect, but tools of this kind provide us with an approximate reference point regarding where we might currently stand within the economic cycle. This late-cycle phase typically lasts between 6 months and 2 years. Based on my estimates, we entered the late phase of the cycle in late February. It is also important to note that the model may skip a cycle—or revert to a previous one—depending on the incoming data.
Q&A
Will the stock market crash if oil surpasses $100?
Let’s examine some instances where the price of oil rose above $100 and how the S&P 500 reacted.
2007–2008 – Pre-crisis rally
WTI crude oil surpassed $100 per barrel for the first time amid strong global growth, driven especially by China. During this period, the S&P 500 continued to rise for several months before the global financial meltdown began.
2008 – Financial crisis
Brent crude reached $147 per barrel in July 2008, fueled by strong global demand and a wave of speculation in commodity markets ahead of the financial crisis. Subsequently, the S&P 500 fell by nearly 50% between 2007 and 2009, although the main trigger for the collapse was the financial crisis, not the price of oil.
2011–2013 – Arab Spring
For almost two years, Brent crude remained in the $100–$125 range, driven by conflicts in Libya and Syria and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Despite this, the S&P 500 rose by approximately 40% between 2011 and 2013, demonstrating that high oil prices do not necessarily halt a bull market.
2022 – Russia-Ukraine War
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Brent crude surpassed $120 in March 2022, reflecting the global energy shock and sanctions against Russia. That year, the S&P 500 fell by about 25%, although the main cause was the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest rate hikes to combat inflation.
Conclusion
Historically, oil prices above $100 do not automatically cause stock market declines. The impact depends more on the macroeconomic context:
If oil prices rise due to strong economic demand → the stock market usually holds up.
If they rise due to geopolitical shocks, energy supply disruptions, or inflation → it usually triggers a market correction.
The decisive factor has almost always been monetary policy and the economic cycle, not oil itself.
📊 A key fact: Since 1990, only when oil prices consistently exceed $120-130 has the stock market experienced a decline.ostenida suele afectar seriamente al crecimiento global.
Iran: What Happened This Week, and What Could Come Next?
The past week marked a significant escalation in the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, with potential implications for both regional stability and global energy markets.
The conflict began in late February when the United States and Israel launched coordinated attacks against military and nuclear facilities in Iran. According to U.S. military sources, the operation aimed to weaken Iran’s missile capabilities and slow the advancement of its nuclear program.
Iran responded swiftly, opting—for the time being—to avoid striking U.S. territory and choosing instead to hit U.S. military bases in Gulf nations, including Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
A notable episode occurred when Iran issued messages of apology to some neighboring countries regarding the attacks, asserting that the true targets were the U.S. bases. However, just a few hours later, new attacks were reported in the region—demonstrating just how difficult it is to contain an escalation once a conflict has begun.
Political Repercussions in the U.S.
The conflict is also having an impact on U.S. domestic politics. Various analysts point out that Donald Trump may be losing support among one of his most loyal electoral groups: voters over the age of 60, who do not view this as a war that directly benefits American interests.
Furthermore, unease regarding Israel has emerged within certain segments of the Republican electorate, as some voters believe the United States was dragged into this conflict by the dynamics of the confrontation between Israel and Iran.
Market anxiety also arose on Friday when Trump used the phrase “complete surrender” in reference to Iran—a term rarely used in limited conflicts and one historically associated with total wars, such as World War II, when the Allies demanded the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.
Duration and Potential Cost of the Conflict
On the military front, the U.S. Chief of the Joint Staff indicated that the campaign could last longer than initially anticipated. While initially there was talk of an operation lasting about four weeks, it is now estimated that it could extend to between six and eight weeks.
Nor is the cost insignificant. Some preliminary estimates within the Pentagon suggest that the war could cost around 50 billion dollars, depending on its duration and the level of escalation.
Una señal positiva: la intensidad de los ataques parece disminuir
Un dato interesante es que la intensidad de los ataques iraníes ha ido disminuyendo a lo largo de la semana. El número de misiles balísticos lanzados cayó de aproximadamente 350 el primer día a apenas 15 en el día ocho, mientras que los ataques con drones también descendieron significativamente tras un pico inicial.
This trend suggests that the most intense phase of the Iranian response may have passed, or that both parties are attempting to limit escalation.
What Might Come Next
In the short term, the most likely scenario appears to be a limited but prolonged escalation, involving targeted strikes and military pressure without spiraling into an open regional war.
For the markets, the key variable remains the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes. Any significant disruption to this route could trigger sharp spikes in crude oil prices and heightened volatility in financial markets.
For now, the conflict appears to be operating within a framework of “controlled escalation,” although the situation remains fragile and could shift rapidly depending on upcoming military and diplomatic moves.
If you would like to read a highly interesting recent interview with a renowned German political scientist regarding Iran—and what might be expected in the coming days—click here.
U.S. Employment: A Negative Surprise
The most significant data point of the week came from the U.S. labor market, which delivered a negative surprise and cast doubt on the recent narrative of job market recovery.
The February Non-Farm Payrolls report showed a loss of 92,000 jobs—well below market expectations, which had anticipated the creation of approximately 59,000 positions. Concurrently, the unemployment rate rose to 4.4%, slightly above the expected 4.3%.
These figures stand in contrast to the optimism that had built up in previous weeks, when various indicators suggested that the labor market was stabilizing after months of slowing growth. This week’s reading once again raises doubts regarding the underlying strength of U.S. employment.
That said, a single data point does not necessarily alter the broader trend. The labor market remains relatively tight by historical standards, and other indicators—such as wage growth—continue to demonstrate a degree of resilience. However, if weak job creation figures persist in the coming months, it could reinforce the view that the U.S. economy is entering a more advanced stage of the business cycle—a shift already suggested by several macroeconomic indicators. For the markets, the reaction is ambivalent: on one hand, a weaker labor market could accelerate expectations of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve; on the other, it also reinforces the narrative of a gradual economic slowdown. The stock market corrected on Friday in response to this negative data point.
Private Credit Makes Headlines Again: What’s Going On?
The news that first sounded the alarm in the private credit market was Blue Owl Capital’s decision to restrict withdrawals from one of its funds. Last week, BlackRock took a similar step with its approximately $26 billion private credit fund, limiting redemptions after receiving withdrawal requests that exceeded the allowable limit for that period. Rather than processing all capital outflows, the fund decided to prorate the redemptions, paying out only a portion to investors.
Measures of this kind typically draw attention because they are reminiscent of periods of stress in illiquid markets. However, in this instance, the problem does not appear to be linked to a widespread deterioration in lending quality.
In fact, default rates in the private credit sector remain relatively low, currently hovering around 2–4% depending on the segment—levels that are in line with historical averages and far removed from the levels typically observed during a deep recession.
So, why is this happening now?
Part of the explanation lies in the recent shift in market expectations regarding the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). In recent months, several companies in the software sector have experienced sharp corrections in their stock prices. The case of Adobe was one of the most widely discussed, as the market began to question the extent to which certain traditional software applications might be replaced or transformed by new AI-based solutions.
This adjustment in valuations has significant implications for private credit. Over the past few years, many technology companies—particularly mid-sized software firms—have financed their growth through loans provided by private debt funds. These loans are typically backed by the company’s overall value or by specific corporate assets. When the value of these companies declines, the value of the collateral underpinning those loans also diminishes, thereby heightening the market’s perception of risk. This subsequently triggered a ripple effect: some investors began requesting redemptions from private credit funds, fearing that a deterioration in the valuations of technology companies could adversely affect certain loans.
The problem lies in a structural characteristic inherent to private credit funds: their assets consist of private loans with multi-year maturities. In other words, capital is invested in credits that cannot be quickly sold on the open market. Nevertheless, some of these funds offer periodic liquidity windows—for instance, on a quarterly basis—allowing investors to submit redemption requests.
When the volume of such requests exceeds a certain threshold, fund managers are unable to return all the capital immediately, as they must wait for the underlying loans to be amortized or refinanced. Consequently, funds such as those managed by Blue Owl and BlackRock opted to limit or prorate redemptions, fulfilling only a portion of the requested withdrawals.
In summary, what we are witnessing does not appear to be a credit crisis or a widespread problem of defaults. Rather, it is a liquidity stress test in a market that has grown very rapidly over the last decade and now faces a shift in market expectations—particularly in sectors like technology, which have been heavy users of private financing.
Key Data from Last Week
🟢 ISM Manufacturing PMI (FEB): 52.4 vs. 51.8 expected
🟢 ISM Services PMI (FEB): 56.1 vs. 53.5 expected
🟡 Retail Sales MoM (JAN): -0.2% vs. -0.3% expected
🔴 Non-Farm Payrolls (FEB): -92K vs. +59K expected
🔴 Unemployment Rate (FEB): 4.4% vs. 4.3% expected
Key Data for This Week
Tuesday
Existing Home Sales (FEB): Consensus 3.90M
Wednesday
Core Inflation Rate YoY (FEB): Consensus 2.5%
Inflation Rate YoY (FEB): Consensus 2.5%
Thursday
Building Permits (Prel. JAN): Consensus 1.390M
Housing Starts (JAN): Consensus 1.340M
Friday
GDP Growth Rate QoQ (2nd Est. Q4): Consensus 1.4%
Personal Spending MoM (JAN): Consensus 0.3%
Personal Income MoM (JAN): Consensus 0.4%
Durable Goods Orders MoM (JAN): Consensus 1.2%
Core PCE Price Index MoM (JAN): Consensus 0.4%
JOLTs Job Openings (JAN): Consensus 6.84M
Michigan Consumer Sentiment (Prel. MAR): Consensus 55
Market and Major Asset Momentum
S&P 500 | 6,740 | -1.54% YTD (Momentum: Oversold)
The S&P 500 is trading at 6,740 points—below its 50-day moving average (6,902) but still above its 200-day moving average (6,582)—indicating that the long-term trend remains bullish, even though the market has entered a short-term correction phase. An RSI reading of 38.45 signals that the index has entered oversold territory, reflecting negative momentum and recent selling pressure. In recent weeks, the index has retreated from its recent highs and has begun to consolidate to the downside after breaking below the 50-day moving average, suggesting a technical correction within the broader trend.
Nasdaq100 | 24,643 | -2.40% YTD (Momentum: Neutral)
The Nasdaq-100 is trading at 24,643 points—below its 50-day moving average (25,288) but still above its 200-day moving average (24,194)—indicating a short-term correction within a long-term bullish trend. The RSI, at 43.02, signals neutral momentum. In recent weeks, the index has retreated from its recent highs and is currently moving through a consolidation phase, reflecting profit-taking within the technology sector.
Euro Stoxx 50 | 5,719 | -2.23% YTD (momentum: neutral)
The S&P 500 reached a high near 6,173 points and subsequently broke the uptrend line that had been guiding the movement since mid-2025, signaling a loss of momentum and the start of a corrective phase. The chart shows key support levels at 5,460 and 5,170 points—levels associated with zones of high trading volume. These levels would represent approximate declines of -4.5% and -9.6% from recent highs.
Emerging Markets (EEM) | 62.58 | +14.38% YTD (Momentum: Oversold)
The Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) is trading at 57.32—below its 50-day moving average (58.89) but still above its 200-day moving average (53.12)—indicating a short-term correction within a long-term uptrend. The RSI, currently at 36.82, sits in oversold territory, reflecting recent selling pressure following a pullback from highs near 63. The current price action suggests a phase of technical adjustment following the strong rally observed over the past few months.
China (CSI 300) ASHR | 4,660 | -1.21% YTD (Momentum: Neutral)
The Chinese A-shares ETF (ASHR) is trading at 33.13—slightly below its 50-day moving average (33.64) but above its 200-day moving average (31.31)—indicating a short-term correction within a structural uptrend. The RSI, at 41.03, signals neutral momentum, reflecting a consolidation phase following the rally observed since mid-2025.
Real Estate (VNQ) | 93.55 | +5.68% YTD (momentum: neutral)
The U.S. real estate ETF (VNQ) is trading at 93.55, above both its 50-day moving average (91.74) and its 200-day moving average (90.57), indicating a moderate bullish trend. The RSI, at 49.01, signals neutral momentum, reflecting consolidation following the recent rebound from the lows of late 2025.
Gold | 5,181 | +19.35% YTD (Momentum: Neutral)
The Gold ETF (GLD) is trading at 473.51, clearly above both the 50-day moving average (446.23) and the 200-day moving average (366.65), confirming a strong structural bullish trend. The RSI, at 54.60, indicates positive yet neutral momentum following the recent consolidation that occurred after the strong rally observed since late 2025.
BTC | $67,293 | -23.10% YTD (momentum: neutral)
The Bitcoin ETF (IBIT) is trading at 38.60, below both the 50-day moving average (45.27) and the 200-day moving average (57.30), indicating a bearish trend in both the short and long term. The RSI, at 43.56, signals neutral momentum following the sharp correction observed since late 2025. Recent price action reflects a consolidation phase following a steep decline.
Sectores USA YTD
Top
Energy (XLE): 26.53%
Telecom / Communication (XTL): 19.07%
Consumer Staples (XLP): 10.43%
Flop
Financials (XLF): -7.67%
Consumer Discretionary (XLY): -4.16%
Technology (QQQ): -2.37%
Estilos de inversion
Top
Low Volatility (SPLV): 6.51%
Value (VTV): 4.73%
Flop
Momentum (MTUM): -3.53%
Quality (QUAL): 0.02%
High Yield Spreads
The U.S. High Yield credit spread currently stands at 3.00%, below its recent historical average of 3.60%, indicating relatively relaxed financial conditions and a low perception of credit risk. Following the peak observed in early 2025, spreads have compressed once again, reflecting risk appetite in the credit market—albeit with some volatility in recent months.
Treasury Yield Spread
The spread between the 10-year and 3-month Treasury bonds stands at 0.46%, returning to positive territory following the sharp inversion observed between 2023 and 2024. This normalization of the yield curve typically occurs during the late phase of the economic cycle, when the market begins to anticipate rate cuts. Historically, this process has on several occasions preceded an economic slowdown or recession.
Sector Valuation
Sector Valuation
P/E: 10–20× 🟩 Reasonable | 21–25× 🟨 Demanding | 26–30× 🟧 Expensive | >30× 🟥 Very Expensive
1️⃣ Communication Services: 37.2× 🟥
2️⃣ Technology: 37.0× 🟥
3️⃣ Real Estate: 34.2× 🟥
4️⃣ Consumer Defensive: 30.6× 🟥
5️⃣ Consumer Cyclical: 30.3× 🟥
6️⃣ Healthcare: 29.8× 🟧
7️⃣ Basic Materials: 29.0× 🟧
8️⃣ Utilities: 22.5× 🟨
9️⃣ Energy: 19.1× 🟩
🔟 Financial Services: 18.7× 🟩
1️⃣1️⃣ Industrials: 26.0× 🟧
📌 S&P 500 (SPX): 29× 🟧
Major Market Valuations
1️⃣ Nasdaq-100: 33.0× 🟥 (Very Expensive)
2️⃣ S&P 500 (USA): 29.0× 🟧 (Expensive)
3️⃣ India (Nifty 50): 28.5× 🟧 (Expensive)
4️⃣ Switzerland: 24.0× 🟨 (Demanding)
5️⃣ All World Stocks: 22.8× 🟨 (Demanding)
6️⃣ Vietnam (VN Index): 21.5× 🟨 (Demanding)
7️⃣ Japan: 19.0× 🟩 (Reasonable)
8️⃣ CSI 300 (China): 17.8× 🟩 (Reasonable)
9️⃣ Europe Stocks (Eurozone): 17.5× 🟩 (Reasonable)
🔟 Brazil: 13.5× 🟩 (Reasonable)
Top 15 Global Stock Markets (YTD)
Following the recent correction, the U.S. remains outside the top 15 global stock markets.
1️⃣ KOSPI (South Korea): 32.53%
2️⃣ TA-35 (Israel): 19.97%
3️⃣ Taiwan Weighted (Taiwan): 16.01%
4️⃣ BIST 100 (Turkey): 13.60%
5️⃣ SET (Thailand): 11.96%
6️⃣ Bovespa (Brazil): 11.32%
7️⃣ Nikkei 225 (Japan): 10.49%
8️⃣ Budapest SE (Hungary): 9.78%
9️⃣ PSI (Portugal): 8.26%
🔟 OMXS30 (Sweden): 5.40%
1️⃣1️⃣ Tadawul All Share (Saudi Arabia): 4.92%
1️⃣2️⃣ DJ Shanghai (China): 4.83%
1️⃣3️⃣ SZSE Component (China): 4.79%
1️⃣4️⃣ S&P/BMV IPC (Mexico): 4.67%
1️⃣5️⃣ PSEi Composite (Philippines): 4.42%
Top Acciones S&P 500 (YTD)
1️⃣ Sandisk Corporation (SNDK) – Technology: 122.15%
2️⃣ Texas Pacific Land (TPL) – Energy: 82.80%
3️⃣ Moderna (MRNA) – Healthcare: 78.09%
4️⃣ LyondellBasell (LYB) – Materials: 54.99%
5️⃣ CF Industries (CF) – Materials: 49.70%
6️⃣ Generac (GNRC) – Industrials: 49.61%
7️⃣ Western Digital (WDC) – Technology: 42.36%
8️⃣ Dow Inc. (DOW) – Materials: 42.34%
9️⃣ Teradyne (TER) – Technology: 41.07%
🔟 Corning (GLW) – Technology: 40.81%
1️⃣1️⃣ Lockheed Martin (LMT) – Industrials: 38.89%
1️⃣2️⃣ Valero Energy (VLO) – Energy: 37.99%
1️⃣3️⃣ Comfort Systems USA (FIX) – Industrials: 37.05%
1️⃣4️⃣ Marathon Petroleum (MPC) – Energy: 36.06%
1️⃣5️⃣ Qnity Electronics (Q) – Technology: 34.89%
Flop Acciones S&P 500 (YTD)
1️⃣ FactSet (FDS) – Financials: -22.16%
2️⃣ Fidelity National Information Services (FIS) – Financials: -22.52%
3️⃣ Capital One (COF) – Financials: -22.55%
4️⃣ IQVIA (IQV) – Healthcare: -22.59%
5️⃣ The Trade Desk (TTD) – Communication Services: -22.87%
6️⃣ Salesforce (CRM) – Technology: -23.71%
7️⃣ GoDaddy (GDDY) – Technology: -24.28%
8️⃣ Carvana (CVNA) – Consumer Discretionary: -24.72%
9️⃣ Apollo Global Management (APO) – Financials: -24.91%
🔟 Boston Scientific (BSX) – Healthcare: -25.17%
1️⃣1️⃣ AppLovin (APP) – Technology: -25.48%
1️⃣2️⃣ Intuit (INTU) – Technology: -27.36%
1️⃣3️⃣ First Solar (FSLR) – Technology: -27.57%
1️⃣4️⃣ CoStar Group (CSGP) – Real Estate: -28.05%
1️⃣5️⃣ KKR (KKR) – Financials: -28.36%
Twits destacados
AI Portfolio Update
Prompt: Beat the S&P 500 – Week 11
📊 New Allocation
🔹 GLD (physical gold): 30% → 32% 🏆
🔹 TLT (long-term U.S. Treasuries): 28% → 25%
🔹 XLV (U.S. healthcare): 12% → 14% ⚕️
🔹 VTC (investment-grade corporates): 9% → 8%
🔹 SHV (short-term Treasuries / cash): 6% → 9% 💵
🔹 QQQ (Nasdaq-100): 6% → 4% 🤖
🔹 SMH (semiconductors): 4% → 3% ⚡
🔹 SPY (S&P 500): 3% =
🔹 ACWX (global ex-US equities): 1% =
🔹 IWO (U.S. small-cap growth): 1% =
🎯 Tactical Adjustments
1️⃣ More Gold – GLD +2%
Gold is once again the asset with the most favorable asymmetry in the portfolio. Geopolitical shocks, deteriorating employment conditions, and uncertainty regarding growth all support maintaining it as a core holding. Although yields rebounded on a few days, GLD remains well above its 2025 closing level, confirming that it continues to be our primary alpha generator for 2026.
2️⃣ Reducing Long Duration – TLT -3%
Last week, I increased my TLT position because the macroeconomic slowdown was gaining momentum. While that remains true, a new issue has now emerged: rising crude oil prices complicate the duration trade by introducing inflationary noise and reducing the probability of immediate rate cuts. For this reason, I am not exiting TLT entirely, but I am scaling it back: it remains a valid recession hedge, but it no longer warrants such an aggressive overweighting.
3️⃣ More Quality Defense – XLV +2%
Healthcare now strikes me as a superior method for capital preservation compared to simply taking on additional market beta. It offers better earnings visibility than many cyclical sectors and less sensitivity to energy shocks than technology or consumer discretionary sectors.
4️⃣ Increased Tactical Cash – SHV +3%
I am increasing tactical liquidity because we are entering a phase where optionality holds significant value. If the market corrects further, I want the capacity to redeploy capital. If it rebounds, we still maintain selective exposure. SHV remains virtually flat in price, serving as an efficient reserve while the direction of the Fed and the geopolitical conflict becomes clearer.
5️⃣ Cuts to Growth and Semis – QQQ -2%, SMH -1%
I do not want to exit the technology sector entirely; however, given increased yield volatility, elevated oil prices, and a deteriorating employment picture, the market may once again punish “duration equity” (long-duration growth stocks). QQQ—and especially SMH—remain solid structural positions, but they should now serve as satellite holdings rather than the portfolio’s primary engine.
6️⃣ Slight Cut to IG Credit – VTC -1%
We have not yet seen a disorderly widening of credit spreads, so I see no signs of a credit panic. However, if the scenario drifts toward a “stagflation-lite” environment, IG credit is not the ideal place to take on additional risk either. I am retaining it as a portfolio stabilizer, albeit with a slightly reduced allocation.
🧠 Macro View: Week 11
My reading of the market for this week is clear: economic growth is slowing down faster than previously anticipated, yet the oil shock complicates the bullish outlook for bonds. This compels us to pivot from a “disinflation / falling yields” portfolio strategy toward a more “defensive barbell” approach: increasing allocations to gold, healthcare, and liquidity; maintaining a significant—though less dominant—exposure to duration assets; and reducing exposure to growth stocks, semiconductors, and general market beta.
📈 Performance Update (Approximate)
Based on current ETF prices at the close of March 7, 2026—compared against closing prices on December 31, 2025—the Week 10 portfolio would have generated an approximate return of +6.25%, while the SPY would have posted a return of approximately -1.40% over the same period. This translates to an approximate outperformance of +7.65 percentage points. This estimate is based on ETF price variations, not on total returns including dividends.
My professional conclusion: now is not the time to chase broad rebounds. It is the time to protect the lead against the SPX, let GLD continue to run, and maintain selective exposure to assets capable of weathering both a slowdown and a mini-inflation shock.
