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
We Asked a $1 Billion Quant Manager Why Concentration Isn't a Warning — and Small Caps Aren't Dead
Quant manager Matt Zens argues that record market concentration isn't inherently dangerous and current AI leaders may not dominate forever, emphasizing that global diversification and small caps reduce risk while wide valuation spreads suggest potential value opportunities ahead.
The $600 Billion Loop | Jeff Klingelhofer on AI, the Return of Bonds and the Fed's Third Mandate
Jeff Klingelhofer details how a fragile $600 billion AI capital expenditure loop—where tech spending drives stock gains that fuel high-end consumer spending—currently props up the economy, while arguing that fixed income has reclaimed its traditional role as a genuine portfolio hedge with 5-6% yields available as the Fed shifts focus back to fighting inflation rather than supporting asset prices.
Expensive Market. AI Backlash. Are Investors Pricing the Wrong Risk? | 6 Things We Learned This Week
Warren Pies warns that AI faces mounting bipartisan regulatory backlash against data centers and poor leadership messaging, while Meb Faber argues that expensive US valuations and inevitable bear markets require age-appropriate diversification beyond market-cap weighted stocks.
He Studied 250 Years of Market History | Meb Faber on Why America Won — And If It Can Last
Meb Faber discusses his new book 'Investing in America,' arguing that U.S. market dominance stems from a unique cultural foundation of ownership dating back to colonial joint stock companies, while presenting data showing stocks become less volatile than bonds over 20-year periods and remain the most reliable engine for long-term wealth creation.