We Asked Liz Ann Sonders, Jim Grant, and Brent Donnelly What Investors Miss About This Market
TL;DR
Veteran investors Jim Grant, Liz Ann Sonders, and Brent Donnelly warn that markets are underestimating the inflationary impact of geopolitical conflict, the global nature of energy prices despite US export status, and the importance of distinguishing between structural trends and mean-reverting policy shocks in the current volatile regime.
⚔️ The Inflationary Nature of War 3 insights
War is invariably inflationary
Grant argues that while theories blaming inflation on corporate greed or monetary policy come and go, war permanently strains productive capacity, destroys resources, and requires money printing to finance destruction, making it universally inflationary across centuries.
Historical monetary regime shift
Before the 1960s, inflation was exclusively a wartime phenomenon in the US, but the shift to fiat currency (the "PhD standard") now enables inflation without warfare, with current geopolitical conflicts adding "rancid whipped cream" to monetary mismanagement.
Geopolitical flashpoints
With tensions escalating over Greenland, the Baltic Straits, and the Strait of Hormuz, war preparations are diverting production and manpower resources, threatening to perpetuate inflation well above the Fed's 2% target.
🛢️ Oil Shock Realities 3 insights
Energy vs. crude distinction
Despite being a net energy exporter, the US remains a net crude oil importer and is fully exposed to global price shocks since energy is priced in global markets regardless of domestic supply balances.
Demand destruction dynamics
While high oil prices eventually create demand destruction through "the cure for high prices is high prices," shocks simultaneously pressure growth and inflation, with Strait of Hormuz blockages threatening fertilizer and food supply chains.
K-shaped economic impact
Rising non-discretionary costs disproportionately burden lower-income consumers who spend higher percentages of income on essentials, exacerbating the K-shaped nature of the economic recovery.
📊 Positioning and Policy Reflexivity 3 insights
Regime-dependent strategies
Constant contrarianism loses money by missing structural trends, but rolling policy shocks create mean-reverting regimes where positioning and sentiment become critical trading tools.
The policy reaction function
Market moves trigger policy reflexivity where extreme price action forces governmental responses (e.g., tariff delays after crashes), creating dampening feedback loops that reverse initial shocks.
Framework selection
Investors must apply the right framework to each regime, distinguishing between lasting structural trends like Brazil's appreciation and temporary mean-reverting shocks in US markets.
Bottom Line
Investors must distinguish between lasting structural trends and temporary policy shocks while recognizing that war and energy crises create persistent inflationary pressures that transcend domestic economic conditions and trigger reflexive policy responses.
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.