Every tool a serious stock trader needs, under one login.

Detect opportunities faster, understand structural market context better, and scale your research into profitable trading decisions.

I'M READY TO TRADE

I'M READY TO TRADE

And that’s only the beginning. There is much more is waiting inside.
Everything designed to help you trade with certainty.

It is built to keep you one step ahead.

I'M READY TO TRADE

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From trading signals to deployable quantitative strategies

Diary of a Quant – Notebook II presents a broad collection of methods for turning quantitative trading concepts into strategies. It moves from statistical arbitrage and relative value through microstructure, cross-sectional signals, directional trading, and finally portfolio construction, hedging, leverage, drawdown control, and capacity. The emphasis is on testing whether they remain viable after execution costs, liquidity, changing regimes, and portfolio constraints are introduced.

What’s inside:

1. Building statistical arbitrage and relative-value strategies: Nonlinear cointegration, synthetic-control baskets, functional data analysis, SINDy dynamics, survival models, latent clustering, lead–lag transmission, and event-gated residuals provide alternative ways to identify and trade temporary dislocations while monitoring whether the relationship remains stable.

2. Modeling microstructure, liquidity, and execution: Order-flow normalization, Level-2 imbalance, fill probabilities, execution-cost shifts, reinforcement-learning execution, VWAP/TWAP switching, passive-order management, venue selection, and post-trade markouts connect theoretical alpha with the mechanics of getting trades filled.

3. Trading volatility and market structure: Variance, skew, VIX structure, overnight gaps, dealer gamma, and volatility-regime effects are used to formulate strategies around option-implied information, convexity, crash behavior, and changes in the market’s volatility state.

4. Exploiting cross-sectional, corporate-event, and crowding effects: ETF flows, index reconstitutions, short interest, squeeze risk, earnings drift, analyst revisions, buybacks, insider activity, seasonality, residual momentum, and turnover-aware momentum transform stock-specific information into market- and sector-controlled portfolios.

5. Designing trend, breakout, futures, and macro signals: Volume-node acceptance, liquidity vacuums, range compression, failed gaps, market breadth, carry–momentum interactions, volatility-confirmed breakouts, policy pressure, and inventory conditions provide systematic ways to distinguish persistent directional moves from false breaks.

6. Constructing portfolios and controlling risk dynamically: Pareto optimization, factor neutrality, inverse-volatility sizing, risk parity, correlation stress, volatility targeting, drawdown-based leverage, regime allocation, hedge baskets, hierarchical clustering, and diversification methods determine how individual signals should be combined and scaled.

7. Accounting for robustness, costs, and capacity: Liquidity matching, covariance instability, capacity-aware allocation, drawdown parity, transaction costs, slippage, financing, and position limits force promising backtests to confront the constraints of live deployment. Each method is intended as a research building block whose assumptions and parameters must be estimated and validated for the specific market and trading horizon.

Physical Book

Sample

417KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

In this episode of House of Quants, listeners will discover:

1. Why quantitative trading is engineering: The episode challenges the myth of the lone trader searching for magical chart patterns and explains how institutional research operates as an industrial-scale system built around data, statistics, software, execution, and risk.

2. How ideas become executable trading systems: Every strategy passes through three stages: translating an economic or behavioral theory into a statistical model and then converting that model into reliable computer code.

3. Why researchers should start with problems rather than signals: A technical indicator is only a symptom. Robust strategies begin by identifying the behavioral, structural, or market-microstructure mechanism that causes a price pattern and determining why that mechanism should persist.

4. The three main sources of market inefficiency: Listeners will examine behavioral biases such as post-earnings drift, technological disadvantages caused by fragmented market data, and structural opportunities created by forced institutional activity such as index rebalancing.

5. How to define success before running a backtest: The discussion explains how researchers avoid the Texas sharpshooter fallacy by establishing objective functions, portfolio constraints, diversification value, falsifiable evidence requirements, and the market regimes in which a strategy should operate.

6. Why historical results must be tested against luck: Methods such as the stationary bootstrap generate alternative return histories to determine whether performance is robust or dependent on one favorable sequence of market events.

7. How a quantitative pipeline is built: Using post-earnings drift as an example, the episode follows the complete process from point-in-time data ingestion and timestamp control to document extraction, surprise measurement, volume confirmation, signal generation, and execution logic.

RESEARCH DESK

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From market intuition to testable quantitative research

Diary of a Quant — Notebook I presents 100 compact mathematical methods for transforming trading ideas into measurable research specifications. It covers robust estimation, dependence, portfolio construction, information geometry, regime detection, machine learning, and empirical validation. Each entry connects the mathematics to a practical research decision, exposing the assumptions and constraints required to code, compare, test, reject, or refine an idea.

What’s inside:

1. Stabilizing covariance and precision estimates: Robust estimators, shrinkage, factor models, random-matrix cleaning, structured priors, and geometric techniques reduce estimation noise and prevent unstable covariance matrices from distorting hedges and portfolios.

2. Measuring dependence beyond correlation: Copulas, tail co-movement, partial-correlation networks, mutual information, HSIC, and distributional distances reveal relationships that conventional linear correlation may fail to detect.

3. Allocating capital under uncertainty: Regularized optimization, risk parity, volatility targeting, factor-neutral projection, bootstrap diagnostics, and distribution-based risk budgets produce allocations that are more stable and interpretable.

4. Using information geometry and entropy: Fisher–Rao distance, Bregman projections, geodesics, divergence measures, entropy constraints, and manifold methods describe how market distributions evolve, separate, and deteriorate through time.

5. Detecting regimes and monitoring edge decay: State-conditioned models, entropy rates, sequential likelihood ratios, optimal transport, and geometric stopping rules identify structural changes and determine when an existing signal is no longer reliable.

6. Applying machine learning to market structure: Self-supervised embeddings, contrastive learning, neural SDEs, normalizing flows, adversarial training, domain adaptation, and contextual bandits model complex relationships while accounting for changing environments.

7. Validating and operationalizing research: Off-policy evaluation, doubly robust estimation, knockoff filters, block-permutation tests, structural simplicity, and execution-aware design help distinguish genuine predictive value from overfitting and convert promising formulations into testable strategies.

Physical Book

Sample

446KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From model estimation to production-ready feature sets

Embedded feature selection integrates variable selection into model training. Rather than ranking inputs beforehand or testing separate subsets, embedded methods decide which features survive while estimating coefficients, decision boundaries, tree structures, or stochastic gates. This connects feature selection to the model’s actual objective while controlling redundancy, instability, and implementation frictions.

What’s inside:

1. Lasso regression: Produces compact linear models by shrinking weak coefficients to zero. Its simplicity makes the selected support easy to interpret, although strongly correlated predictors can lead to unstable winner-takes-all choices.

2. Elastic Net: Combines sparse selection with ridge-style stabilization, allowing groups of correlated predictors to remain in the model. This makes it better suited to feature libraries containing similar signals across multiple horizons or transformations.

3. Group and sparse-group Lasso: Selects economically related feature families together while preserving sparsity within each family. The approach aligns model structure with predefined groups such as momentum, volatility, or event-driven variables.

4. Penalized Logistic regression: Selects inputs according to their contribution to a regularized probabilistic decision boundary. Its usefulness depends on aligning probability calibration with the confidence thresholds and asymmetric costs used during execution.

5. Sparse Support Vector Machines: Combines margin-based classification with coefficient sparsity, retaining variables that help separate classes. Feature survival depends on observations near the decision boundary rather than on overall fit alone.

6. Tree-induced feature selection: Builds nonlinear and conditional support through split selection, depth restrictions, minimum leaf sizes, and pruning. Out-of-sample permutation tests are needed because impurity-based importance can favor noisy variables with many possible split points.

7. SCAD and MCP: Apply nonconvex penalties that preserve sparsity while reducing the excessive shrinkage imposed on large coefficients by Lasso. They can recover stronger signals with less bias, but introduce initialization sensitivity and more difficult optimization.

8. Stochastic feature gates: Learn probabilistic switches that approximate an explicit feature budget inside differentiable models. They support nonlinear interactions and operational constraints, but require stable gate selection and deterministic deployment rules.

Sample

675KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

What changed this month

From now on, I will regularly share the evolution of two systematic portfolios built around very different market behaviours. Rather than focusing on individual securities in the commentary, each update will concentrate on the portfolio process, its current state and how the strategy is behaving over time.

The accompanying reports will show the latest performance, drawdowns, positioning, signals, and scheduled actions.

Short-term mean reversion

The first system is a short-term mean-reversion strategy designed to capture temporary price dislocations. After each completed market session, the model reviews its eligible universe and applies a series of market-quality filters before considering a new opportunity.

Rather than entering immediately, the strategy waits for price to move sufficiently below the signal close. The required entry level is determined relative to recent volatility, allowing the definition of a meaningful short-term dislocation to adapt to changing market conditions.

Monthly momentum rotation

The second portfolio follows a slower-moving momentum approach designed to capture persistent relative strength. The portfolio is reviewed monthly. Eligible securities must remain above their long-term trend and rank among the strongest positive-momentum candidates in the investment universe.

Portfolio weights are then adjusted through a volatility-targeting framework, allowing overall exposure to respond to changing market conditions rather than remaining permanently fixed. Positions are maintained until the next scheduled rebalance changes the allocation or the broader market regime shifts away from risk exposure.

Together, the two reports provide a complete view of how the portfolios are behaving across different market conditions. Momentum seeks to remain exposed to persistent relative strength, while mean reversion looks for shorter-term dislocations within a filtered Nasdaq universe.

Portfolios

Read more

Table of contents:

1. Introduction.

2. US–Iran escalation.

3. Shipping routes, and the global supply.

4. Regional alliances and proxy networks.

5. United States, China, Russia, and the Dollar system.

6. Macro-financial transmission across asset classes.

Read more

In this episode of House of Quants, listeners will discover:

1. My personal perspective: The episode traces the journey from engineering, statistics, data science, and algorithmic trading toward quantitative research, explaining how each field contributed to a deeper understanding of uncertainty, validation, execution, and risk.

2. Why long-term market forecasting often is useless: It examines the limitations of predicting returns through valuation ratios, macroeconomic variables, and historical relationships that can break when monetary policy, geopolitics, investor positioning, or market structure changes.

3. What separates informational moves from structural inefficiencies: Listeners will learn the difference between price changes driven by new fundamental information and movements caused by institutions that must trade because of mandates, contracts, risk limits, or operational constraints.

4. How structural trading hypotheses are researched: It presents a workflow based on studying rulebooks, regulatory filings, clearinghouse specifications, execution windows, affected order books, and the barriers that prevent arbitrage capital from immediately eliminating a mispricing.

5. Why researchers must try to destroy their own strategies: The discussion explains how execution delays, wider spreads, higher transaction costs, disappearing liquidity, limited capacity, and adverse market conditions are used to test whether an apparent edge is robust or merely the result of overfitting.

6. How professional quants manage capacity, decay, and model retirement: The central lesson is that every inefficiency has limited capacity and can weaken as more participants discover it. A credible research process therefore requires monitoring live slippage, fill rates, changing execution patterns, and knowing when the original mechanism has disappeared.

7. Why forced behavior can be more predictable than market direction: The episode concludes that exploitable predictability often comes from identifying what institutions are required to do, rather than attempting to forecast economic variables, investor sentiment, or an asset’s future value.

Send me a copy

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From research question to testable hypothesis

Quantitative trading research begins with market intuition, but it becomes empirically useful only when the researcher defines the instruments, market state, activation trigger, response window, expected price path, and causal mechanism. Strong hypothesis fixes these elements before testing, separates the source of the edge from its execution, and establishes the conditions under which the claim remains valid or expires.

What’s inside:

1. Narrowing the phenomenon: The researcher reduces a broad market observation to a specific inefficiency by defining the relevant instruments, environmental state, and natural time horizon.

2. Selecting instruments, states, and horizons: Assets should be close to the source of the market force, conditions should support the proposed mechanism, and the holding period should match the speed at which the effect unfolds.

3. Defining the expected effect: The hypothesis specifies the direction, shape, magnitude, duration, and decay of the anticipated response, including mean reversion, continuation, spread compression, or ranking changes.

4. Connecting price action to economic meaning: Expected returns require a causal explanation based on information diffusion, liquidity recovery, forced order flow, institutional execution, funding constraints, or another identifiable market process.

5. Defining the trade lifecycle: Entry conditions activate the claim, maintenance conditions verify that its mechanism remains present, and breakdown conditions identify when the original hypothesis has expired.

6. Separating observation from explanation: Similar chart patterns can emerge from different forces. Research must look beyond visual geometry to identify participants, incentives, liquidity constraints, venues, and transmission channels.

7. Separating idea, hypothesis, and execution: A trading idea provides intuition, the research hypothesis identifies the source of predictive value, and the execution method determines how to capture it. Each portfolio component must possess its own causal foundation.

Sample

1.92MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

In this episode of House of Quants, listeners will discover:

1. How quants separate genuine edge from market noise: The episode explains why financial markets are difficult to diagnose and how researchers distinguish persistent information from randomness, temporary anomalies, and misleading patterns.

2. How data problems create false strategies: It examines survivorship bias, timestamp errors, incorrect corporate-action adjustments, data leakage, and excessive data cleaning—problems that can make an impossible strategy appear profitable.

3. How strong trading hypotheses are created: Listeners will learn how quantitative ideas emerge from economics, behavioral finance, market microstructure, and alternative data, as well as why every hypothesis must be specific, measurable, and falsifiable.

4. Why quants try to disprove their own ideas: The discussion explores confirmation bias, narrative fallacy, curve fitting, moving the goalposts, and the importance of defining the methodology and success criteria before examining the results.

5. How strategies are tested under realistic conditions: The episode covers transaction costs, spreads, slippage, financing, liquidity, market impact, position sizing, parameter robustness, and performance across different market regimes.

6. How professional validation methods reduce overfitting: It introduces out-of-sample testing, walk-forward analysis, purged cross-validation, bootstrap methods, multiple-testing corrections, and the Deflated Sharpe Ratio.

7. What makes a quantitative strategy credible: The central lesson is that a strategy becomes credible only after surviving changing regimes, imperfect data, realistic execution costs, statistical scrutiny, and repeated attempts to prove it wrong.

Send me a copy

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From candidate features to validated trading models

Wrapper-based feature selection evaluates predictive inputs through the exact model and validation framework intended for live deployment. Unlike statistical filters that judge variables in isolation, wrappers score candidate subsets by repeatedly training the target algorithm under purged cross-validation. This structure ties feature value directly to net economic performance, accounting for turnover, execution fees, and collinearity risks.

What’s inside:

1. Defining the wrapper paradigm: The framework wraps a search algorithm around a target model, scoring subsets on out-of-sample performance to capture joint feature interactions that univariate statistical filters miss.

2. Accounting for market frictions: Objective functions must penalize execution friction, turnover, and subset dimension, ensuring statistical predictive power translates into net strategy returns.

3. Sequential Forward Selection: Building compact feature sets from zero limits latency and operational pipeline fragility, though greedy forward steps risk missing variables that only add value in specific pairs.

4. Sequential Backward Selection: Starting with the complete feature matrix preserves joint interaction structures, but early pruning steps require regularization to manage matrix instability from collinear market inputs.

5. Exhaustive Feature Selection: Evaluating all possible subsets guarantees locating the global in-sample optimum, but exponential search spaces create massive computational costs and high selection bias under noise.

6. Sequential Floating Selection: Integrating conditional backward passes into forward search paths dynamically purges early variable additions that become redundant as complementary features enter the model.

7. Recursive Feature Elimination: Pruning variables based on standardized coefficients or block-permutation scores directly leverages internal model weights, requiring grouped evaluations when features share underlying market drivers.

Sample

575KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Table of contents:

1. Introduction.

2. The transition of United States monetary policy.

3. Japanese fiscal expansion and economic strategy (2026–2041).

4. The economics of AI infrastructure.

5. Evolution of digital banking and financial markets.

6. Asset allocation and portfolio reallocation.

Audio Note: Before we begin, remember that if you’re accessing this article through the Substack app, you can listen to it instead of reading it. The MarketOps section is best suited for this format.

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking on the image below.

Introduction

The global financial architecture enters a phase of profound structural realignment. In the United States, the ascension of Kevin Warsh to the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve establishes a new paradigm for monetary policy. This regime prioritizes strategic ambiguity, concise communication, and an insulation of policy actions from market expectations.

Cross-border economic dynamics mirror this institutional transformation. Japan embarks on an expansive macroeconomic doctrine under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. The multi-decade investment framework combines state capital with structural reforms to foster domestic technology hubs and automation systems, accepting sovereign balance sheet expansion as a necessary trade-off for long-term production growth.

The catalyst for global capital movement remains the physical construction of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Corporate entities allocate immense capital budgets toward advanced silicon accelerators, specialized liquid-cooled data facilities, and direct power grid access. This investment cycle transitions technical software capabilities from passive digital applications into autonomous agentic systems, altering corporate expenditure structures.

Parallel disruptions redefine the financial services sector. Cloud-native digital banks secure full regulatory charters, dismantling legacy moats through multi-engine platforms. Diversified streams of interest income, asset management, and subscription products yield sustainable corporate profitability, transforming consumer habits and global market shares.

Go deeper by checking:

Mind On The Markets Quaterly

1.05MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Tracking Trillions

2.25MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

These combined shifts mandate a thorough restructuring of investment strategies. Effective asset allocation demands precise duration management in fixed income portfolios, active regional strategies within emerging markets, and a balance between technology growth assets and cash-generating cyclical industries. The subsequent sections detail these structural microeconomic changes and outline concrete frameworks for institutional capital reallocation.

Subscribe now

The transition of United States monetary policy

The transition of leadership at the Federal Reserve in mid-2026 represents one of the most volatile, legally contested, and philosophically disruptive chapters in the history of modern central banking. Following the swearing-in of Kevin Warsh as the 17th Chair of the Federal Reserve on May 22, 2026, the institution has embarked on a fundamental regime shift. Confronted by sticky inflation driven by Middle East energy supply shocks and a vocal, growth-oriented executive branch, Warsh has initiated an aggressive overhaul of monetary policy communications and structural frameworks. This transition of the Federal Reserve chairmanship was defined by unprecedented institutional friction, cutting across all three branches of the federal government and challenging long-standing norms of monetary independence.

The political battle to confirm Kevin Warsh began in earnest within a polarized Senate. On May 13, 2026, the United States Senate confirmed Warsh as Chairman of the Board of Governors by a razor-thin margin of 54 votes in favor to 45 against. This vote established a record for the narrowest confirmation margin for a Federal Reserve Chair in U.S. history, eclipsing the previous record set by Ben Bernanke’s 70 - 30 confirmation vote in 2010. The division was partisan, reflecting deep ideological splits over the future of monetary policy and central bank oversight. The Republican majority voted as a unified block in favor of Warsh, viewing him as a reformer capable of bringing accountability and market discipline to an institution they argued had overstepped its mandate. Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania crossed party lines to join the Republican majority, citing Warsh’s explicit commitment during hearings to increase congressional responsiveness and dismantle what he termed the “incomprehensible jargon” of Fed communications. Conversely, prominent progressive critics, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, fiercely opposed Warsh. They labeled him a “sock puppet” for the executive branch and Wall Street, citing his regulatory positions during the 2008 global financial crisis and his public alignment with President Donald Trump’s pro-growth, low-interest-rate rhetoric in the lead-up to his nomination.

The nomination path was logjammed for months within the Senate Banking Committee due to a high-stakes standoff involving outgoing Chair Jerome Powell. Senator Thom Tillis placed a temporary hold on Warsh’s nomination, demanding that the Department of Justice terminate its criminal investigation into Powell regarding a controversial, multi-million-dollar renovation of the Federal Reserve’s Washington headquarters. Tillis and other committee members argued that the Department of Justice probe was a “frivolous, politically motivated prosecution” designed to compromise central bank independence and coerce the Fed into lowering interest rates. On April 24, 2026, the Department of Justice announced it would drop the criminal probe and refer the matter to the Federal Reserve’s independent Inspector General. This concession broke the legislative deadlock, allowing the Senate Banking Committee to advance Warsh’s nomination to the Senate floor in a tense, party-line 13-11 vote.

Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve became the battleground for one of the most critical executive power disputes in American history. In August 2025, President Donald Trump attempted to terminate Board Governor Lisa Cook—originally appointed by President Joe Biden to a 14-year term ending in 2038—alleging mortgage fraud on her historical loan agreements. Cook unequivocally denied the allegations, characterizing them as a bad-faith pretext to clear a seat on the Board for a monetary dove. Cook sued to halt her removal, arguing that under 12 U.S.C., Federal Reserve Governors may only be removed by the President “for cause” and are entitled to robust due process. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 in Trump v. Cook (No. 25A312) to uphold a lower court’s preliminary injunction, blocking her removal.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices (Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson). The Court held that while the executive branch possesses broad authority over executive departments, the Federal Reserve’s unique role in maintaining economic stability requires protection from arbitrary political interference. The Court ruled that Cook was entitled to basic due process—including an explanation of the evidence, a formal notice, and a meaningful opportunity to respond—and that because the administration failed to provide this, the attempted removal was “erroneous and void.” The dissent, led by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, argued that the President’s Article II removal power should extend unconditionally to all independent agency heads.

Jerome Powell’s official chairmanship expired on May 15, 2026, but his 14-year term as a Fed Governor is legally protected until January 2028. To defend institutional continuity and preserve the Board’s legal defenses amid the ongoing Inspector General probe, Powell took the rare step of choosing to remain on the Board of Governors as a regular member. This decision triggered an immediate structural shift. To make room for Warsh’s confirmation to the Board, temporary Trump appointee Stephen Miran—a vocal monetary dove who had registered formal dissents in favor of interest rate cuts at six consecutive meetings—was displaced. With Miran off the Board and Powell remaining alongside Cook, Warsh must now build consensus within a deeply divided, legally embattled seven-member Board of Governors, navigating factions that are highly protective of Powell’s policy legacy.

Do you need to make better decisions when buying or selling stocks? Take a look at QuantX.es

The Federal Open Market Committee convened on June 16–17, 2026, for its inaugural session under Chairman Warsh. While the committee’s decision to maintain the federal funds target range at 3.50% - 3.75% was anticipated by Wall Street, the shift in operational style, post-meeting statement architecture, and communications philosophy took market participants by surprise. In a calculated break from two decades of hyper-detailed central bank communication, Warsh slashed the post-meeting statement to a mere 114 words. This was a reduction from the 244 words issued in April and historical averages of over 300 words. The radical brevity of the June statement accomplished three key objectives:

1. Omission of forward guidance: The statement removed all explicit qualitative and quantitative guidance regarding future interest rate trajectories, replacing references to “additional firming” or “gradual easing” with a blank slate.

2. Elimination of the participant roster: The customary list of meeting attendees and their individual voting records was removed from the primary statement, consolidating the policy decision under the corporate identity of the Committee.

3. Macroeconomic condensation: Rather than providing granular details on consumer spending, employment metrics, and business fixed investment, the document condensed the economic landscape into a single sentence, stating that economic activity is “expanding at a robust pace, and productivity and investment remain strong.”

Warsh has long been a vocal academic and professional critic of forward guidance, arguing that the practice has transformed the Fed from a reactive monetary authority into a captive of market expectations. In his view, the Fed’s 2021 - 2022 failure to contain inflation stemmed directly from its self-imposed forward-guidance trap, which made the central bank hesitant to raise rates for fear of triggering market volatility. By introducing “strategic ambiguity,” Warsh seeks to reintroduce two-way risk to financial markets. Under this philosophy, the Fed treats market pricing as an organic, independent source of information rather than a metric to be managed and massaged. The central bank communicates only its core objective—price stability—and leaves the precise path of interest rates intentionally vague, forcing market participants to conduct independent fundamental analysis. The policy statement is no longer used as a monetary tool in itself, but rather as a direct, unvarnished summary of current actions.

The macroeconomic backdrop in mid-2026 is challenging, exhibiting classic signs of stagflationary stress. Geopolitical escalations in the Middle East have severely disrupted global shipping lanes and energy infrastructure, pushing domestic Brent crude prices back above $100 per barrel. Consequently, the consumer price index climbed to a three-year peak of 4.2% in May 2026. The June Summary of Economic Projections reflected these mounting pressures. The core Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation forecast for 2026 was marked up significantly from 2.7% in March to 3.6% in June, while real GDP growth expectations were revised downward by 20 basis points to 2.2%.

In a symbolic protest against the forward-guidance utility of the Summary of Economic Projections, Chairman Warsh declined to submit his own interest rate projection for the Dot Plot. Warsh argued that the Dot Plot creates a false sense of certainty and encourages herd behavior among governors. By leaving his “dot” missing, he signaled that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is not bound by a pre-committed path, thereby maximizing his tactical flexibility in upcoming meetings. Despite the Chairman’s absent dot, the remaining 17 participating officials revealed a deeply fractured committee struggling to find consensus. Nine of the eighteen participating officials now project a minimum of one 25 basis point rate hike before the end of the year, bringing the median year-end target to 3.75% - 4.00%. This is a sharp hawkish shift from the March 2026 projections, which had anticipated a median of 25 basis points of rate cuts by December. The remaining members are split between keeping rates unchanged and advocating for immediate cuts to protect the labor market from the compounding effects of high energy costs.

To reshape both the operational mechanics and the theoretical foundation of the Federal Reserve, Warsh announced the creation of five specialized internal task forces. Each group, which includes independent outside experts alongside Fed insiders to ensure better cognitive diversity, is mandated to deliver concrete, actionable policy proposals by December 2026:

1. Communications Reform Task Force: This group is tasked with formalizing the reduction of post-meeting press conferences from eight per year to four, limiting the volume of public speeches delivered by regional Fed presidents, and designing a framework to phase out the Dot Plot. The objective is to quiet the “noise” of public central bank commentary, allowing the markets to focus exclusively on formal policy decisions and get central bankers off the front page.

2. Balance Sheet Management (Quantitative Tightening) Task Force: This task force is exploring an acceleration of the Fed’s asset runoff program. The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet has declined from its pandemic-era peak of nearly 9 trillion to approximately 6.7 trillion (roughly 21% of GDP) by mid-2026. Warsh is an advocate of a “lean” balance sheet, arguing that the massive footprint of central bank holdings distorts market pricing, crowds out private capital, and disproportionately benefits owners of financial assets at the expense of broader society. The task force is evaluating plans to sell agency mortgage-backed securities outright to hasten the return to an all-Treasury portfolio.

3. Data Quality Metrics Task Force: Charged with evaluating the “data-dependent” framework of the Powell era, this group seeks to transition the Fed away from backward-looking, lagging indicators (such as the monthly establishment survey for employment) and toward real-time market signals. This includes the integration of high-frequency transactional data, corporate credit spreads, and market-implied inflation expectations into the Fed’s forecasting models.

4. AI and Productivity Dynamics Task Force: This task force is studying the supply-side impact of artificial intelligence integration across the economy. Warsh holds a structurally bullish outlook on technology, arguing that AI-driven productivity gains can increase the non-inflationary capacity of the economy. Under this theory, an elevated growth rate does not necessarily require a restrictive interest rate stance, as productivity gains naturally suppress unit labor costs. Understanding this dynamic is central to Warsh’s long-term plan to lower rates safely without triggering wage-price spirals.

5. Inflation Framework Review Task Force: This group is reviewing alternative inflation metrics to replace or supplement standard core PCE, which Warsh argues has been distorted by housing models and transient geopolitical spikes. The task force is focused on “trimmed mean” metrics, such as the Dallas Fed Trimmed Mean PCE and the Cleveland Fed 16% Trimmed Mean CPI. Because these metrics strip out extreme price outliers on both sides, they currently track below standard core PCE, providing what Warsh argues is a more stable measure of baseline inflation.

The introduction of “strategic ambiguity,” combined with the hawkish shift in the June Summary of Economic Projections, triggered immediate repricing across global financial markets. Following Warsh’s June press conference—during which he referenced the central bank’s commitment to “price stability” 12 times—investors adjusted their expectations for the interest rate path. The 2-year Treasury yield surged by 13 basis points, reflecting immediate expectations of a more restrictive short-term policy path and a potential rate hike by November. Meanwhile, the 10-year Treasury yield rose by just 3 basis points. This classic bear-flattening move indicates that while markets expect higher policy rates in the near term, they also expect these rates to successfully cool long-term growth and inflation. The US Dollar Index appreciated by 0.75%, reversing its losses from the prior week, while the S&P 500 retracted by 0.5%. The bond futures market now prices in an 85% probability of a rate hike by the close of 2026.

This hawkish pivot has created a direct conflict with the executive branch. President Donald Trump, who nominated Warsh with the explicit expectation that he would deliver lower interest rates to support his tariff and tax-cutting economic agenda, has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Fed’s restrictive stance. This friction represents a critical test of central bank independence. In the 1970s, political pressure from the Nixon administration coerced Fed Chair Arthur Burns into maintaining artificially low interest rates, triggering a decade of stagflation. Academic economists and former Fed officials, including those represented by organizations like the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, have pointed to this period as a warning.

Some market commentators and progressive critics have proposed a more cynical interpretation of Warsh’s strategic shift. They suggest that the elimination of forward guidance and the heavy reliance on “strategic ambiguity” serve as a personal and political shield for the new Chairman. By refusing to commit to an explicit interest rate path, Warsh avoids direct, early confrontations. The Trump administration is permitted to believe he is a structural dove who is simply nudging a reluctant committee, while Wall Street can interpret his silence as orthodox, hawkish commitment to price stability. So long as he preserves this ambiguity, Warsh insulates himself from immediate political fallout while solidifying his control over the FOMC. However, this approach risks injecting significant term premiums and volatility into the fixed-income markets as investors lose their traditional policy guideposts and are forced to discover prices entirely on their own.

Japanese fiscal expansion and economic strategy (2026–2041)

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From market observation to research question

The process begins with visible market behavior, but it becomes useful only when the researcher defines the phenomenon, classifies the market setting, identifies the mechanism, specifies the scope, and formulates a testable claim. Strong research moves from intuition toward measurable, comparable, and falsifiable market processes.

What’s inside:

1. Market observation. Trading ideas begin with repeated contact between price, volume, liquidity, time, events, and relative asset behavior.

2. Phenomenon classification. The researcher separates observations into single-instrument responses, delayed adjustments, event-driven reactions, and cross-sectional or relative-value behavior.

3. Reversal and continuation patterns. Price responses are studied through their lifecycle: initial pressure, dislocation, liquidity return, continuation path, or movement back toward balance.

4. Delayed adjustment. Some opportunities arise when one instrument reacts first and another follows later because of market clocks, venues, liquidity pools, or transmission delays.

5. Event-driven research. Earnings, macro releases, order-flow shocks, scheduled events, and surprise events create clean windows for studying price discovery, liquidity withdrawal, drift, dispersion, and repricing.

6. Cross-sectional and relative-value behavior. We study how dispersion, peer-group misalignment, and linked-instrument spreads reveal hidden capital migration and market friction beneath index-level returns.

7. Research question formation. A raw idea becomes research-ready when it defines the trigger, asset universe, market state, response window, expected path, and comparison benchmark.

8. Existence, conditional, and mechanism questions. Research asks whether the effect appears, when it strengthens or weakens, and why it exists through identifiable forces, transmission channels, and sustaining agents.

Sample

1.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From raw market data to scalable statistical filters

Filter-based feature selection evaluates the intrinsic statistical properties of candidate variables independent of downstream model training. By screening out noisy inputs before fitting complex algorithms, statistical filters reduce dimensional overreach, limit execution friction, and protect systematic strategies from temporal leakage.

What’s inside:

1. Defining the filter paradigm: Filters evaluate features through direct statistical tests against target labels outside the model training loop, providing a fast screening layer against high-dimensional noise.

2. Controlling selection risks: Ranking variables on statistical scores can mislead researchers if a feature increases turnover, inflates execution costs, or relies on unavailable forward bar data.

3. Measuring Information Gain: Discretizing continuous metrics into quantile bins isolates entropy reduction, revealing non-linear regime thresholds that standard linear filters overlook.

4. Class separation with Fisher Score and ANOVA: Comparing between-class variance against within-class dispersion highlights features with distinct conditional distributions, while Welch’s ANOVA corrects for fat tails and non-constant variance.

5. Capturing non-linear signals through Mutual Information: Applying continuous nearest-neighbor estimators detects non-linear dependencies, preserving valuable predictive signals such as U-shaped volume reversals.

6. Uncovering joint dependencies with ReliefF: Evaluating instances against their nearest hits and misses in multi-dimensional space isolates localized feature interactions without training a full model.

7. Preventing collinearity with mRMR: Optimizing target relevance against pairwise mutual information keeps feature sets diverse and stops models from clustering around identical risk drivers.

Sample

386KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Table of contents:

1. Introduction.

2. Dilution analysis.

3. Income.

4. Balance.

5. Cash flow.

6. Ratios.

7. Segment.

Audio Note: Before we begin, remember that if you’re accessing this article through the Substack app, you can listen to it instead of reading it. The MarketOps section is best suited for this format.

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking on the image below.

Introduction

We are opening a new subsection inside MarketOps dedicated to small-cap opportunities. The goal of this series is to analyze companies that may be overlooked by the broader market but still present interesting financial, operational, or strategic characteristics for investors. This first report marks the beginning of that new series!!!

Rush Street Interactive, Inc. (ticker: RSI) is an online gambling and sports betting company operating within the Consumer Cyclical sector, specifically in the Gambling industry. RSI should be analyzed as a digital gaming operator whose value depends on its ability to grow revenue, retain users, improve margins, and manage dilution in a highly competitive and regulated market.

The company’s business is centered on online casino gaming, sports betting, and related digital wagering products. Unlike traditional casino operators, RSI does not depend primarily on physical casino properties, hotel capacity, or destination traffic. Its business model is more closely tied to digital platform performance, market access, customer acquisition, regulatory approvals, payment infrastructure, product experience, and player retention. This gives RSI a different investment profile from land-based gambling businesses.

The main attraction of RSI is its exposure to the continued legalization and expansion of online gambling. As more jurisdictions allow regulated online betting and iGaming, companies with existing platforms, licenses, and operating experience can expand their addressable market. Growth in this industry requires significant spending on marketing, promotions, compliance, technology, and customer support.

RSI’s investment case depends on four main areas:

1. Revenue quality.

2. Margin expansion.

3. Balance sheet strength

4. Dilution control.

Strong revenue growth is valuable only if it leads to better operating leverage and cash generation. Improving EBITDA is useful, but investors should also examine net income, operating cash flow, free cash flow, and the difference between adjusted and reported profitability.

Overall, RSI can be introduced as a small-cap digital gambling company with exposure to a structurally growing industry, but also with meaningful execution and capital structure risks. The company operates in an attractive market, but its investment value depends on whether management can convert market growth into sustainable profitability and improved per-share value. For that reason, RSI deserves a detailed analysis across dilution, income statement quality, balance sheet position, cash flow generation, operating ratios, and segment performance.

All information and data presented in this article have been sourced from the QuantX platform.

Dilution analysis

Rush Street Interactive’s dilution profile is a relevant part of the equity analysis because the company has a meaningful public share base and a visible increase in shares outstanding over time. The dilution panel shows 104.15 million shares outstanding and a float of 98.29 million shares, which means that most of the company’s share base is already available for public trading.

The first important observation is that RSI is classified with medium overall dilution risk. The share-count chart shows a clear upward trend from roughly 58 million shares in 2020 to 104.15 million shares currently. That increase is material from a shareholder perspective because the ownership base has expanded over the period shown.

The chart shows that RSI’s share count increases in a gradual way. A company can increase revenue, improve its operating footprint, and expand into new markets, but if the share count also rises materially, the economic benefit must be measured on a per-share basis.

At the same time, the dilution risk is partly offset by the company’s cash position. RSI’s data shows net cash per share of $5.68, estimated cash of $576.94 million, and quarterly burn of $20.11 million. These figures confirm that RSI is not under immediate financing pressure. The cash need indicator is marked as low, which is consistent with the idea that the company has enough liquidity to reduce the near-term probability of raising capital through additional equity issuance.

The cash position chart shows a sharp increase around 2020, followed by a multi-year decline and then a recovery into the most recent period. This pattern shows that RSI’s balance sheet has experienced both cash drawdown and cash rebuilding. The decline from the earlier peak indicates that cash has been consumed or redeployed over time, while the recent recovery suggests improved liquidity.

The quarterly burn of $20.11 million is also important. Even with a large estimated cash balance, burn rate must be monitored because persistent cash consumption can gradually change the dilution profile. At the current level shown, the company appears to have enough liquidity to absorb ongoing burn. If burn decreases as revenue scales and margins improve, dilution risk declines further. If burn remains persistent or increases, the company’s future need for capital becomes more relevant.

Offering ability is marked low, which indicates that the screener does not currently identify strong near-term offering pressure. Overhead supply is also marked low, suggesting that visible selling pressure from prior issuance or overhang is not considered severe by the screener. Historical dilution is marked low, although this should be interpreted carefully because the chart still shows a meaningful increase in shares outstanding over time.

The institutional ownership figure is also notable. Data shows 98.2% institutional ownership, which implies that RSI’s shareholder base is concentrated among institutions. This can be interpreted in two ways. On one hand, high institutional ownership can indicate that professional investors are involved in the stock. On the other hand, it can also make the stock more sensitive to institutional portfolio adjustments, block sales, or changes in sentiment. When institutional ownership is this high, investors should monitor ownership changes, insider activity, secondary offerings, and large holder transactions.

Short interest is shown at 9.2%. A short interest level of this size can indicate skepticism or hedging activity, but dilution risk depends more directly on the company’s share issuance behavior, cash burn, capital needs, and financing structure. For RSI, the short interest figure should be viewed as a secondary market signal rather than the main determinant of shareholder risk.

Overall, RSI’s dilution profile is mixed but positive. The company has a rising share count, which creates a real per-share issue. However, the current risk indicators are mostly low, and the cash position reduces immediate financing pressure.

RSI must show that growth translates into better per-share economics. The most relevant confirmation would come from stable or declining share count, improving net income, stronger operating cash flow, lower cash burn, and consistent growth in cash flow per share. If the company continues to grow while limiting new issuance, the dilution risk becomes manageable. If the share count continues to rise faster than profitability and cash generation, shareholder

Subscribe now

Income

The income statement shows a company with strong top-line growth and improving operating leverage. Total revenue increased from $262.4M in Q1 2025 to $370.4M in Q1 2026, representing approximately 41% year-over-year growth. Sequentially, revenue also increased from $324.9M in Q4 2025 to $370.4M in Q1 2026, showing that the company continued to expand beyond the previous quarter.

Operating income also improved significantly. RSI generated $42.8M in Q1 2026, compared with $14.6M in Q1 2025. That represents an increase of almost 193% year over year. This is a positive signal because operating income grew much faster than revenue, which indicates that the company is gaining operating leverage. Basically, RSI is converting a larger portion of its revenue into operating profit.

Cost of revenue increased from $170.9M in Q1 2025 to $238.2M in Q1 2026. This increase is expected given the higher revenue base, but it grew slightly slower than revenue. As a result, gross profit improved from $91.5M in Q1 2025 to approximately $132.2M in Q1 2026. Gross margin also improved slightly, from around 34.9% to 35.7%. This margin stability is important because it shows that RSI’s revenue growth is not being achieved through a major deterioration in direct profitability.

Marketing and advertising expense is especially important for an online gambling company because customer acquisition is one of the main drivers of both growth and risk. RSI spent $47.4M on marketing and advertising in Q1 2026, compared with $42.1M in Q1 2025. In absolute terms, marketing expense increased. However, as a percentage of revenue, it declined from 16.0% in Q1 2025 to 12.8% in Q1 2026. It indicates that RSI generated more revenue without increasing marketing spend at the same pace. From an investor’s perspective, this suggests improved marketing efficiency and better customer monetization.

General and administrative expense increased from $25.3M in Q1 2025 to $31.3M in Q1 2026. The increase is material, but it remained controlled relative to revenue growth. As a percentage of revenue, G&A declined from approximately 9.6% to 8.5%. This supports the same operating leverage argument. The company is scaling revenue faster than some of its operating cost categories.

Total costs and expenses increased from $247.8M in Q1 2025 to $327.6M in Q1 2026, an increase of 32%. Since revenue increased by 41%, the income statement shows a favorable spread between revenue growth and expense growth. This spread is what drives the improvement in operating income. This shows that the company’s growth is translating into better profitability.

Net income also improved. RSI reported $26.2M of net income in Q1 2026, compared with $11.2M in Q1 2025. That represents growth of 134% year over year. Sequentially, net income increased from $19.1M in Q4 2025 to $26.2M in Q1 2026. This confirms that the improvement is visible also at the bottom line.

However, the data also shows that not all net income belongs directly to common shareholders. Net income attributable to the parent was $9.1M in Q1 2026, while net income attributable to noncontrolling interest was $17.1M. RSI’s structure means that investors should continue separating consolidated net income from income available to common shareholders.

The Q2 2025 column contains unusual items that distort comparability. Other nonoperating income was negative $110.5M, while income tax expense showed a benefit of $115.0M. These two large items heavily affected pre-tax income and tax expense, making Q2 2025 less useful as a clean operating comparison. For that reason, Q1 2026 should be compared more directly with Q1 2025, Q3 2025, and Q4 2025 when analyzing recurring income statement performance.

Earnings per share is shown as $0 across the quarters. This means EPS is not very informative, likely because of rounding, share structure, or the relationship between consolidated income and income attributable to common stockholders.

Basic shares outstanding increased from 93.9M in Q1 2025 to 102.2M in Q1 2026, an increase of approximately 8.8%. This is relevant because the company’s profitability improved, but shareholders also experienced dilution. The key investor question is whether earnings and cash flow are growing faster than the share count. In Q1 2026, profit growth exceeded share count growth, but the share count still needs to be monitored.

Overall, RSI’s income statement shows a stronger operating profile than the prior year. Revenue growth is strong, operating income is expanding faster than revenue, marketing expense is becoming more efficient as a percentage of sales, and net income is improving. The main investor watchpoints are the split between consolidated net income and income attributable to common shareholders, the unusual nonoperating and tax effects in Q2 2025, and the continued increase in basic shares outstanding.

Balance

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking on the image below.

INDEX

Quality standards of a strong trading hypothesis

A strong trading hypothesis turns a market idea into an research object. It defines what is claimed, where the claim applies, how the effect appears in data, and how evidence improves the hypothesis over time. Precision, measurability, and falsifiability give the hypothesis structure and make the research process coherent, testable, and repeatable.

What’s inside:

1. Precision. A strong hypothesis defines the exact claim, the market setting, and the expected response.

2. Precise wording. Clear wording transforms broad ideas such as pressure, stress, momentum, or dislocation into specific market processes.

3. Precise scope. The hypothesis identifies the asset universe, market state, event type, time horizon, and environment where the effect belongs.

4. Precise outcome definition. The research defines the empirical object used to judge the effect, such as return, spread compression, rank shift, abnormal movement, path behavior, or persistence.

5. Measurability. The hypothesis enters the data through observable variables, classifiable states, and outcomes that can be scored consistently.

6. Observable variables and classifiable states. Market concepts such as crowding, hidden demand, liquidity pressure, or absorption become defensible proxies and coherent state definitions.

7. Falsifiability. The hypothesis exposes the claim to evidence by defining the conditions that weaken, contradict, or challenge the proposed mechanism.

8. Revision after contradiction. Evidence improves the hypothesis by narrowing the trigger, refining the state filter, adjusting the horizon, improving the outcome, or replacing the mechanism when needed.

Sample

1.92MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From market endpoints to research-ready data

Quantitative trading strategies depend on the historical records that feed them. Acquiring free market data through custom web scrapers lowers upfront capital costs and expands research flexibility, but it introduces operational risks like protocol shifts, rate limits, and missing fields. Building a transparent pipeline around raw WebSocket connections ensures data transformations remain visible and verifiable before strategy testing begins.

What’s inside:

1. Data trade-offs: Free feeds provide rapid experimentation and broad market access, but lack the service-level guarantees, corporate-action histories, and delisting data typical of institutional vendors.

2. Managing protocol fragility: Relying on unofficial endpoints exposes pipelines to breakage when vendors adjust message headers, change packet envelopes, or enforce stricter rate limits.

3. Maintaining a tight dependency envelope: Constructing sockets and HTTP requests using standard library modules keeps data transformations visible and prevents third-party wrappers from hiding parsing errors.

4. Handling raw WebSocket transport: Direct management of TCP connections, TLS handshakes, frame masking, and ping-pong liveness maintains link stability across large multi-symbol requests.

5. Parsing TradingView message envelopes: Reading length-prefixed packet markers prevents buffer corruption, while explicit session and adjustment flags document whether prices reflect raw or split-adjusted trades.

6. Enforcing structured schema validation: Formatting raw bars into typed NumPy arrays preserves missing volume as unallocated values rather than zero, protecting liquidity filters from distortion.

7. Harvesting and de-duplicating universes: Paginating scanner endpoints allows researchers to build multi-asset ticker lists, though static current-day universes carry survivorship bias that requires explicit research controls.

Sample

429KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Table of contents:

1. Introduction.

2. Inflation reopens.

3. Energy and chokepoints.

4. Global trade.

5. U.S.–China.

6. Europe’s energy decline continues.

7. East mediterranean gas and the new energy geography.

Audio Note: Before we begin, remember that if you’re accessing this article through the Substack app, you can listen to it instead of reading it. The MarketOps section is best suited for this format.

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking on the image below.

Introduction

Growth remains alive, yet price formation has moved from demand cycles into shipping lanes, fuel markets, mineral chains, defence budgets, and regulatory systems. The global economy still expands, but each point of growth now carries a higher security cost.

Today we review the pressure points that define the current environment. Inflation has reopened through energy, fertilizers, freight, and expectations. Hormuz has become a macro variable because oil, LNG, refined products, and insurance prices move through the same corridor. Global trade has entered a selective phase, where AI infrastructure expands while tariffs, standards, and compliance rules reshape market access.

To go deeper you can check this:

EIA

4.39MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Global Trade Update

11.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Gas Market Report, Q2 2026

2.19MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The U.S.–China relationship sits at the centre of this structure. Both powers use the same channels for commerce and leverage: rare earths, chips, agriculture, Treasury holdings, industrial capacity, and maritime routes. Europe faces a harsher version of the same problem. Its energy model has shifted away from Russia, but the replacement system depends on LNG, external suppliers, cloud platforms, AI hardware, and fiscal room that bond markets continue to test.

The East Mediterranean has gained strategic weight within this context. Gas fields, pipelines, LNG terminals, electricity cables, hydrogen plans, and maritime claims now form part of a larger energy map shaped by Gulf disruption and European supply risk. The region offers optionality, but also concentrates infrastructure, diplomacy, and security inside one contested space.

Subscribe now

Inflation reopens

The central feature of this macro regime is the coexistence of positive growth with a renewed inflation impulse. The IMF places global growth at 3.1% in 2026 and 3.2% in 2027, below the recent pace of about 3.4% seen in 2024 and 2025 and below the 3.7% average recorded during 2000–2019. Global headline inflation is expected to rise to 4.4% in 2026 before easing to 3.7% in 2027, which turns the 2026 cycle into a test of disinflation credibility rather than a clean continuation of the previous normalization path.

The Middle East war has changed the macro baseline because the shock enters through commodity markets, inflation expectations, transport costs, and financial conditions at the same time. The IMF states that, absent the war, its 2026 growth forecast would have received a slight upward revision to 3.4%. The downward move to 3.1% therefore comes from the conflict shock, partly offset by recent strong data and lower tariff rates. The current slowdown reflects an external constraint on supply and confidence rather than a broad collapse in private demand.

The baseline also hides a wide dispersion across economies. Advanced economies show a more contained revision, while commodity-importing emerging and developing economies carry the largest pressure. These countries face a triple squeeze from higher energy bills, weaker external balances, and tighter financing conditions. The IMF’s downside scenarios show the scale of that vulnerability. Under an adverse path with larger and more persistent energy-price increases, global growth falls to 2.5% in 2026 and inflation reaches 5.4%. Under a more severe path with greater damage to regional energy infrastructure, global growth falls near 2%, while headline inflation moves above 6% by 2027.

The OECD reinforces this picture with a slightly weaker growth profile. It projects global GDP growth at 2.9% in 2026 and 3.0% in 2027. The same outlook shows that the energy-price surge and the Middle East conflict raise costs and lower demand, while strong technology-related investment, lower effective tariff rates, and the momentum inherited from 2025 provide support. This creates a two-engine global economy. One engine is constrained by fuel, freight, insurance, and import costs.

Early 2026 activity data show that the world entered the shock with strength across both services and manufacturing. The OECD notes that global growth remained solid in 2025, expanding at an annualized pace of about 3.25% in the second half of the year. Private consumption and investment were major drivers across many economies, while technology-related business investment carried the U.S. expansion through tariff headwinds. In Asia and the United States, technology-related industrial production continued to rise in the opening months of 2026, supported by stronger capital-expenditure intentions among large listed technology firms.

This detail changes the interpretation of the global cycle. The world is dealing with a supply shock layered on top of an investment upswing. The AI capital cycle supports manufacturing, electricity demand, high-end components, and corporate spending. The energy shock pushes in the opposite direction by compressing margins, lowering household purchasing power, increasing transport costs, and raising the hurdle rate for investment in energy-intensive sectors. The result is a macro regime where the same economy can show strong capex in strategic technology and weak real-income momentum in consumer-facing sectors.

Inflation has reopened through the energy channel. The OECD expects G20 inflation to rise from 3.4% in 2025 to 4.0% in 2026, then ease to 2.7% in 2027. In advanced G20 economies, headline inflation rises from 2.5% to 3.5% in 2026, while core inflation stays around 2.6% before easing in 2027. In the United States, higher energy prices more than offset the reduction in effective tariff rates, lifting projected headline inflation from 2.6% in 2025 to 4.2% in 2026.

The World Bank projects overall commodity prices to rise 16% in 2026, driven by energy, fertilizer, and several key metals. Its energy price index is forecast to rise 24% in 2026, reaching its highest level since the 2022 energy shock. The same forecast describes the 2026 energy move as a near 40% shock relative to January expectations. This means the macro forecast now depends on physical routing, spare production capacity, strategic reserves, and conflict duration.

The WTO projects a slowdown in global trade growth during 2026, while AI-related goods create an offsetting source of demand. Continued strength in AI-enabling goods trade could add 0.5 percentage points to world merchandise trade growth in 2026. This turns trade into a split system. Strategic technology flows remain strong, while energy-linked freight costs, security risks, insurance premia, and compliance barriers weigh on broader merchandise movement.

UNCTAD reports that non-tariff measures now impose higher export costs than tariffs for 88% of countries. In 2025, tariffs on exports rose 10% for developed economies, 16% for developing economies, and 18% for least-developed economies. For smaller exporters, technical regulations, certification requirements, sanitary rules, and product standards have become a larger obstacle than headline tariff rates.

Fiscal policy sits under pressure from the same shock structure. Finances entered 2026 with weak debt dynamics, while the Middle East war added a new source of pressure through energy disruption, tighter financial conditions, and demands for household support. Governments now face a narrow balance between cushioning the energy shock and preserving fiscal credibility. This is one reason the macro regime has become more state-driven. Defence spending, energy subsidies, industrial policy, reconstruction finance, and debt service all compete for the same fiscal space.

The result is a global economy that still expands, but expands through a narrower and more political channel. Growth depends on AI investment, defence production, energy substitution, and public-sector intervention. Inflation depends on chokepoints, commodity flows, and expectations. Trade depends on standards and strategic access. Financial stability depends on the capacity of bond markets to absorb larger public-sector needs. May 2026 therefore marks a shift from a classic business-cycle framework toward a security-constrained macro framework, where physical infrastructure, military risk, energy routing, and fiscal credibility determine the path of output and prices.

Energy and chokepoints

The Strait of Hormuz handled around 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products in 2025, close to 25% of world seaborne oil trade. The route also carried around 110 bcm of LNG, equal to almost one-fifth of global LNG trade. Qatar and the UAE sit at the centre of this exposure because around 93% of Qatar’s LNG exports and 96% of UAE LNG exports passed through Hormuz in 2025. This turns a local maritime disruption into a world pricing event because Asian utilities, European importers, petrochemical firms, airlines, refiners, and shipping operators compete for the same displaced molecules and cargoes.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE hold the main operational bypass capacity through pipelines that can redirect crude flows toward the Red Sea and Fujairah. The available rerouting capacity is estimated between 3.5 million and 5.5 million barrels per day, which covers only a fraction of normal Gulf export flows. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain remain tied to the Strait for most oil exports. The shock therefore prices the difference between gross energy supply and deliverable energy supply. A barrel inside the Gulf has a market value only when it can reach a buyer, pass through insurance, secure shipping, clear port risk, and arrive inside a refinery schedule.

The gas shock has a separate macro channel because LNG markets have thinner buffers than oil markets. The IEA estimates that transit disruption through Hormuz has reduced LNG supplies from Qatar and the UAE by more than 300 million cubic metres per day since 1 March, equal to more than 2 bcm per week. Ras Laffan, the world’s largest liquefaction facility, has been offline since the 2 March attack, while associated gas output has also been affected by oil-field shut-ins. This creates pressure on Asian spot LNG prices, European gas benchmarks, power prices, fertilizer costs, and industrial input prices.

Asia carries the largest direct import exposure. About 80% of oil and oil products moving through Hormuz in 2025 went to Asia, and almost 90% of LNG volumes exiting the Persian Gulf through the Strait also went to Asia. China, India, and Japan are among the main crude importers exposed to the route, with China and India together receiving 44% of crude exports passing through Hormuz. This gives the conflict an Asian growth channel. Energy-importing economies face higher import bills, weaker terms of trade, margin compression, and pressure on administered fuel systems.

Europe faces a different exposure. Its direct share of Gulf crude flows is smaller, with around 4% of the region’s crude routed into Europe, yet the price effect reaches Europe through global Brent pricing, LNG competition, electricity markets, aviation fuel, fertilizer, and industrial chemicals. The ECB describes the shock as a negative supply shock for the euro area because Hormuz affects LNG, refined products, aluminium, helium, sulphur, and fertilizers. These commodities enter the cost base of electricity, aircraft fuel, food production, manufacturing, construction, and strategic industries.

The inflation channel is visible in Europe’s April data. Euro area headline inflation rose to 3% in April, driven by a 10.9% increase in energy prices, while inflation excluding energy fell to 2.2%. This composition matters because the shock comes from imported energy and critical inputs rather than from broad domestic overheating. The ECB also reported longer delivery times, rising input costs, and supply shortages, with the latest observations for April 2026. That combination creates a policy dilemma because monetary policy can anchor expectations, while the physical shortage originates outside the domestic credit cycle.

The oil-price path remains the central market gauge. Brent averaged was $103 per barrel in March and expects a peak near $115 per barrel in the second quarter of 2026. The same outlook keeps a risk premium through the forecast period because supply disruption uncertainty keeps prices above pre-conflict levels. The forecast sees Brent moving below $90 in the fourth quarter of 2026 and averaging $76 in 2027, based on a gradual return of flows and lower shut-ins. This makes the forecast path contingent on shipping access, infrastructure damage, spare capacity, inventories, and diplomatic sequencing.

The Brent-WTI spread shows the geographic nature of the shock. The EIA states that the spread averaged $12 per barrel in March and peaks near $15 per barrel in April because Brent carries greater exposure to Middle East flows, shipping costs, and Asian consuming markets. This spread turns the conflict into a regional balance-sheet issue. U.S. refiners, European buyers, Asian utilities, Gulf exporters, and tanker owners experience the same conflict through different price curves.

The World Bank projects energy prices to rise 24% to their highest level since 2022. Overall commodity prices are forecast to rise 16%. Fertilizer prices are projected to increase 31%, driven by a 60% jump in urea prices. This links the Hormuz shock to food affordability because natural gas is a key feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers, while transport fuel affects every stage of agricultural logistics. The World Bank warns that prolonged conflict pressure could push up to 45 million more people into acute food insecurity.

The latest monthly commodity data reinforces the same direction. The World Bank’s May commodity update shows the energy price index rising 12.1% in April, driven by crude oil gains of 8.7%. Food prices edged up 1.5%, fertilizer prices jumped 14%, raw materials rose 2.5%, and metals gained 1.4%. These moves show that the energy shock has started to move across adjacent commodity baskets rather than staying isolated inside crude oil.

Strategic reserves can smooth the shock, but they cannot recreate Gulf export capacity. The market now prices the speed at which governments release reserves, the capacity of refineries to adapt crude slates, the availability of tankers, the cost of war-risk insurance, the integrity of pipelines, and the ability of Gulf producers to sustain production under threat. Saudi Aramco is warning that the oil market could lose around 100 million barrels per week if the disruptions continue at the current rate and Hormuz remains closed. This figure gives the shock a weekly depletion rhythm that matters for inventories, refinery planning, and political pressure.

Global trade

The global trade regime has moved into a split structure. One side carries the weight of tariffs, energy shocks, insurance costs, route risk, sanctions screening, and regulatory barriers. The other side carries the force of the AI capital cycle, where chips, servers, networking equipment, electrical systems, cooling units, data-centre components, and advanced manufacturing inputs keep crossing borders because artificial intelligence requires a large physical supply chain.

Merchandise trade volume is projected to fall from 4.6% growth in 2025 to 1.9% in 2026, then recover to 2.6% in 2027. Services trade volume is projected to ease from 5.3% in 2025 to 4.8% in 2026, then rise to 5.1% in 2027. Goods and services trade grew around 4.7% in 2025, above world GDP growth of 2.9%, while 2026 places trade growth near GDP growth. This means trade has shifted from an expansion phase to a filtering phase, where strategic sectors expand while broad merchandise flows face macro and policy friction.

The trade rebound came from two sources with different political meanings. First, companies brought imports forward ahead of expected tariff changes. Second, AI-related demand created a hardware boom across semiconductor supply chains, server systems, and electronic components. That combination lifted trade before the full impact of new policy barriers entered the system. The frontloading effect fades, while AI hardware demand remains a support factor. The result is a trade cycle where last year’s strength creates this year’s comparison problem, and where the quality of trade growth matters more than the headline number.

AI has become the strongest structural trade engine because it transforms digital demand into physical shipments. AI-enabling goods trade reached $4.18 trillion after 21.9% annual growth. These goods accounted for 42% of global trade growth, despite representing a smaller share of total merchandise trade. Asia remained the global hub with 62% of AI-related goods trade, while North America became the fastest-growing market and accounted for 16% of the total. This structure gives AI a geopolitical footprint because the model layer depends on the chip layer, the chip layer depends on capital equipment, and the equipment layer depends on minerals, power systems, logistics, and standards.

The earlier trade model rewarded low-cost production and efficient container movement. The current model rewards secure access to compute inputs, energy, advanced components, trusted suppliers, and export licenses. A server shipment now reflects a chain of permissions. It requires chips, memory, networking systems, cooling equipment, energy infrastructure, cybersecurity rules, and destination controls. Trade remains open in aggregate, while the strategic layer becomes more selective.

The tariff layer adds uncertainty to that selective structure. The OECD estimates that changes in U.S. bilateral tariff rates lowered the effective tariff rate on U.S. merchandise imports to 9.9%, compared with the 14% assumption used in its outlook. The same assessment describes a new 10 percentage point U.S. tariff applied across countries, with exclusions for sector-specific goods and exempted products, including many pharmaceuticals and semiconductor-related goods. This gives companies a changing tariff map where country exposure, product classification, exemption status, and origin rules shape sourcing choices.

The tariff map has a second effect, it extends planning risk. Firms can reroute supply chains around a tariff, but repeated rule changes alter inventory strategy, contract length, supplier selection, customs classification, and hedging costs. Trade policy now affects the working-capital cycle of companies. Importers carry more inventory when they expect border costs to rise. Exporters diversify buyers when access terms become unstable. Multinationals split production when rules of origin become strategic.

Regulatory barriers have become the deeper trade constraint. Tariffs rose by 10% for developed economies, 16% for developing economies, and 18% for least-developed economies. Yet regulatory trade measures now impose higher export costs than tariffs for 88% of countries. These measures include technical regulations, health and safety requirements, certification procedures, administrative rules, and product standards. They determine which firms can access a market, which goods qualify, and which producers can absorb the compliance cost.

This shifts the centre of trade policy from border taxes to rule architecture. A tariff is visible at the border. A product standard sits inside the production process. A certification rule affects testing capacity. A cybersecurity requirement affects software design. A carbon rule affects energy sourcing. A data rule affects cloud architecture. A rule-of-origin test affects supplier geography. For large firms, these rules become manageable costs. For smaller exporters, they become market-entry barriers.

Data shows the development impact of this rule-based trade system. Least-developed economies lose around 10% of their exports to G20 markets because firms lack the capacity to meet regulatory requirements. Smaller exporters face higher costs when local testing and certification facilities are scarce, since products require external verification before market entry. This creates a trade hierarchy based on compliance capacity. The firm with legal teams, testing access, documentation systems, and certification budgets enters the market. The firm with production capacity alone faces exclusion from high-value markets.

Regulatory convergence offers one of the largest trade gains inside the current system. Rules or recognizing standards can reduce regulatory-measure costs by 15% to 30%. In Africa, limited cooperation could reduce costs by 30% to 40% in sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing. This shows that trade expansion depends less on classical tariff cuts and more on mutual recognition, shared testing systems, transparent documentation, and regional standards architecture.

A country or bloc that defines safety rules, digital rules, carbon rules, product rules, payment rules, and certification rules can shape the direction of trade. The largest markets gain leverage because exporters adapt to their requirements. This creates a form of regulatory gravity. Producers build around the rulebook of the market they want to enter. Trade flows follow demand, but production systems follow standards.

The AI trade boom intensifies this regulatory gravity. AI hardware crosses borders, but each shipment sits inside controls on chips, cloud access, cybersecurity, data governance, model safety, export licensing, and critical minerals. The value of trade has moved toward goods that carry strategic meaning. A chip is a commercial product, a defence input, a data-centre component, a productivity asset, and a geopolitical lever. A server rack is infrastructure for commerce, surveillance, science, finance, and military logistics.

China’s role in this structure is central because manufacturing depth, mineral processing, component scale, and export capacity give it leverage across the trade stack. China uses rare earths and bilateral commercial agreements as tools of bargaining, while stressing that China’s financial strength still depends on exports and dollar inflows. That combination creates a system of conflict inside dependence. China gains leverage from supply-chain concentration. The United States gains leverage from demand, finance, technology standards, and security alliances. The trade regime becomes a negotiation over who controls the bottleneck.

For Europe, the same regime creates a strategic dilemma. European firms need AI hardware, cloud infrastructure, energy inputs, and export access. European regulators want sovereignty through rules, but the physical supply chain for AI and the energy shock sit outside Europe’s full control. This gives Europe strong influence over market access and weaker influence over upstream technology capacity. The result is a continent that can write standards, enforce compliance, and shape consumer-market rules, while depending on external actors for several inputs that define the next productivity cycle.

The investment implication is that trade exposure must be read through bottlenecks rather than through country labels alone. The relevant question is where a company sits inside the chain of controlled inputs, certification rules, tariff exposure, energy intensity, and AI infrastructure demand. A firm tied to AI hardware can benefit from the capex boom while facing export-license risk. A firm tied to consumer imports can face margin pressure from tariff shifts and freight costs. A firm selling into regulated markets can face growth limits from certification costs. Trade beta has become rule beta, energy beta, and bottleneck beta.

U.S.–China

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking on the image below.

INDEX

Internal anatomy of a good hypothesis

A genuine hypothesis has an internal structure. It defines when the claim begins, what market response should appear, and why that response should emerge. Its value comes from connecting activation, response, mechanism, and evidence into one coherent research object that can be tested, challenged, refined, and extended.

What’s inside:

1. Internal anatomy of a good hypothesis. The lecture presents a hypothesis as an organized structure whose parts must fit together.

2. The condition that activates the claim. A hypothesis begins by identifying the market state in which the effect should appear.

3. Trigger variable. The trigger translates pressure, dislocation, surprise, imbalance, or regime transition into a variable that can select relevant episodes.

4. State filter. The state filter places the trigger inside the right market environment.

5. Eligibility rule. The eligibility rule protects the empirical sample and decides which observations belong to the same research object by controlling for trading session, liquidity, data quality, structural breaks, and special distortions.

6. The response that defines the effect. A hypothesis must specify what should happen after activation.

7. Sign, magnitude, and timing. Sign defines direction, such as continuation, reversal, convergence, or divergence. Magnitude defines economic substance after costs and frictions. Timing defines the internal path of adjustment after the trigger appears.

8. The mechanism that explains the effect. The final part explains why the trigger should lead to the response.

Sample

1.96MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

Before you begin, remember that you have an index with the newsletter content organized by clicking below.

INDEX

From raw text streams to market trading signals

Text preprocessing in quantitative trading acts as an active signal-shaping operator rather than a passive data-cleaning routine. Splitting tokens, stripping punctuation, or deleting words directly alters the geometry of the feature space, changing the conditional expectation of forward returns and impacting strategy execution.

What’s inside:

1. Evaluating preprocessing as a signal operator: Preprocessing logic directly modifies input vectors, meaning every string transformation parameterizes the feature space and dictates what the classifier can observe.

2. Preventing semantic and structural failure modes: Unaligned text rules introduce structural risks, including semantic inversion from deleted negations, unstable feature representations across vendor feeds, and collapsed entity definitions.

3. Preserving entity meaning through canonicalization: Universal lowercasing acts as a destructive projection operator, merging distinct ticker symbols, corporate entities, and ordinary nouns into identical feature coordinates.

4. Defining typed token boundaries: Protected regular expressions preserve specialized financial spans, keeping currency pairs, percentages, and execution log values intact before standard tokenizers shatter them.

5. Protecting logical sign with targeted stopword filters: Retaining direction-governing terms like “not,” “under,” and “without” prevents semantic inversion in sentiment classification and stops false trade signals.

6. Validating morphological reduction under economic loss: Naive stemming merges distinct temporal and probabilistic risk states, making it necessary to distill contextual language model insights into deterministic lookup tables.

7. Combining multi-channel sparse and dense representations: Ensembling deterministic sparse vectors with dense contextual embeddings balances explicit, auditable feature attribution against abstract semantic interpretation.

Sample

759KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more