We Asked a Macro Trader Why War and Oil Haven’t Broken This Market
TL;DR
Macro trader Brent Donnelly explains why continuous policy shocks and geopolitical risks haven't broken the market, arguing that the U.S. economy's structural resilience and mean-reverting policy dynamics create a 'wall of worry' climb rather than a collapse, with specific strategies for trading regime changes.
🧗 Market Resilience and the 'Wall of Worry' 3 insights
Stocks require constant bad news to decline
Donnelly argues equities have a natural upward bias due to perpetual money flow from deficits; they need a steady stream of negative catalysts to fall, but only 'nothing' to rise.
Energy shocks are less threatening than headlines suggest
Despite oil volatility, $4 gasoline is less economically damaging than in 2005 because wages and overall price levels have inflated significantly, while energy now represents roughly 18% of consumption versus 35% historically.
Consumer bifurcation masks underlying strength
While low-end consumer credit metrics show stress, the upper-middle class holds disproportionate spending power and remains insulated from marginal price changes in fuel or staples.
⚖️ Adapting Strategy to Policy Shocks 3 insights
Rolling shocks favor mean reversion over trend following
Unlike structural trends where contrarianism loses money, transient policy shocks create mean-reverting opportunities because the shocks themselves trigger policy responses that dampen the initial move.
The 'observer effect' in policy-driven markets
Market moves alter the policy reaction function—extreme moves in yields or equities force government U-turns, creating reflexive feedback loops that cap volatility and encourage V-shaped recoveries.
Trade state capitalism, don't protest it
Government intervention is now a permanent market feature; traders must accept that companies with state shareholders trade at a premium and position accordingly rather than shorting on philosophical grounds.
📈 Current Market Assessment 3 insights
Bullish while holding the 200-day moving average
Donnelly is long equities based on pattern recognition from 2018 and Liberation Day, where V-shaped bottoms above the 200-day MA led to sustained rallies; a break below would invalidate the view.
Big Tech earnings are the real risk factor
Geopolitical risks and oil are distractions; the primary threat to the market would be a rollover in Magnificent 7 earnings or a collapse in AI capex enthusiasm, which comprise 40% of market cap.
Immigration policy has created labor equilibrium
Zero net job growth since Liberation Day reflects constrained labor supply from immigration crackdowns rather than collapsing demand, keeping unemployment stable at 4.3% with minimal slack.
Bottom Line
Stay long equities while the S&P 500 holds above its 200-day moving average, but treat any break below that level or deterioration in Big Tech earnings as an immediate signal to exit, as these are the only catalysts likely to override the current policy-driven mean reversion.
More from Excess Returns
View all
He Quantified 200 Years of Disruption | Kai Wu on Separating Software Survivors from Value Traps
Kai Wu of Sparkline Capital analyzes why software stocks are trading at historic discounts (10% below market for the first time in 20 years) and presents a framework using 200 years of patent data to distinguish between genuine value opportunities and value traps facing AI disruption.
The Market Cares About Fundamentals — Just Not Yours | The Weekly Wrap - 5/31/2026
Hosts Jack Forehand and Matt Ziggler analyze clips from quant strategist Adam Parker, arguing that markets do trade on fundamentals—specifically forward-looking expectations for 2030-2031 rather than current PE ratios—while the penalty for missing earnings estimates has become structurally harsher than the reward for beating them.
The AI Trade Has a Problem | Ben Hunt, Brent Kochuba and Aahan Menon on What Could Derail It
Markets are ignoring geopolitical exhaustion and inflation shocks to focus on AI's transformative potential, creating a disconnect where stocks 'crash higher' despite risks while systematic macro investors focus on resilient economic data.
We Asked Robert Hagstrom Why MPT Forgot What Matters in Investing — and What He Does Instead
Robert Hagstrom argues that Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) fundamentally erred by defining risk as price volatility rather than margin of safety, creating an institutional framework that prioritizes emotionally comfortable investing over the primary objective of making money, while business owners focus on cash flows and intrinsic value.