Weekly Market Update: Stocks Set Records as Tensions Ease and Oil Retreats
Markets rebounded this week as geopolitical tensions eased and oil prices declined. The S&P 500 gained nearly 4% and set a new all-time high, with the Dow Jones, S&P 500 Equal Weight, and Russell 2000 also setting records.
Technology, Consumer Discretionary, and Communication Services led all sectors, as the mega cap tech stocks known as the Magnificent 7 gained nearly 6.5%.
Energy was the worst-performing sector as oil prices fell nearly 7%, with defensive sectors also lagging the rally.
Bonds gained as oil and Treasury yields fell. Shorter-maturity bonds outperformed as easing inflation fears trimmed the odds of a rate hike, while high-yield corporates outperformed as credit spreads re-tightened, a sign of risk appetite.
The U.S. dollar strengthened slightly, the VIX declined, and gold rose to its highest level since mid-June.
Key Takeaways
Fed Holds Rates Steady for a Fifth Meeting
The Fed held its benchmark rate at 3.50% to 3.75% for a fifth consecutive meeting, the second under Chair Kevin Warsh. Three officials dissented in favor of a quarter-point increase, the most in that direction since 2016, and Warsh offered little guidance on the path ahead.
Stocks declined and Treasury yields rose to multi-year highs after the decision, with the 30-year yield trading near a 19-year high, on concern the Fed was not moving fast enough on inflation and might have to raise rates more later. Markets place around a 60% probability on a hike at the September meeting.
Why it matters: The Fed is providing less guidance about its intentions, which makes its policy path harder to forecast and, in turn, has made interest rates more volatile.
Oil Whipsaws on Middle East Tensions
Oil spiked more than 30% in July as the U.S.-Iran conflict escalated again, with West Texas Intermediate crude above $90 a barrel. It has since reversed by nearly 20% as a planned U.S. strike was paused and talks turned to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global oil trade.
Crude now trades near $75, roughly where it stood before the latest flare-up in early July. The headlines and move in oil prices are the latest in a pattern that has repeated multiple times this year, with each escalation followed by a round of de-escalation and one set of headlines countered by the next.
Why it matters: The conflict and swings in oil prices have added to interest-rate volatility and uncertainty about Fed policy.
Big Tech Earnings Split on AI Payoff
Several of the Magnificent 7 reported quarterly results this week, and investor reactions diverged sharply. The difference came down to how much growth each could show in return for its AI spending.
Microsoft rose 16% after its Azure cloud business grew 43%, the biggest one-day market-value gain for a stock on record, and Amazon gained 10% after its cloud division drove the first ever $200 billion quarter. In contrast, Meta declined as its heavy AI spending and a profit miss weighed on its ad business.
Why it matters: Investors are differentiating among the big tech companies, rewarding clear returns on AI spending and turning more cautious on the rest.
Q2 Growth Slowed but Core Demand Held Firm
The U.S. economy grew at a 1.5% annualized rate from April through June, down from 2.1% in Q1. The slowdown traced mainly to an increase in imports, which count against GDP, and a decline in government spending.
A measure of private demand that combines consumer spending and business investment rose 3.9%, more than double the 1.7% pace of the first quarter, as consumers continued to spend.
Why it matters: The economy's core held up despite the slowdown, with consumer and business demand still growing even as the headline number cooled.
Manufacturing Hit a Four-Year High in July
A widely followed gauge of factory activity, the ISM's manufacturing index, rose to 55.6 in July from 53.3 in June, its strongest reading since 2022. A level above 50 signals expansion.
The improvement was broad: production led the gain, new orders held firm, factory hiring expanded for the first time in nearly three years, and cost pressures eased.
Why it matters: Manufacturing continues to strengthen after several sluggish years, when elevated interest rates and reduced capital spending weighed on activity.
The Market Does Not Need a Recession to Correct
When markets fall, investors often assume something must be wrong with the economy.
They start looking for evidence of a recession, weakening employment, falling consumer spending, or deteriorating corporate profits.
However, markets don't need an economic contraction to experience a meaningful decline.
Sometimes prices simply get ahead of fundamentals.
Indeed, according to Ned Davis Research, moderate corrections of 10% or more happen, on average, once per year. Market declines greater than 15-20% happen once every 2-3 years according to their research.
That’s because valuations can become stretched, interest-rate expectations can change, or investors can crowd into the same companies or sectors.
Additionally, sentiment can shift after a modest earnings disappointment.
And when markets are priced for an unusually favorable outcome, it doesn't take a crisis to force a reset.
That distinction matters because markets and the economy aren't the same thing.
The economy measures activity across businesses, consumers, employment, and production. Markets, on the other hand, reflect what investors are willing to pay today for the cash flows they expect to receive in the future.
As a result, the economy can remain relatively stable while stock prices decline. Corporate earnings may still be growing. Consumers may still be spending. Businesses may still be investing. Yet markets can fall if those outcomes are weaker than investors expected or if the price attached to those outcomes becomes harder to justify.
To be sure, we're seeing some of the forces that can create that vulnerability today.
For example, investors have become more selective about whether artificial-intelligence spending will translate into revenue, cash flow, and profits.
At the same time, higher oil prices and Treasury yields have brought inflation and interest-rate risk back into focus. None of this means a broad correction is underway.
However, it does illustrate how expectations can become more fragile even when the economy isn't falling apart.
In other words, a correction doesn't require a recession. It only requires the market's expectations to change.
Markets Trade on Expectations, Not Just Economic Conditions
One of the most important distinctions we make when evaluating markets is the difference between what's happening in the economy and what investors had already assumed would happen.
The economy tells us what's happening today. Markets are forward-looking, meaning they attempt to price what may happen next.
That means a company can continue growing revenue and profits while its stock declines. If investors expected faster growth, stronger margins, or a clearer return on investment, otherwise respectable results may still disappoint.
Suppose a company reports that earnings increased 10 percent from the prior year. On its own, that sounds like a good result, right?
Well, if the market had expected earnings to grow 15 percent, the stock may still decline. The company hasn't stopped growing, and the business may not be fundamentally impaired. Its results simply weren't strong enough to support the assumptions already reflected in its share price.
The same principle applies to the broader market.
Prices don't fall only when economic conditions become bad. They can also fall when conditions remain good but no longer appear good enough to support current valuations.
That's why a correction can occur before a recession becomes visible in the economic data. It's also why a correction can happen without a recession ever arriving.
Valuation Determines the Margin for Error
Now, a key factor we look at when it comes to market corrections valuations.
That’s because valuation affects how forgiving the market will be when expectations aren't met.
When investors are paying relatively modest prices for future earnings, some uncertainty may already be reflected in stock prices. A company may be able to report a mixed quarter or lower its outlook without producing an extreme reaction.
However, that dynamic changes when valuations become elevated.
A higher valuation often reflects confidence that revenue will keep growing, profit margins will remain strong, interest rates will cooperate, and management will execute with few setbacks. The more favorable assumptions already included in the price, the less room there is for disappointment.
The Federal Reserve describes elevated valuation pressure as a condition in which asset prices are high relative to economic fundamentals or historical norms, often alongside a greater willingness by investors to accept risk.
To be sure, elevated valuations don't tell us exactly when prices will decline, but they can increase the potential for larger losses when expectations change.
That's why a market priced for perfection doesn't need a recession to decline. It may only require the future to look slightly less perfect.
A company might still report higher revenue, but investors may become concerned that expenses are rising faster. A new product may continue attracting customers, but the path to profitability may take longer than anticipated.
An industry may still have a compelling long-term future, but investors may decide they've already paid too much for that potential.
None of those developments requires an economic collapse. They simply require investors to reconsider what they're willing to pay.
Interest Rates Can Reset Prices Without Breaking the Economy
Interest rates can create another source of market pressure.
The value of an investment partly depends on the cash flows investors expect to receive in the future. When the return available elsewhere in the market rises, investors may apply a higher required return to those future cash flows. That can reduce what they're willing to pay today.
At the same time, higher bond yields give investors a more competitive alternative to stocks. Investors may become less willing to accept equity risk when high-quality fixed-income investments offer more attractive yields.
Consequently, the market may demand a lower stock price, a higher expected return, or both.
This effect can be particularly significant for growth companies whose valuations depend heavily on profits expected many years from now. Even when the underlying business outlook remains positive, a change in rates can reduce what investors are willing to pay for those distant earnings.
Bonds can also decline as interest rates rise. Therefore, a period of higher yields can place pressure on both stocks and fixed income without signaling that a recession has begun.
The market may simply be adapting to a different cost of capital.
That's also why inflation matters to investors even when economic growth remains intact. If inflation causes interest rates to stay higher than investors expected, asset prices may need to adjust around that new reality.
Again, the economy doesn't have to contract for that adjustment to take place.
Positioning Can Magnify an Otherwise Ordinary Disappointment
Market corrections aren't driven by fundamentals alone. They're also influenced by how investors are positioned.
When enthusiasm builds around a company, sector, or investment theme, more investors begin owning the same assets for many of the same reasons. Rising prices attract additional capital, recent performance reinforces confidence, and the trade can become increasingly crowded. That process can continue longer than many investors expect.
However, crowded positioning can work in reverse.
A modest disappointment may lead some investors to reduce exposure. Those initial sales push prices lower, which can encourage additional selling from investors who were comfortable with the risk only while prices were rising. Before long, the decline can appear disproportionate to the news that caused it.
The headline may be the catalyst, but valuation, positioning, and sentiment often determine the size of the reaction.
That's another reason markets don't need a recession to correct. A crowded trade can unwind because the expectations supporting it have changed, even when the broader economy remains relatively stable.
Today's Environment Shows the Ingredients, Not the Outcome
The current market environment helps illustrate these forces, but it's important not to overstate what the recent data tells us.
The market hasn't experienced a broad correction simply because some growth and technology investments have come under pressure. Instead, investors have started applying greater scrutiny to companies making large artificial-intelligence investments. The question is shifting from how much those companies can spend to whether that spending can generate sufficient growth, cash flow, and profitability.
Meanwhile, renewed inflation concerns and higher interest rates have complicated the valuation backdrop. These developments don't prove that a correction is coming, and they certainly don't tell us when one might occur. They do, however, show how the assumptions supporting market prices can change.
A company can remain profitable while investors become less willing to pay a premium for its future growth. The economy can remain intact while interest rates force investors to reconsider valuations. A popular investment theme can continue having long-term potential while the stocks associated with it experience a short-term reset.
The current environment makes the subject timely. It doesn't serve as evidence that a broad correction has already occurred.
For evidence of the thesis itself, history provides a cleaner example.
The Fourth Quarter of 2018 Offers a Useful Example
During much of 2018, the Federal Reserve described asset valuations and investor appetite for risk as elevated. The economy, meanwhile, remained in an expansion.
Then, during the fourth quarter, market volatility rose sharply and equity prices declined. That drop reduced valuation pressure in stocks and corporate bonds, even though the underlying economic expansion continued.
The Federal Reserve later reported that economic growth remained solid during the second half of the year, with real gross domestic product growing a little less than 3 percent for 2018 as a whole.
The economy didn't enter a recession in 2018. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the expansion that began in June 2009 continued until economic activity peaked in February 2020.
That doesn't mean the 2018 decline was unimportant or that investors knew the economy would continue expanding. It means a meaningful market reset occurred without a concurrent recession.
Investors reassessed valuations, interest rates, global growth expectations, and their appetite for risk. Stock prices adjusted even though the economic expansion still had more than a year to run.
That's the distinction investors often miss.
A market decline may reflect concern about what could happen next. It may reflect a lower price investors are willing to pay for the same earnings. Or it may simply reverse some of the optimism that had already been built into prices. It doesn't automatically mean the economy has entered a recession.
How We Read a Market Decline
In our investment process, we don't treat every pullback as evidence that the long-term plan is broken. Over the years, we've learned to ask the same question first, before anything else. Is the market repricing expectations, or is the economy actually deteriorating?
That single question does most of the work. The market can reprice for all the reasons we've described, stretched valuations, higher rates, crowded positioning, a modest earnings disappointment, without the economy changing at all. So the first thing we look for isn't a headline. It's evidence of genuine financial stress.
Credit conditions tend to tell us the most. When investors grow truly concerned about borrowers' ability to repay, that worry shows up in credit markets before it appears almost anywhere else. When credit spreads stay calm while stocks fall, the decline usually looks more like repositioning than a fundamental break.
When spreads widen meaningfully, we pay closer attention. That's the same signal we've relied on through past pullbacks, and it rarely misleads us.
From there, the rest of the read fills in around that question. We look at whether weakness is broad or concentrated, because a decline led by a handful of highly valued companies tells us something different from weakness spreading across most sectors and company sizes.
We look at whether corporate fundamentals are deteriorating across the market or whether a smaller group of companies is simply failing to meet elevated expectations, because there's a real difference between profits falling throughout the economy and a profitable company disappointing investors who wanted more.
And we consider whether interest rates are changing the return investors demand, because a higher discount rate can lower prices even when the expected cash flows haven't weakened at all.
None of those readings, though, answers the only question that ultimately matters to you. Does this decline change your plan?
That's where we finish, every time. We return to the purpose of the money.
Has your time horizon changed?
Have your near-term spending needs increased?
Is there enough liquidity in place?
Has your willingness or ability to accept risk changed?
We also look at whether prior performance has quietly left the portfolio more concentrated than intended, because an investment that did well can grow into a larger position and leave you more dependent on one company, one sector, or one outcome than you meant to be.
A correction that doesn't change your goals, time horizon, or cash-flow needs may not require any change to the long-term strategy.
However, a portfolio that was too concentrated, too aggressive, or too dependent on near-term withdrawals may reveal a weakness that deserves attention.
This approach doesn't let us predict the market's exact bottom.
Nothing does.
But it does help us tell the difference between normal repricing, broader financial stress, and a portfolio problem that actually requires action. That distinction is the one that protects the plan.
Diversification Matters When Leadership Changes
The purpose of portfolio construction isn't to eliminate every decline. That isn't realistic.
Instead, the goal is to build a portfolio that doesn't require every part of the market to perform well at the same time.
Market leadership changes. Growth can outperform value for an extended period before the relationship reverses. Domestic stocks can lead international markets until valuation differences begin to matter. Longer-term bonds can provide diversification in one environment and struggle when inflation and interest rates rise. No allocation works best under every condition.
That's why diversification isn't simply about owning more investments. It's about reducing the portfolio's dependence on one company, one investment style, or one economic outcome.
The SEC describes asset allocation as dividing investments among categories such as stocks, bonds, and cash. It also emphasizes that investors should look beneath fund labels and examine underlying holdings, because owning several funds doesn't necessarily create meaningful diversification.
Diversification can't prevent losses or guarantee better returns. However, it can reduce the risk that weakness in one narrow part of the market disrupts the entire plan.
Rebalancing provides another layer of discipline. When one area has risen far beyond its intended allocation, rebalancing can reduce unintended concentration.
When another area has fallen below its target, the process can create a systematic way to restore exposure without relying entirely on emotion or short-term predictions.
The SEC identifies asset allocation, diversification, and rebalancing as related tools for managing portfolio risk over time.
Adequate liquidity matters as well. Investors who have their near-term spending needs covered are generally in a better position to tolerate volatility. They're less likely to become forced sellers during a decline and less dependent on correctly predicting when the correction will end.
In our experience, these decisions are best made before markets become unsettled. It's far easier to build discipline into a portfolio when nothing is going wrong than to manufacture it in the middle of a selloff.
Build for the Reset Before It Arrives
Corrections are uncomfortable because they create uncertainty without providing a clear endpoint.
Nevertheless, they're a normal part of investing.
A durable investment plan shouldn't depend on the economy avoiding every slowdown, interest rates moving exactly as expected, or investors remaining permanently enthusiastic about the same companies.
It should assume that valuations will occasionally reset, market leadership will change, and prices will sometimes decline even when the economic backdrop remains relatively stable.
Therefore, the important question isn't whether the market will experience another correction. It will.
The more important question is whether your portfolio was built to withstand one.
A pullback isn't automatically evidence that the plan has failed. Sometimes it's simply the market adjusting expectations, demanding greater discipline, and returning prices to a level that better reflects the risks ahead.
The market doesn't need a recession to correct. Likewise, a disciplined investor doesn't need to predict every correction to be prepared for one.
So the real question isn't whether you can see the next correction coming. It's whether your plan is ready when it does.
Sources
Federal Reserve Board, Financial Stability Report: Asset Valuation Pressures, November 2018; https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2018-november-financial-stability-report-asset-valuation-pressures.htm
Federal Reserve Board, 2018 Annual Report: Monetary Policy and Economic Developments; https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2018-ar-monetary-policy.htm
National Bureau of Economic Research, Determination of the February 2020 Peak in US Economic Activity, June 8, 2020; https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-june-8-2020
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investor.gov, Asset Allocation and Diversification; https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/getting-started/asset-allocation
Stock Market Corrections Are Normal — Ned Davis Research (PDF); https://www.ndr.com/hubfs/NDR/Business%20Developer/pdfs/EDU_8_WM_public.pdf?hsLang=en
July Market Update: A Loud Month, a Quiet Market
July gave investors plenty to think about.
Geopolitical tensions flared again in the Middle East. AI stocks pulled back after a strong start to the year. And the Federal Reserve had another rate decision to make.
Yet when the month was over, the market had barely moved.
The S&P 500 returned -0.1%.
Beneath that flat headline, though, there was quite a bit going on. Energy led every sector with a +12.6% return as geopolitical tensions pushed oil prices higher. Financials followed at +6.2%. The more defensive corners of the market held up well too, with Real Estate (+2.5%), Health Care (+2.4%), and Consumer Staples (+2.1%) all gaining ground.
Technology was the outlier. The sector fell -3.4% as AI stocks gave back some of the gains they'd built up earlier in the year.
Bonds had a tougher month.
The U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned -1.3% as Treasury yields moved higher. The culprit was familiar: rising oil prices, tied to the renewed U.S.-Iran conflict, brought inflation concerns back to the surface. Investment-grade corporate bonds lagged with a -1.5% return, while high-yield corporates held up a bit better at -0.3%.
Overseas, the picture was mixed. Developed international markets gained +2.0% and outperformed the S&P 500. Emerging markets went the other way, returning -3.0%, as the same U.S. tech selloff weighed on South Korean stocks.
Markets Turn Back to the Middle East as Tensions Resurface
The ceasefire from earlier this spring didn't hold.
Renewed conflict between the U.S. and Iran brought back the same headlines and the same concerns we saw earlier in the year. Once again, uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz raised the risk of reduced oil supply. Late in the month, there were signs of another round of de-escalation, but the situation remains fluid.
This matters for the same reason it did the first time around.
After all, energy prices feed directly into inflation. And inflation, in turn, shapes what the Federal Reserve decides to do next.
In July, the Fed held interest rates steady for the fifth consecutive meeting. But it wasn't a unanimous call. A handful of officials pushed for a +0.25% rate hike, pointing to the renewed inflation risk.
If this feels familiar, that's because it is.
We've now moved through this same cycle several times this year. Conflict escalates. Oil prices rise. Tensions ease. And then the pattern repeats. The specific headlines shift from week to week, but the market has absorbed this same shock more than once.
The Fed's split decision reflects that uncertainty. Officials are debating their next move, but for now they're choosing to gather more information rather than react to the latest headline.
And here's the part worth remembering: despite all the noise, the net impact on markets has been limited. Stocks rebounded from the March selloff, and the S&P 500 has returned nearly +10% this year.
AI Stocks Trade Lower as Investors Shift Focus from Growth to Discipline
Second-quarter earnings season kicked off in July, and the biggest names in AI all reported: Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Amazon.
These are the companies pouring money into data centers and the other infrastructure needed to power artificial intelligence. This quarter, they laid out their forecasts and their spending plans.
Something had changed in how investors received them.
For the past two years, the AI conversation was all about scale. How much are these companies spending? How fast are they building? How big could the opportunity get? This quarter, the focus shifted to a different question: profitability and return on investment.
In plain English, investors started pushing back on the spending.
Companies whose investments are clearly translating into growth, like Microsoft's cloud business, were rewarded. Companies whose spending has outpaced their cash flow, or started to weigh on profit margins, saw their stocks move lower.
The market is no longer content to reward growth and big spending numbers on their own. It's asking a harder question: is the spending actually profitable, or are expenses climbing faster than revenue?
This is a healthy development.
Every major technological buildout eventually reaches a point where investors stop rewarding growth for its own sake and start looking for results to match. July was the month that question arrived for AI.
As that scrutiny set in, semiconductor stocks and other parts of the AI trade gave back some of their earlier gains, with investors questioning whether the current pace of spending could last.
But it's worth keeping the pullback in perspective.
The volatility stayed relatively contained. For instance, the equal-weight S&P 500, a proxy for the average S&P 500 stock, set a new all-time high late in the month, and seven of the eleven sectors finished higher. Credit spreads, which measure how worried the market is about credit risk, widened only modestly and remain very tight by historical standards. And even after the pullback, semiconductor stocks are still up nearly +60% for the year.
As for the companies doing the spending? They're forecasting even higher spending levels in the quarters ahead.
What This Means for Investors
July was a busy month that, on the surface, went almost nowhere.
Geopolitical tension returned. AI leadership wobbled. The Fed stood pat, but not without disagreement. And through all of it, the S&P 500 finished essentially flat.
That's a useful reminder.
A lot can happen in a month without much of it showing up in your account balance. The headlines were loud, but the market's response was measured, and in some ways more disciplined than it's been in a while.
That discipline is the theme worth holding onto. Whether it's a geopolitical shock the market has already learned to absorb, or a shift toward asking harder questions about AI spending, the through-line is the same. Markets are starting to separate noise from results.
For long-term investors, that's not something to fear. It's something to build around.
Weekly Market Update: Oil Shock Pushes Yields to Fresh Highs
Markets traded lower this week as the conflict in the Middle East intensified and oil prices surged 17%.
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq each declined roughly 2%, while the Russell 2000 finished the week down about 1.5%. Most equity factors also moved lower, including Growth, Value, and Equal Weight, as market participation weakened.
Momentum and High Beta were the two exceptions. Both outperformed after lagging in recent weeks, helped in part by continued weakness across semiconductor stocks.
At the sector level, Energy and Utilities led the market higher. Meanwhile, Consumer Discretionary declined nearly 7% as investors considered how higher fuel and transportation costs could affect household spending and corporate profit margins.
Bonds also traded lower as interest rates rose across the yield curve. Longer-maturity bonds underperformed, which is typically what we’d expect when investors become more concerned about inflation. The VIX climbed back toward 20 late in the week, while the U.S. dollar strengthened as interest rates rose and market volatility increased.
Key Takeaways
Oil Prices Rise as the U.S.-Iran Conflict Escalates
The United States carried out a twelfth consecutive night of strikes this week, while Iran continued targeting tankers traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. The strait is one of the world’s most important energy corridors and carries a significant share of the global oil trade.
Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthi rebels added another layer of uncertainty by threatening a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia. That threat raises the possibility of disruption not only in the Strait of Hormuz, but also across shipping routes in the Red Sea.
Oil prices responded quickly. West Texas Intermediate crude climbed above $90 per barrel, while Brent crude, the international benchmark, briefly touched $100. Both reached their highest levels in roughly six weeks.
At the same time, there’s been little visible diplomatic progress. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran was “not serious about talks,” reducing near-term expectations for a negotiated resolution.
Why It Matters: The conflict had shown signs of stabilizing, but each additional strike, tanker attack, or threat to shipping routes introduces a new risk premium into oil prices.
The issue isn’t simply whether oil reaches a particular price. What matters is how long prices remain elevated and whether those higher costs begin working their way through transportation, manufacturing, utilities, and consumer spending.
In other words, the longer the conflict continues, the greater the chance that an overseas geopolitical event turns into a broader inflation and economic-growth concern for the United States.
Rising Oil Prices Push Treasury Yields to Fresh 52-Week Highs and Revive Expectations for a Fed Rate Hike
This week’s move in Treasury yields was a direct extension of the Middle East story.
The 10-year Treasury yield rose above 4.70%, reaching a new 52-week high, as investors began pricing a greater risk that higher energy costs could keep inflation elevated.
Expectations for Federal Reserve policy also shifted. Fed funds futures now assign a greater than 80% probability to an interest-rate increase at the Fed’s September meeting, up from approximately 50% one week ago.
That’s a meaningful change in a short period of time. It suggests that investors are no longer viewing the rise in oil prices as an isolated market event. Instead, they’re considering whether higher energy costs could affect the Fed’s broader inflation outlook.
Why It Matters: Treasury yields are now closely tracking developments in the Middle East, which highlights how interconnected energy markets, inflation expectations, and interest rates have become.
Higher yields can create pressure across several parts of the economy. They can raise borrowing costs for households and businesses, weigh on bond prices, and make it more difficult for highly valued stocks to justify their current prices.
However, the key question for the Fed is whether the rise in energy prices is temporary or whether it begins affecting wages, consumer expectations, and the prices of other goods and services.
A short-lived oil shock may not change the Fed’s plans. A prolonged inflationary shock could.
Alphabet’s Strong Quarter Was Overshadowed by a Growing AI Capital-Spending Commitment
Alphabet reported second-quarter results Wednesday that exceeded expectations across several major areas.
Revenue increased 24% to $120 billion, Google Cloud revenue jumped 82%, and operating margins expanded. By most traditional measures, it was a strong quarter.
However, Alphabet shares still declined approximately 5% in after-hours trading as investors focused on the amount of spending required to produce that growth.
The company increased its 2026 capital-expenditure guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, up from its previous range of $180 billion to $190 billion. Management also indicated that spending would increase again in 2027.
Meanwhile, quarterly free cash flow turned negative for the first time in the company’s history as capital spending exceeded the cash generated by its operating businesses.
Why It Matters: The market doesn’t appear to be questioning whether artificial intelligence is contributing to growth. Alphabet’s results provide strong evidence that it is.
Instead, investors are asking a more difficult question: How much will companies have to spend to generate that growth, and when will those investments begin producing an attractive return?
That distinction matters because revenue growth alone doesn’t necessarily create shareholder value. Companies also need to demonstrate that the cash invested in data centers, chips, energy, and other AI infrastructure can eventually produce sustainable profits and free cash flow.
For now, the market appears willing to support substantial AI investment. However, investors are becoming less willing to accept an unlimited spending commitment without clearer evidence of the eventual payoff.
Next Week’s Calendar Could Answer Many of These Questions
Several of the market’s biggest current debates will be tested within a two-day period next week.
The Federal Reserve’s two-day meeting concludes Wednesday, July 29, with an interest-rate decision and press conference. Investors will be listening closely for signs that officials view higher energy prices as a temporary disruption or as a reason to reconsider the path of monetary policy.
Microsoft and Meta will report earnings after the market closes that same day. Their results will provide two more important data points in the debate over AI-related spending, revenue growth, and investment returns.
Then, on Thursday, investors will receive the advance estimate of second-quarter gross domestic product and the June Personal Consumption Expenditures Index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge.
Apple and Amazon will report earnings after Thursday’s closing bell, adding additional information about consumer demand, cloud computing, and corporate technology spending.
Why It Matters: Nearly every major question discussed this week will face a real-world test next week.
The inflation data may show whether price pressures were already building before the latest rise in oil. The Fed’s comments may clarify whether officials are prepared to respond to energy-driven inflation. Meanwhile, the technology earnings reports may reveal whether AI spending is continuing to generate enough growth to justify its rapidly rising cost.
Any one of these events could move markets. Taken together, they could determine whether this week’s volatility was a temporary response to geopolitical uncertainty or the beginning of a more meaningful shift in the market’s outlook for inflation, interest rates, and corporate profits.
Why Diversification Feels Broken Right Before It Works
Diversification can feel like a mistake when one part of the market is doing all the work.
That's the part investors don’t always appreciate.
Diversification is easy to believe in when everything's working. It's much harder to believe in when a narrow group of stocks is carrying the market higher and the rest of your portfolio feels like dead weight.
That's when the questions start.
Why own bonds?
Why own value stocks?
Why own international stocks?
Why own anything other than the part of the market that's clearly winning?
Those are fair questions. They're also the exact questions that tend to show up right before diversification matters most.
In our portfolio work, we don’t treat diversification as a prediction tool. It's a risk-management discipline. It's not there because we know exactly which part of the market will lead next. It's there because we don’t.
Diversification Isn’t Supposed to Feel Good All the Time
The purpose of diversification isn’t to beat the hottest asset class every year.
It's not designed to make every part of your portfolio look smart at the same time. It's not designed to keep up perfectly with whatever corner of the market is leading today. And it's not designed to eliminate frustration.
In fact, a diversified portfolio almost always owns something that feels disappointing.
That's not a flaw. That's the tradeoff.
If every part of your portfolio is working at the same time, there's a good chance your portfolio isn’t as diversified as you think. You may simply own different versions of the same risk.
True diversification means owning investments that behave differently under different conditions.
Some may lead when growth stocks are in favor.
Some may help when interest rates fall.
Some may provide stability when stocks are under pressure.
Some may become useful when market leadership broadens beyond the same small group of winners.
But because those investments behave differently, they won’t all work at once.
That's what makes diversification frustrating.
It's also what makes it valuable.
Diversification doesn’t guarantee a profit or protect against loss. No portfolio strategy can do that. But it can reduce the risk that one market segment, one economic outcome, or one investment theme determines the entire result of your plan.
That distinction matters.
The Problem Starts With Comparison
The hardest part of diversification isn’t the math.
It's the comparison.
When large-cap growth stocks lead for a long stretch of time, a balanced portfolio can feel too cautious. When a handful of companies are responsible for most of the market’s gains, anything outside of those companies can feel unnecessary. When the index keeps moving higher and your portfolio is moving more slowly, discipline starts to feel like a drag.
That's usually when investors begin to second-guess the plan.
At first, it's just an observation.
Then it becomes a question.
Then it becomes frustration.
And eventually, it can become action.
That's where investors get into trouble.
Because the decision to abandon diversification rarely feels reckless in the moment. It often feels rational. It feels like responding to the evidence. It feels like finally admitting what's been obvious for a while.
Why own the laggards when the winners are right there?
But that line of thinking can quietly turn a long-term investment plan into a performance chase.
And performance chasing has a way of showing up late.
Market Leadership Doesn’t Last Forever
The problem with chasing what's working now is that market leadership changes.
It doesn’t always change quickly. It doesn’t always change when valuations suggest it should. And it doesn’t always change in a way that feels obvious ahead of time.
But it changes.
That's why diversification exists in the first place.
It's not an admission that returns don’t matter. It's an acknowledgment that the future is uncertain.
Think about a period when large-cap growth stocks have led the market for several years. In that environment, a portfolio that also owns value stocks, small caps, international equities, or high-quality bonds may lag the most visible market benchmark.
The investor may look at the portfolio and feel like too many pieces aren’t pulling their weight.
Then conditions shift.
Interest rates move.
Earnings leadership broadens.
Valuations begin to matter again.
The economy slows, reaccelerates, or changes in a way investors didn’t expect.
Suddenly, the parts of the portfolio that looked unnecessary may become the source of stability, income, or return.
That doesn’t mean every diversifying asset will work perfectly. It doesn’t mean a diversified portfolio will avoid losses. And it doesn’t mean diversification will protect against every bad outcome.
But it does mean the portfolio isn’t dependent on one narrow market outcome continuing forever.
That's the point.
A concentrated portfolio feels best when the concentrated bet is working.
A diversified portfolio can feel less exciting during narrow leadership.
But when leadership changes, the difference matters.
Concentration Risk Often Feels Best Right Before It Matters
One of the reasons diversification is so difficult is that concentration risk can feel rewarding for a long time.
That's what makes it dangerous.
When one asset class, sector, or stock keeps leading, concentration doesn’t feel like risk. It feels like confirmation. The investor feels rewarded for having more exposure to the winners and less exposure to everything else.
This can be especially challenging for investors with concentrated company stock, equity compensation, or large positions that have appreciated over many years. The position may have created meaningful wealth. It may still be a high-quality company. It may still have a strong long-term story.
I worked with a client recently who was heading into retirement with a large share of their net worth sitting in company stock. They'd watched that stock grow across their entire career. Selling any of it felt like betting against their own success story.
I told them about a group of people I met years ago when I worked in Saint Louis. Most were former employees of Wachovia, and many were approaching retirement in 2008. Like my client, a large portion of their retirement savings sat in company stock. When the financial crisis hit and Wachovia collapsed, their savings went with it. Years of disciplined saving disappeared in a matter of months, not because they'd done anything wrong, but because their financial future depended entirely on one company continuing to succeed.
That story isn’t meant to scare anyone away from company stock. It's meant to separate two different questions. The first is, “Has this position performed well?” The second is, “What happens to my retirement plan if it stops?” My client’s stock may still have a bright future. But their retirement plan shouldn’t require it to.
For a deeper look at how to evaluate whether you’re sitting on a concentrated position and what to do about it, see Don’t Keep All Your Eggs in One Basket.
But none of that eliminates concentration risk.
A great company can still become an oversized position.
A strong sector can still become overowned.
A successful investment can still become too important to the family’s financial future.
That's why diversification isn’t just an investment concept. It's a planning concept.
The question isn’t simply, “What has performed best?”
The better question is, “How much of my financial life depends on this one thing continuing to work?”
That's a different question.
And for high-net-worth families, retirees, and investors with concentrated wealth, it's often the more important one.
The Risk Isn’t Just Losing Money
The risk isn’t simply that the market pulls back.
The bigger risk is that investors make a permanent decision based on a temporary environment.
That matters because most families aren’t investing for entertainment, ego, or quarterly bragging rights.
They're investing to support a retirement income plan.
To fund education.
To manage concentrated stock exposure.
To preserve liquidity.
To reduce the risk of being forced to sell at the wrong time.
To keep their broader financial life moving in the right direction.
For those investors, the portfolio has a job.
Its job isn’t to win every short-term comparison.
Its job is to support the plan.
That means some parts of the portfolio may look unnecessary for a while. Some may lag. Some may feel boring. Some may be hard to appreciate when the market’s favorite trade is working.
But every allocation should have a purpose.
Growth assets are there for long-term appreciation.
Defensive assets are there for stability and liquidity.
Income-producing assets are there to support cash flow.
Diversifying assets are there because the future doesn’t always look like the recent past.
The question isn’t whether every piece is outperforming today.
The question is whether the total portfolio is built to survive different market environments.
Diversification Has to Be Judged Against the Plan
A diversified portfolio shouldn’t be judged only against the market’s current favorite.
It should be judged against the plan it was built to support.
That includes the investor’s time horizon, spending needs, withdrawal strategy, tax situation, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and ability to stay invested when markets become uncomfortable.
For an accumulator, diversification may be about avoiding overdependence on one source of return.
For a retiree, it may be about managing sequence-of-return risk and maintaining enough stability to support withdrawals during difficult markets.
For an executive with equity compensation, it may be about reducing the risk that career income, company stock, and long-term wealth are all tied to the same business outcome.
For a family stewarding generational wealth, it may be about preserving flexibility across market cycles rather than maximizing exposure to the latest winner.
The right portfolio isn’t the one that looks best in hindsight.
It's the one the investor can actually live with, fund goals from, and stick with when the environment changes.
That's where diversification earns its place.
Not because it always feels good.
Because it helps keep the plan from depending on one version of the future.
Don’t Confuse Frustration With Failure
There will always be moments when diversification feels broken.
There will always be a stock, sector, asset class, or theme that makes the disciplined portfolio look dull by comparison.
And there will always be investors who are tempted to simplify the portfolio around whatever's worked best recently.
But temporary frustration isn’t the same thing as strategic failure.
Sometimes diversification feels broken because one part of the market has dominated for a long period of time.
Sometimes it feels broken because the benefit hasn’t been needed yet.
Sometimes it feels broken because the thing it's designed to protect against hasn’t happened.
That doesn’t make it useless.
It makes it easy to underappreciate.
The real test of diversification doesn’t come when the market’s current favorite is still leading. It comes when leadership changes, when expectations shift, when volatility returns, or when investors are reminded that no single trade works forever.
By then, it may be too late to rebuild the portfolio without paying a price.
So don’t judge diversification by whether it keeps up with the market’s current favorite.
Judge it by whether your portfolio can survive a change in leadership.
Because by the time diversification feels obvious again, the opportunity to stay disciplined may have already passed.
Asset Location: The Retirement Tax Mistake Hiding in Plain Sight
Most investors spend a lot of time thinking about what they own.
Stocks. Bonds. Mutual funds. ETFs. Cash. Real estate. Alternative investments.
That matters.
But for retirees and near-retirees, there is another question that can be just as important:
Where should each investment live?
Because the same investment can produce very different outcomes depending on whether it is held in a taxable account, a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, or a trust.
That is the basic idea behind asset location.
It is not about chasing higher returns. It is about coordinating your investments with your tax situation, your retirement income needs, your estate plan, and your long-term wealth strategy.
In other words, your portfolio may be diversified. But if the right assets are sitting in the wrong accounts, your plan may not be as efficient as it could be.
What You Own vs. Where You Own It
Asset allocation answers the question, "What should I own?"
Asset location answers the question, "Where should I own it?"
That distinction matters because different account types are taxed differently.
A taxable brokerage account gives you flexibility, favorable long-term capital gains treatment, and potentially a step-up in basis at death. But it can also create annual tax drag from interest, dividends, and realized gains.
A traditional IRA or 401(k) offers tax deferral, but withdrawals are generally taxed as ordinary income. That means the account can become a future tax liability, especially once required minimum distributions begin.
A Roth IRA offers tax-free growth and tax-free qualified withdrawals, which can make it one of the most valuable accounts for long-term growth, legacy planning, and late-retirement flexibility.
So the planning question is not simply, "Which account is best?"
The better question is, "Which assets belong in which accounts, based on the role each account plays in the broader plan?"
That is where asset location stops being an investment issue and becomes a wealth management issue.
As a general rule, highly tax-inefficient investments may be better suited for tax-deferred accounts. Long-term growth assets may be attractive in Roth accounts. Tax-efficient equity investments may fit well in taxable accounts, especially when flexibility and estate planning are important.
But there is no universal answer.
The right decision depends on your income needs, your tax bracket, your withdrawal strategy, your charitable intent, your estate plan, your health, your longevity assumptions, and whether the money is intended for you, your spouse, or the next generation.
This is also where coordination between your investment strategy and your tax strategy does the quiet, compounding work that rarely shows up on a single year's statement.
What This Looks Like in Real Life
Consider a retired couple with three major account types.
A taxable brokerage account. A traditional IRA. A Roth IRA.
They own a mix of stock funds, bond funds, cash, and dividend-oriented investments.
At first glance, they look well diversified. They have growth assets, income assets, and liquidity. But when we look closer, the location of those assets may be creating unnecessary friction.
Suppose most of their bonds and income-producing investments are held in the taxable account. Each year, that income may show up on their tax return, whether they need the cash or not.
Meanwhile, their highest-growth investments may be sitting inside the traditional IRA. That growth is tax-deferred, which sounds attractive, but it may also increase future required minimum distributions and push more income into ordinary tax rates later.
At the same time, their Roth IRA may be sitting mostly in cash or conservative investments, even though they may not need that money for many years.
Nothing here is technically wrong.
But the accounts may not be working together as well as they could.
A more integrated approach might place some income-producing assets inside the IRA, where annual income is not taxed currently. The Roth IRA might hold more long-term growth-oriented assets, since qualified withdrawals can be tax-free and Roth accounts are often powerful legacy assets. The taxable account might hold more tax-efficient investments, while preserving flexibility for spending needs and potential estate planning benefits.
The portfolio did not necessarily become more aggressive.
The investments did not necessarily become more complicated.
But the structure became more intentional.
And that is the point.
Asset location is not about making the portfolio look clever. It is about making the portfolio fit the plan.
The Real Goal
Asset location is one of those planning topics that is easy to overlook, because it does not always feel urgent.
But over time, the location of your investments can influence your tax bill, your retirement income flexibility, your estate plan, and the amount of wealth ultimately available to you and your family.
The goal is not to find a perfect formula.
The goal is to make sure your investment strategy, your tax strategy, your withdrawal strategy, and your estate plan are all working in the same direction.
So if you have taxable accounts, traditional retirement accounts, and Roth accounts, it may be worth asking a simple question:
Are the right investments sitting in the right places?
That question may not sound dramatic.
But in retirement planning, small structural decisions can create meaningful long-term differences.
If you are not sure whether your portfolio is positioned as efficiently as it could be, this is exactly the kind of coordination we help clients evaluate through the Premier Wealth Blueprint, where your investment plan and your tax plan are built to work as one.
Because your investments should not just be diversified.
They should be integrated. That’s how you get clarity, confidence and peace of mind.
Weekly Market Update: Markets Pull Back as Oil Keeps Inflation in Focus
Markets fell for a second straight week, pausing the nearly two-month rally that began in late March. The market’s recent winners, especially technology, semiconductors, and growth stocks, continued to lead the decline. Weakness in mega-cap tech weighed on the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, while small caps, value stocks, and the equal-weight S&P 500 held up better.
The rotation was notable. Defensive sectors led the week, and ten of the eleven S&P 500 sectors outperformed the index. That marked a reversal from recent weeks, when technology drove most of the market’s gains.
Treasury yields ended the week lower as oil prices fell on headlines pointing toward a possible diplomatic resolution, even though headline inflation came in hotter than expected. Bonds traded higher as yields declined, with longer-maturity bonds outperforming. Commodities moved lower as oil fell more than 6%, while bitcoin stabilized after falling toward $60,000 last week.
The week’s market action was less about something breaking and more about markets digesting a rally that had become increasingly narrow. The same areas that carried stocks higher are now creating most of the pressure. That does not make the pullback unusual, but it does make the market more sensitive to changes in sentiment around technology, oil, inflation, and the Fed.
The central question heading into next week is whether this remains a normal pullback after record highs, or whether higher oil prices and renewed inflation pressure force markets to rethink the path of interest rates.
Key Takeaways
A Pullback After Record Highs
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq opened June at fresh record highs, but both have given back roughly 5% over the past few weeks. Technology and semiconductor stocks have led both the recent rally and this month’s pullback, which makes the decline feel sharper at the index level than it does beneath the surface.
There are still signs of rotation rather than broad breakdown. Small caps, value stocks, and the equal-weight S&P 500 held up better, and market breadth has remained steady.
Why it matters: Pullbacks after record highs are normal and do not mean something is broken. But they are a reminder that concentrated leadership cuts both ways. The same areas that help the market on the way up can create pressure when sentiment turns.
Inflation Was Hot, But Mostly Because of Energy
Inflation climbed to a three-year high in May. Consumer prices rose 4.2% year-over-year, up from 3.8% in April, with energy accounting for more than 60% of the monthly increase. Gasoline rose about 7% during the month and roughly 40% over the past year.
The details underneath the headline were calmer. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, slowed to 2.9% and rose just 0.2% month-over-month, slightly below expectations. Shelter inflation, one of the larger and stickier parts of the inflation basket, also continues to ease.
Why it matters: Inflation remains above the Fed’s target, but the source of the pressure matters. For now, the spike appears concentrated in fuel. The risk is that higher energy prices eventually spread into broader prices, wages, and expectations.
The Labor Market Is Still Growing, But Not Without Soft Spots
Employers added 172,000 jobs in May, more than double expectations, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.3%. Hiring for the prior two months was revised higher by a combined 93,000 jobs.
That is a better headline than markets expected. But the labor market is not sending an entirely clean signal. Job gains were concentrated in a handful of industries, long-term unemployment remains elevated compared to a year ago, and wage growth cooled to 3.4% year-over-year.
Why it matters: The economy continues to improve after slowing in late 2025, but the data are not one-sided. The Fed has to balance a labor market that is still expanding against inflation that remains above target.
Oil Remains the Swing Factor
Oil and the Iran conflict remain the thread running through this week’s market story. Renewed military strikes and ongoing shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have kept energy prices elevated, even though oil remains below its spring peak.
The latest strikes spared energy infrastructure, which helped prevent a larger move higher, but oil remains near $90 per barrel and well above where it traded a year ago.
Why it matters: Oil is the main force pushing headline inflation higher, and it is also the variable that could pull inflation lower if tensions ease. The longer the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the more pressure it puts on inflation, interest rates, and market sentiment.
The Fed Has Less Room to Maneuver
The Fed meets next week for its first meeting chaired by Kevin Warsh. Markets expect the Fed to hold rates steady at both the June and July meetings, but this week’s inflation data and the continued Middle East conflict have reshaped the outlook for later this year.
A few weeks ago, the question was when the Fed might cut rates. Now, markets are paying more attention to whether the Fed may need to raise rates again if inflation pressure persists. The market is leaning toward a potential rate increase in the fourth quarter, especially if oil prices stay elevated.
Why it matters: Interest rate expectations affect mortgages, savings yields, bond prices, stock valuations, and the broader planning environment. The Fed’s decision next week may be uneventful, but its tone and outlook could set the market’s direction for the coming months.
Weekly Market Update: May's Record Rally Runs on a Short Leash
May was a month of records, though the rally's foundation was narrower than the headlines suggested. The S&P 500, Nasdaq, Dow, and Russell 2000 all set new all-time highs, powered almost entirely by technology and semiconductor stocks. The gains came despite a genuine rate scare: back-to-back hot inflation readings put a Federal Reserve rate hike back on the table and pushed long-term Treasury yields sharply higher. The pressure faded when oil prices fell more than 13%, taking inflation fears with them and clearing the way for the AI trade to reassert itself.
Beneath the surface, the picture was more complicated. Technology gained nearly 20% on the month; strip it out, and the remaining sectors were slightly negative in aggregate. Only three of the eleven sectors finished higher. Bond markets reflected the same tension, with shorter-term yields rising while longer maturities ended roughly flat. In credit, spreads generally tightened, though the riskiest tier of high-yield bonds diverged and widened. Oil fell 13.2% as the geopolitical risk premium unwound, dragging the broader commodity complex down more than 5%. Corporate earnings offered a bright spot: first-quarter blended growth came in at 28.6% against a 13.1% estimate, with profit margins reaching a record 14.8%. But like the rally itself, the earnings strength was concentrated in a handful of large semiconductor and mega-cap names.
The month also brought a change at the Federal Reserve. Jerome Powell's term expired in mid-May, and Kevin Warsh was confirmed as the new chair. Warsh inherits a complicated environment: the base case points to a rate hike by December if the Strait of Hormuz disruption keeps oil prices elevated, the administration has expressed a preference for lower rates, and inflation remains above the 2% target. Markets will need to adjust to a new communication style just as the Fed's independence faces heightened scrutiny.
The economic backdrop offers a similarly mixed read. The labor market has firmed after softening last fall, and manufacturing has returned to expansion territory. The consumer, however, is moving the other way, with income growth slowing and confidence near record lows by some measures. What has kept households spending is balance-sheet strength from elevated home values and a rising stock market. That support, as long as it holds, keeps the expansion intact. Whether it holds is the central question heading into the summer.
Key Takeaways
Records Built on Narrow Leadership
May's market gains were real, but the breadth underlying them was not. Technology accounted for nearly all of the S&P 500's advance, and most sectors finished negative. The Dow, Russell 2000, and equal-weight S&P each returned between 2% and 3%, a fraction of the Nasdaq's performance. Momentum and high-beta factors led; defensive and dividend-oriented stocks lagged.
Why it matters: An index sitting at all-time highs on such concentrated leadership is more fragile than the scoreboard implies. Any shift in sentiment around AI and semiconductors would leave most of the market without a catalyst to offset the pressure.
Oil Was the Swing Factor
WTI crude fell 13.2% in May as the geopolitical risk premium tied to the Strait of Hormuz unwound. That decline did the critical work of easing inflation pressure mid-month, pulling Treasury yields lower and giving equities room to recover. The broader commodity complex fell more than 5% in sympathy.
Why it matters: The rally's trajectory is directly tied to oil. The Strait of Hormuz remains functionally closed, and the physical supply disruption is unresolved. If oil prices move higher again, the inflation and rate-hike risk that rattled markets mid-month returns with it.
A New Fed Chair Adds Policy Uncertainty
Kevin Warsh replaced Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair in mid-May, inheriting an environment with inflation above target, a December rate hike increasingly priced in, and an administration publicly favoring lower rates. Futures markets, which began the year expecting cuts, now assign meaningful odds to a hike by year-end.
Why it matters: A leadership transition at the Fed introduces communication uncertainty at a moment when policy expectations are already shifting. Markets priced in cuts and got a possible hike. How Warsh navigates that gap, and the political pressure that surrounds it, will shape rate expectations for the remainder of the year.
Earnings Growth Is Strong but Concentrated
First-quarter blended earnings growth came in at 28.6%, well above the 13.1% estimate entering the quarter, with profit margins reaching a record 14.8%. Analysts have continued to raise forecasts, with upgrades outpacing downgrades by roughly two and a half to one.
Why it matters: Strip out the largest semiconductor names and technology's growth rate is cut roughly in half. The same concentration that defines the price rally defines the earnings beneath it. As estimates keep rising, the bar future quarters must clear keeps rising with them.
The Consumer Is the Key Risk to Watch
The labor market has firmed and manufacturing has returned to expansion, but consumer confidence is near a record low by at least one closely watched measure, and income growth continues to slow. Households have stayed spending largely because elevated home values and a rising stock market support balance-sheet health.
Why it matters: Several years of consumer-led growth have kept the expansion intact. If the asset-price support that underlies household spending begins to weaken, reduced consumer outlays could translate into slower economic growth at the same moment the Fed may be tightening rather than easing.
Markets Found Their Footing, But Leadership Remained Narrow
May was a strong month for markets.
The S&P 500 gained 5.3% and set multiple new all-time highs. The Nasdaq 100, Dow Jones Industrial Average, Russell 2000, and even the equal-weighted S&P 500 also reached new highs during the month.
On the surface, that sounds like a broad and healthy rally.
And in some ways, it was.
But when you look underneath the surface, the story becomes more nuanced. Technology stocks led the market by a wide margin, gaining 16% during the month. Consumer Discretionary and Health Care also moved higher, but eight of the eleven S&P 500 sectors declined.
That means the index made new highs while most sectors moved lower.
This is one of the more important details from May. The market was strong, but leadership remained concentrated. Large-cap growth stocks continued to outperform large-cap value stocks, and companies tied to artificial intelligence remained at the center of investor attention.
In plain English, the market continued to reward the companies viewed as the biggest beneficiaries of the AI buildout, while more traditional and cyclical areas of the market lagged behind.
That doesn’t mean the rally is unhealthy. It does mean investors should be careful not to confuse a rising index with a fully broad-based market.
Bonds Held Up Despite Higher Rates
Bonds also moved higher in May, although the story there was more complicated.
The U.S. Aggregate Bond Index gained 0.3%, while investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds performed slightly better. Corporate bonds benefited as credit spreads tightened, which means investors were willing to accept less additional yield to own corporate debt instead of Treasury bonds.
That’s usually a sign that investors are still relatively comfortable taking risk.
At the same time, Treasury yields moved higher during the month. The 30-year Treasury yield briefly moved above 5%, reaching levels last seen in 2007, while the 10-year Treasury yield reached a new 52-week high.
The move in rates was driven by renewed inflation concerns. Hotter-than-expected consumer and producer price reports, combined with elevated oil prices, pushed investors to rethink the path of Federal Reserve policy.
Earlier in the year, markets were still leaning toward rate cuts. By the end of May, expectations had shifted meaningfully, with the market assigning a greater than 50% probability to a Fed rate hike at the December 2026 meeting.
That’s a notable change.
For investors, the message is straightforward. The bond market is still trying to adjust to the possibility that interest rates may stay higher for longer. That doesn’t mean bonds have lost their role in a portfolio. But it does mean the path back to lower rates may be less direct than investors hoped.
The Two Themes Driving Markets
Two themes continue to shape the market environment this year.
The first is geopolitics.
Earlier in the year, investors were focused on trade policy and tariff uncertainty. More recently, the focus has shifted to the conflict in the Middle East and the resulting disruption in global oil markets.
The Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly 20% of global oil supply, has been effectively closed since the conflict began in late February. That disruption has reduced global oil inventories and kept energy prices elevated.
Oil prices have remained high, although they’ve been more contained than many investors might have expected given the scale of the disruption. In May, there was some relief as U.S.-Iran negotiations progressed and markets began pricing in the possibility that the Strait could eventually reopen. West Texas Intermediate crude ended the month below $90 per barrel, down 16.5%.
That was encouraging.
But it doesn’t fully resolve the uncertainty.
Even if a deal is reached, it would likely take months for shipping traffic to normalize. Until then, the Middle East remains a key source of risk for energy prices, inflation, interest rates, and broader market sentiment.
The second theme is artificial intelligence.
The AI buildout is no longer just a technology story. It has become an economic story, an earnings story, and a market leadership story.
The largest technology companies are committing hundreds of billions of dollars to build the physical infrastructure needed for artificial intelligence. That includes data centers, computer chips, power generation, and the broader systems required to support growing AI demand.
Forecasted 2026 capital spending across the leading technology companies now exceeds $600 billion, with much of that spending tied to AI infrastructure.
That level of investment is meaningful.
It is helping drive economic activity. It is showing up in corporate earnings. And it is creating a wide gap between companies connected to the AI buildout and companies that are not.
This explains much of the performance difference we saw in May. Technology stocks didn’t just outperform because investors were excited about the future. They outperformed because the market is starting to see the real financial impact of AI spending.
At the same time, this kind of rapid change creates risks.
Supply chains can become stretched. Expectations can move too far ahead of reality. And when market leadership becomes concentrated in a small group of companies, investor portfolios can become more dependent on a narrow part of the market than they realize.
That’s not a reason to avoid technology or artificial intelligence. But it is a reason to remain disciplined.
What This Means for Investors
May was a good reminder that markets can feel reassuring and uneven at the same time.
The major indexes made new highs. Corporate bonds held up. Credit markets remained stable. And investors continued to reward companies tied to the AI buildout.
But there were also signs of caution beneath the surface.
Most S&P 500 sectors declined. Treasury yields moved higher. Inflation concerns reemerged. Oil prices remained tied to geopolitical uncertainty. And market leadership continued to depend heavily on technology.
For long-term investors, the lesson isn’t to predict which theme will dominate next month.
The lesson is to stay grounded.
Markets are always telling more than one story at a time. Right now, one story is about resilience, innovation, and strong corporate earnings. Another story is about concentration, geopolitical risk, inflation pressure, and higher interest rates.
Both can be true.
That’s why portfolio discipline matters. A thoughtful investment plan should allow you to participate when markets move higher, while also helping you avoid becoming overly dependent on any single theme, sector, or outcome.
May was a strong month. But the strength was not evenly distributed.
And that’s the part investors should remember.
Weekly Market Update: Softer Data Cools Rate-Hike Bets
Markets traded higher for a third straight week as participation broadened.
The S&P 500 gained 1.2%, the Nasdaq 100 rose 2.4%, and the Russell 2000 small-cap index rose 1.8%. Both the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 reached new all-time highs.
Growth and high-beta stocks led the market higher, though strength wasn't limited to the largest companies.
The equal-weight S&P 500 gained 1.9%, which suggests participation stayed relatively broad.
Technology rose 2.9%, and Energy was the week's strongest sector as oil prices climbed nearly 5%. International stocks generally kept pace with U.S. equities, while the U.S. dollar was little changed.
Bonds traded higher as investors reduced expectations for another Federal Reserve rate hike, with shorter-maturity bonds outperforming longer-maturity bonds. Gold continued to drift higher, while the VIX fell below 15 and remains near its lowest level of the year.
Key Takeaways
The Labor Market Softened in July
The labor market showed more signs of cooling in July. Employers cut 23,000 jobs, and previously reported gains for May and June were revised lower by a combined 103,000, suggesting hiring had already been weaker than first reported.
Even so, the broader picture hasn't fallen apart. The unemployment rate held relatively low at 4.1%, and private-sector employment rose by 30,000.
The report points to a labor market losing momentum, but not yet the kind of deterioration typically tied to a recession.
Why it matters: A softer labor market weakens one of the arguments for keeping interest rates higher. If employment continues to cool without a meaningful rise in unemployment, the Fed may have less reason to tighten policy further.
Inflation Stayed Contained
The latest inflation reports were relatively encouraging. Consumer prices rose just 0.1% in July, and producer prices were unchanged. Both came in below expectations and helped ease concerns that rising oil prices were pushing inflation broadly higher again.
Energy remains a pressure point. The energy component of CPI is still 14.5% higher than a year ago, but that increase hasn't translated into a similar acceleration across broader inflation measures.
Higher energy prices can squeeze households and businesses without necessarily setting off another broad inflation cycle.
Why it matters: Inflation remains above the Fed's target, but July's reports suggest the recent energy shock hasn't spread meaningfully into the rest of the economy. That reduces some of the immediate pressure on the Fed to respond with higher rates.
September Rate-Hike Odds Fell
The outlook for Fed policy shifted meaningfully over the week. Heading into the employment report, markets were assigning better than a 50% probability to a September hike, with persistent inflation concerns and three dissents at the Fed's July meeting keeping another increase firmly on the table.
Then the data changed the conversation. Expectations for a September hike fell after the weaker payroll report, declined again following Wednesday's CPI release, and moved lower still after Thursday's flat producer-price report. In other words, investors are looking at a different backdrop than they were several weeks ago: a softening labor market alongside relatively contained inflation.
Why it matters: With the Fed offering less forward guidance, each incoming report carries more weight. This week's data shifted the balance away from another near-term increase, though that outlook can change quickly if inflation or employment data surprise again.
AI Demand Stayed Strong
The investment boom around artificial intelligence continues to show up in the companies building its infrastructure. CoreWeave, which buys advanced chips, installs them in data centers, and leases that computing capacity to customers, reported quarterly revenue of $2.58 billion and a backlog that climbed to $104 billion.
Other AI-infrastructure companies also reported strong growth during the week, suggesting demand isn't isolated to a single name.
The story increasingly extends beyond software firms and chipmakers to the data centers, power, networking equipment, and computing capacity needed to train and run more sophisticated AI models.
Why it matters: Questions remain about how much companies will ultimately spend on AI and what returns those investments will generate. Even so, rapid growth in demand for computing capacity suggests the underlying buildout remains strong.
Small-Business Confidence Climbed
Small-business owners grew more optimistic in July. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index rose to 99.8, its highest reading since August 2025 and above its long-term average.
That's notable given the past several years of higher inflation, elevated borrowing costs, and persistent difficulty finding qualified workers.
Those pressures haven't disappeared, but July's survey showed improvement across several categories, including a meaningful increase in hiring plans.
Since small businesses account for nearly half of private-sector employment, improving sentiment offers a useful read on conditions beneath the surface of the broader economy.
Why it matters: Rising confidence suggests some of the pressures weighing on small businesses may be starting to ease. If that continues, it could support hiring, investment, and activity even as growth elsewhere moderates.