The Ibovespa has fallen roughly 11% in a single month, sliding from 197,107 points on April 20 to 174,279 by May 18. Foreign portfolio flow has flipped from the strongest accumulation pace since 2021 to a violent reversal: net foreign outflows of roughly R$23 billion from April 15 through May 18, an almost mechanical sale every single trading day of the window. EWZ has retraced. The Real has come under pressure on the back of the outflow. The five names I named have all repriced lower.

Because the answer matters. If the fundamental thesis is broken, you sell and you do not look back. If the price is broken but the thesis is intact, or, more interestingly, if the price is being broken by global factors that have nothing to do with Brazilian fundamentals, then you have just been handed a better entry into the same trade.

I will tell you upfront where this piece lands, so you can decide whether to keep reading: the thesis is not broken. The price is. And the disconnect is widening, not narrowing. What follows is the work.

A reminder on positioning: I write from inside the Brazilian market, not about it. São Paulo-based, watching the political news cycle in real time, reading the local press alongside the Bloomberg terminal, and, as I disclosed in the prior piece, a client of several of the institutions I cover. That ground-truth read is what allows me to separate the noise from the signal in moments like this, when foreign-media narratives and local reality drift apart.

Part I — What Actually Happened

Six things moved at once. None of them were Brazilian in origin and that’s the most important fact in this entire piece.

1. The Global Long End Broke Out

The defining macro event of the last 30 days is not Brazilian. It is the breakout in developed-market long bond yields.

• The US 30-year Treasury yield closed at 5.18% on May 19, briefly tagging 5.19% intraday, the highest level since July 2007, a 19-year high. The 10-year has moved from roughly 3.96% in February to 4.68% in May.

• The Japanese 30-year JGB yield broke 4% for the first time in a lot of years on May 15, peaking at 4.205%, a structural rupture in a market that has anchored global term premia for two decades.

• French OATs and UK Gilts at the 30-year point are at multi-decade highs in their own right.

  

This is not a US story. This is a synchronized global repricing of duration, driven by a confluence: persistent fiscal slippage in the major sovereigns, oil-driven inflation impulse from the Iran conflict, the Sanae Takaichi administration’s fiscal expansion in Japan and a Bank of America fund manager survey showing 62% of respondents now expect the 30-year Treasury to hit 6%, the highest expectations reading since late 1999.

Why this matters for Brazil: when the risk-free long end repricies higher, the hurdle rate on every EM allocation rises with it. A foreign investor looking at a Brazilian Interest Rate of 14.50% does the math against a 5.18% 30-year Treasury, not a 4.50% one. The carry premium compresses. The currency hedging cost moves. The decision to own Brazil instead of duration in your own currency gets recomputed in real time and a lot of seats made the same recomputation at the same time.

2. The Iran War Refuses to End

In Iran War: Three Scenarios I sketched the paths this conflict could take and the macro implications of each. Two months in, what we have is the worst combination for global risk assets: a fragile ceasefire that keeps unravelling, with oil refusing to settle. Brent has been whipsawing between roughly $100 and $115 per barrel through May, and every flare-up in Hormuz repricies the global inflation curve in the wrong direction.

This feeds back directly into Point 1: the longer oil stays elevated, the longer the term premium has to stay in the long end of every developed-market sovereign curve. The Trump administration keeps signalling a near-term resolution; the negotiations keep dragging. The market is now positioned for the bad-case duration on this conflict, not the good-case.

3. The S&P 500’s “All-Time High” Is a Mirage

This one matters because it explains where the marginal global capital is and is not going.

The S&P 500 has continued to print at or near all-time highs through this drawdown elsewhere. On the surface, that signals risk-on appetite. Underneath the surface, breadth has collapsed, which I didn’t anticipate.

• The Magnificent 7 now account for roughly 35% of the S&P 500’s market capitalization, up from 12.5% a decade ago.

• On May 11 alone, 46 individual S&P 500 names hit a 52-week low, on the same day the index sat near record highs.

• New 12-month lows are running roughly 235 versus 120 new 12-month highs across US listings. That is a bear market in two-thirds of the index masquerading as a bull market in the headline.

This is the central tape illusion of 2026: the index is being held up mostly by seven names and the AI capex cycle continues to drain global capital into those seven names. When MAG7 earnings rip, every other US name and every other foreign market gets thinned. Brazil, a market with no AI exposure, a heavy commodity tilt and a 14.50% policy rate was always going to be on the receiving end of that capital rotation when momentum re-asserted in late April.

4. Brazilian Politics Took a Hard Hit

This is the one that is local and it matters more than the foreign press has fully digested.

In the original Brazil Setup I flagged the 2026 presidential election as a potential fiscal reset catalyst: polling had consistently shown the center-right opposition ahead, and the leading opposition candidates had built their platforms on fiscal orthodoxy. The market was pricing a non-trivial probability of a regime change that would stabilize the debt trajectory.

That probability just got marked down. Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, until recently a meaningful contender in opposition polling, has been drawn into a scandal involving Banco Master and its former owner Daniel Vorcaro, who has been criminally charged with fraud. The Atlas poll commissioned by Bloomberg confirms it: Bolsonaro’s support has dropped sharply in the latest read.

I want to be careful here, because this is exactly the kind of nuance foreign coverage tends to flatten: the opposition is not Flávio Bolsonaro alone. There are other candidates. The center-right structural setup has not collapsed. But the probability-weighted expectation of a fiscally orthodox 2027 administration has been re-rated lower, and the market has priced that adjustment immediately. The election is still five months away. A lot can happen. But the easy “the opposition wins, fiscal stabilizes” call is harder to make today than it was 30 days ago.

5. The Carry Math Got Worse

Combine Point 1 and Point 4 and you get the third-order effect: the carry trade narrative that brought R$54 billion of foreign capital into B3 between January and March suddenly looks less compelling.

The numbers track this almost perfectly. Foreign flow into B3 in 2026:

• January: +R$26.5 billion (largest monthly inflow since January 2022)

• February: +R$15 billion

• March: +R$11 billion

• April: +R$3 billion (sharp deceleration)

• April 15 – May 18: roughly -R$23 billion (sustained, almost daily, outflow)

What changed in late April? Not Brazilian fundamentals, since Brazilian companies delivered first-quarter results that exceeded market expectations, lifted by still-strong economic activity at home and a better-than-expected rebound among exporters, despite rising costs continued to weigh on profit margins. The Treasury 30-year moved from roughly 4.50% to 5.18%. The JGB long end broke 4%. Iran refused to settle. The Flávio Bolsonaro story broke. Each one, on its own, marginal. Stacked, they re-rated the opportunity cost of being long Brazil for every global allocator simultaneously. When the long end of risk-free duration pays 5%-plus and the Bank of America survey says 62% expect 6%, the question “does Selic at 14.50% compensate me for FX risk plus fiscal risk?” gets a different answer than it did in January.

6. The Domestic Capital Quietly Stepped In

This is the part of the data that foreign press is missing entirely, and that I think is the most underappreciated signal in the market right now.

Through the same window of foreign outflows, Brazilian domestic capital has been a net buyer every single day. The B3 retail-investor data shows a 100% positive day count over 19 sessions from April 20 to May 18, with net domestic retail inflows of R$6.82 billion. Institutional flows tell a similar story.

Let me restate that, because it is the kind of detail that gets lost: retail investors in Brazil, historically allergic to equities, hammered by a 14.50% risk-free alternative, have bought stocks on every single one of the last 19 trading days. And institutional money has joined them. The foreigner is selling. The local is buying. Vigorously.

There is exactly one way to read that price action: the people closest to the assets see something the marginal foreign seller does not. That doesn’t mean they are right. But in my experience, when local money is accumulating into a foreign-led selloff in a market that is already trading at a deep discount to its global peers, that is signal, not noise.

Part II — Why This Sets Up Better, Not Worse

Here is the part that matters for the thesis.

The Macro Drivers Are Global, Not Brazilian

Look back at the six factors above. Number 1 is global. Number 2 is global. Number 3 is global. Number 5 is the second-order effect of 1 and 2. Number 6 is positive.

Only Number 4, the political reprice, is genuinely Brazilian in origin. And even there, the read is: the probability of a fiscal-reset catalyst has been marked down, not eliminated. The base case for Brazilian fiscal sustainability never required Flávio Bolsonaro specifically; it required any outcome that re-anchored expectations on the spending framework. That path is narrower today but not closed.

Five-sixths of what hit the tape was imported. If you believed Brazil at 197,000 points was an attractive structural long because of strategic endowments, real-rate asymmetry, valuation gap, and chokepoint-free commodity exposure, none of those facts changed in the last 30 days. The earnings season for Brazilian large caps in Q1 actually came in constructive. The interest rate was cut from 14.75% to 14.50% on April 29, deepening the easing cycle by another 25 basis points. The companies are operating as advertised.

The price moved. The fundamentals did not.

Cheap Got Cheaper

This is where the math becomes interesting. The forward multiples on the names I highlighted in Brazil Setup were already at the low end of the global cross-section. After an 11% drawdown in the index, with high-beta names selling off more, they are now extreme. Some snapshots from current screens:

• Itaú Unibanco (ITUB) — trailing P/E in the 8x range, dividend yield around 8%, on a franchise that prints 20%+ ROE through the cycle. There is no major bank globally with that combination.

• Banco BTG Pactual — trading below 10x P/L, which for a top-tier investment bank with a structurally growing wealth-management franchise is rare.

• Nu Holdings (NU) — P/L near 12x, the lowest multiple in the stock’s listed history. A growth franchise being priced as a mature one.

• Construction sector — broadly 4.5x to 6x earnings, dividend yields in the 10% area, with an interest rate that has started to come down and book value still compounding.

• Petrobras (PBR) — still operating at a 60% discount to the Western majors, now with even more cushion built into the multiple after the recent retracement.

I want to flag the obvious counterpoint immediately: cheap can get cheaper. The lesson of every credit-tightening cycle is that compressed multiples can compress further when global liquidity exits. The market doesn’t ring a bell at the bottom. None of the above is a “buy the index tomorrow” call.

But here is the second-level frame: when you are owning a top-three Brazilian private bank at 8x earnings with an 8% dividend yield, you are not being paid to time the bottom. You are being paid to wait. The carry is real. The earnings power is real. The moat is real. And the marginal seller is a foreign allocator reacting to a Treasury yield, not to a Brazilian earnings miss. That mismatch is precisely the kind of dislocation that compounds well over multi-year windows.

The Domestic Bid Is a New Variable

I want to come back to Point 6 because I think it is structurally important and underweighted in the foreign discussion.

For most of the last decade, the Brazilian retail investor stayed out of equities. The reasons were rational: a brutal 2015-2016 recession, the impeachment, the 2018-2022 fiscal noise, and most importantly a real yield on government paper that paid you double digits in many windows for doing nothing. Why own stocks when Tesouro Selic paid 12%-plus with no volatility?

What is happening now is, in slow motion, a regime shift. With the easing cycle underway, the marginal saver is starting to look past the front of the curve. Retail equity buying for 19 consecutive sessions is not a normal observation in Brazilian market history. It coincides with a broader trend: pension fund allocations to equities slowly rising, family offices reducing their overweight in fixed income, and a steady stream of corporate dividend announcements bringing yield-seeking domestic capital into the equity market.

This is exactly the kind of structural rotation that creates a floor under valuations independent of foreign flow. If the foreign seller is the marginal price-setter on the way down, the domestic buyer is the marginal price-setter on the way back up. We may be watching the handover in real time.

The Credit Backdrop Deserves Honest Disclosure

I want to be straight about the bear case, because the global credit picture is genuinely worse than it was 30 days ago and that deserves to be priced.

Brazilian banks raised loan-loss provisions by 22.7% to R$170.2 billion at the four largest names in the latest reporting cycle. Corporate debt in active renegotiation in Brazil has reached approximately R$670 billion, roughly 10% of total corporate credit stock, equivalent to about USD 116 billion at current rates. That is not nothing. With the interest rate at 14.50% and risk spreads on top, effective corporate borrowing rates run 20-25% for healthy companies and 30%-plus for distressed ones. The longer its stays elevated, the more this number grows.

The US distressed credit picture is no better: tech sector distressed debt alone reached roughly $46.9 billion by early February, and Apollo’s flagship BDC has seen non-accrual loans triple year-over-year from roughly $48.5 million to $167 million. Fitch puts the US private credit default rate at 5.8%, the highest in years. This is one of the threads I have been pulling on across the publication: the private credit and leveraged-loan ecosystem is starting to crack and the cracks compound when the long end of the curve refuses to come back down.

Why is this in the Brazil piece? Because credit cycles are the variable that turns “cheap” into “cheaper-for-longer.” Brazilian banks are well-capitalized and have weathered worse, but the longer high rates stay in the system globally, the higher the tail risk on the corporate credit cycle. This is a risk I would underwrite explicitly when sizing the trade, it is not a reason to avoid it, but it is a reason to scale in rather than back up the truck.

Part III — What I’d Actually Do

Three honest reads on positioning. I’ll keep this short because the work is in Parts I and II.

1. The long-term setup is more attractive than it was 30 days ago, not less. Strategic endowments, real-rate asymmetry, no chokepoint risk, functioning democracy, an easing cycle underway, and now an 11% lower entry point. That is a strictly better risk/reward than the April version of the same trade, provided you can stomach the path.

2. The short-term tape is hostile and likely to remain so until at least one of three things changes: (a) the US long end stabilizes, (b) the Iran conflict resolves or escalates definitively, or (c) Brazilian political polling reconverges around a credible fiscal-orthodoxy candidate. None of those is imminent. The bottom is rarely a date you can mark on a calendar.

3. Scale in. Don’t time it. The names that were attractive at 197,000 are more attractive at 174,000. They will be even more attractive if we see 165,000. The right posture, in my view, is tranched entry, a first tranche now, defined add-on triggers at lower levels, and discipline around position sizing. The Howard Marks lesson applies here as much as anywhere: the time to be aggressive is when the consensus has turned defensive. We are in that zone, not at the bottom of it.

A specific honest admission: I do not know when the selling stops. Anyone who tells you they do is selling something. What I do know is that asymmetric setups get more asymmetric as price moves against the consensus while fundamentals hold. That description fits Brazil better today than it did at the publication of the original piece.

Final Thought: The Setup Got Better Because the Price Got Worse

The most useful thing you can do as an investor, most days, is separate the signal from the price action. The Brazilian market is selling off because the global cost of capital just repriced higher and a political probability got marked down. It’s not selling off because Brazilian companies missed earnings, the easing cycle reversed, fiscal slipped further, or the commodity complex broke.

When the price moves against you on factors that are external to your thesis, the right question is not “should I sell?” The right question is “is the thesis still true at a better price?” In this case, my honest answer is yes, with the credit-cycle caveat above honestly priced into how you size it.

I would rather buy Itaú at 8x earnings and 8% yield with a foreign-led selloff in progress than buy Itaú at 10x and a thinner yield with everyone agreeing it’s a great trade. The hardest moments are usually the most profitable ones and the consensus rarely walks you to the entry.

For now: the foreigner is leaving, the local is buying, the fundamentals are intact and the discount has widened. That is the trade.

What’s your read on the disconnect? Are you adding into the drawdown, waiting for the long end to stabilize or staying out until the political picture clears? The best conversations on this publication happen when allocators with different time horizons and frameworks weigh in — drop your view in the comments.

Disclaimer: The content of this publication is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. All investment decisions should be made in consultation with a qualified financial advisor, based on individual circumstances and risk tolerance. Valuation multiples and yield figures cited are illustrative and as-of-recent; investors should verify current data before acting. The author may hold positions in some of the securities discussed.

For the first time in decades, a sitting U.S. President spent nearly two years in open warfare with his own central bank chief, threatening him, investigating him, publicly humiliating him and ultimately succeeded in replacing him with a hand-picked successor. The question markets are now pricing in real time is not whether Warsh is smart (he is) or experienced (he is). The question is whether the institution he now leads still means what it once meant.

That question has a dollar sign attached to it. And a yield. And a risk premium on every asset class in the world.

How We Got Here

Let’s be clear about what happened over the last 18 months, because the mainstream narrative has already begun softening it.

Trump didn’t just criticize Powell, a ritual every president performs in private. He did it loudly, repeatedly, and with institutional force. He publicly demanded rate cuts while inflation data was still ambiguous. He allowed an investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia into Powell over the renovation of the Fed’s headquarters, a probe that was eventually closed, but only after the message had been sent. He made clear that his vision for the Federal Reserve was one subordinated, at least partially, to his economic agenda.

Powell’s response was a masterclass in institutional maneuvering. When his term as chair ended on May 15, he declined to vacate his seat as a governor, a position that runs through January 2028. The move was deliberate and well understood in Washington: four open governor seats would have given Trump a working majority on the seven-member Board, enough to influence not just rate decisions but the appointment of regional Fed presidents who rotate on the FOMC. By staying on the board, Powell denied Trump that majority.

“My concern is really about the series of legal attacks which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors,” Powell said in late April. Remarkable words from a sitting Fed chair, essentially a public warning label attached to the institution he was about to leave.

The warning label is now Warsh’s problem.

Who Is Kevin Warsh?

Warsh is not a central banker by academic training. He’s a lawyer and financier who served as a Fed governor during the Bush and early Obama years, and was in the room during the 2008 financial crisis, one of the most consequential periods in modern monetary history. That experience is genuine and significant.

Intellectually, Warsh has long been positioned as a hawk. He opposed quantitative easing earlier and more vocally than his colleagues, arguing that the Fed’s balance sheet expansion was distorting asset prices and creating moral hazard rather than truly healing the economy. He was right about some of it. He was also early, sometimes too early, which in markets is indistinguishable from being wrong.

But Warsh in 2026 is subtly different from the hawkish caricature. At his Senate confirmation hearing in April, he called for “regime change” at the Fed, a phrase that sent ripples through bond desks, but his actual policy prescriptions were more nuanced than the headline suggested.

On the Fed’s 2% inflation target, he questioned whether a hard numerical anchor was the right framework, suggesting instead that success looks like “a change in prices such that no one’s talking about it.” That’s philosophically interesting but operationally ambiguous. Markets don’t like ambiguous. Markets price ambiguity with a premium, and premiums show up in yields.

On the balance sheet, Warsh was explicit: the Fed’s $7 trillion-plus portfolio has been “unhelpful” to achieving the dual mandate, and he favors a more aggressive transition to a passive role. That means less accommodation, less Fed backstop, more reliance on the interest rate tool, which he called “fairer” because it “gets in the cracks.”

On independence, he said the magic words, “strictly independent in the making of monetary policy”, but added a qualifier that Wall Street noticed immediately: he is willing to cooperate with the White House and Congress on “non-monetary matters.” The distinction between monetary and non-monetary matters at a central bank is, in practice, often paper-thin.

The Warsh Paradox

Here is the core tension that markets will be navigating for the next 12 to 18 months.

Warsh is by disposition hawkish, skeptical of easy money, skeptical of balance sheet expansion, skeptical of the 2% target as a rigid ceiling. Under a normal political configuration, a Warsh Fed would likely run tighter policy than the market expects, support a stronger dollar, and keep long yields elevated. That’s a headwind for risk assets and a tailwind for the dollar.

But Trump nominated Warsh precisely because he believed Warsh would be more accommodating to the administration’s desire for lower rates. Trump’s fiscal agenda, tax cuts, deficit spending, debt refinancing at scale, requires a cooperative Fed. The U.S. Treasury must roll over roughly $10 trillion in debt over the next 12 months. A Fed that pushes back on that with high rates is not Trump’s friend.

So who does Warsh actually serve?

His own convictions, or the political reality that put him in the chair?

This is not a rhetorical question. It is the central pricing question for global rates, the dollar, and risk assets for the foreseeable future. And the honest answer is: we don’t know yet.

What we do know is that every major central bank independence failure in history produced the same sequencing: first, political pressure; then, a “cooperative” chair; then, an inflation overshoot that proved far more expensive to reverse than the short-term gains were worth.

What This Means for Markets

Let’s translate the institutional analysis into what actually moves portfolios.

The dollar. The greenback’s status as the world’s reserve currency is not just about economic size, it’s about institutional credibility. When the Fed was seen as independent, foreign investors accepted lower yields on Treasuries as the price of holding the world’s safest asset. If Warsh’s Fed is perceived as politically accommodated, even partially, the risk premium on dollar-denominated assets rises. The dollar has already fallen approximately 10% over the past 12 months. The trajectory is not unrelated to this credibility erosion.

Long yields. The 30-year Treasury is testing 5%. The 10-year is near 4.4%. Markets are simultaneously pricing in fiscal excess (the $2+ trillion deficit, $10 trillion in refinancing), geopolitical uncertainty, and now institutional uncertainty at the Fed. A Warsh Fed that surprises to the hawkish side could actually stabilize long yields. A Warsh Fed that flinches on rate cuts under political pressure would likely see the long end reprice sharply higher, not because of growth, but because of inflation expectations.

Gold. Central banks globally bought 420 tonnes of gold in Q1 2026 alone, shattering all records. This is not speculative excess. This is sovereign portfolio managers diversifying away from dollar-denominated assets in response to precisely the kind of institutional uncertainty we are describing. Gold above $4,600/oz is in part a verdict on the Fed’s credibility trajectory.

Risk assets. Equity markets have largely looked through this transition, anchored by the AI earnings cycle and the belief that Warsh will ultimately ease, whether because he wants to or because he has to. That bet is not obviously wrong. But the tail risk is asymmetric: if inflation re-accelerates and Warsh hesitates to act because of political optics, the repricing would be severe.

The Bigger Picture

Here is the meta-thesis that ties everything together.

Central bank independence is an asset. It has a value. It’s priced into spreads, into exchange rates, into the risk premiums that the world charges the United States for the privilege of borrowing in its own currency.

The U.S. has been drawing down on that asset for the past two years. Whether the account is fully depleted depends on what Warsh does in his first 6 to 12 months. The early signals, his “regime change” language, his willingness to engage on non-monetary matters, his ambiguous stance on the 2% target, suggest a Fed that is evolving its communication style as much as its policy substance.

Powell, for his part, is not going quietly. Staying on the board was a statement. His “unprecedented legal attacks” comment was a statement. He is positioning himself as the institutional memory inside a board that may be under political pressure. Whether that matters depends on how the votes line up and how much spine the remaining governors show.

Markets are right to watch this closely. The transition from Powell to Warsh is not just a human resources event at a large bureaucracy. It’s a live experiment in whether the norms that underpin the global financial architecture can survive a sustained political assault, or whether they require the kind of constitutional protection that the U.S. never thought to provide.

The answer will be written in yields, exchange rates, and inflation prints over the next 18 months.

What do you think? Will Warsh prove to be genuinely independent or will political gravity eventually bend his policy decisions? And what does a politicized Fed mean for your portfolio positioning? Drop your take in the comments.

Disclosure: This is not investment advice. All views expressed are the author’s own analysis and are provided for informational and educational purposes only.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I have spent the last couple of weeks reading every line of the EWZS (iShares MSCI Brazil Small-Cap ETF) holdings, the sell-side notes, a bunch of newsletters circulating through Faria Lima (brazilian financial district). Almost nobody is writing about what is actually on the other side of the bid. So I will.

The thesis is simple. There is a structural reason this gap exists. That reason is not deteriorating fundamentals at the company level. And the catalyst for the unwind is mechanical, domestic and already in motion.

Below, the five names where I think the variant perception pays. There’s many more ones, I’m sure, but I want to highlight the ones that I think are more interesting.

Caveat upfront, small caps require patience, governance diligence and position sizing that respects illiquidity. None of these names are layups. All of them, in my read, are mispriced.

The Two-Tier Tape

Brazilian equity markets have been running on two engines since 2024.

Engine one is foreign flow into the Ibovespa mega-caps. Vale, Petrobras, Itaú, Bradesco, Banco do Brasil, Eletrobras, Sabesp, plus a handful of others. Combined, these names absorb roughly 85% of net foreign equity flow into Brazil. The reason is not analytical preference, it is mechanical. ADR liquidity, index inclusion, ADTV thresholds, prime broker comfort and the simple fact that an EM PM running a $300mn book physically cannot move position size in or out of a R$30mn ADTV name without telegraphing the trade.

Engine two is everything below the top 20 by market cap. Liquidity falls off a cliff at roughly the R$50mn ADTV mark. Below that line, foreign capital simply does not arrive in size. So liquidity stays thin. So the discount widens.

This is what makes the spread structural rather than cyclical. The IBOV/SMLL gap does not close because the small-cap stories got better. It closes when domestic flow rotates back into them.

That rotation is about to start.

The Mechanism Of The Discount

Look at the raw flow data. Net foreign inflow into Brazilian equities has been positive every quarter since mid-2024. Almost none of it touches names below the IBOV top 20.

EWZS is the technically correct vehicle for foreign small-cap exposure. Its AUM is a rounding error compared to EWZ. The bid is not there at scale.

Chicken and egg. Foreigners cannot arrive in size until liquidity improves. Liquidity will not improve until someone arrives.

The unlock is almost always domestic. Local pension funds and family offices reduce interest rate weighting as the central bank’s easing cycle deepens and that money rotates into equities. They start with what they know, EWZS components, mid-caps with reasonable governance, names where due diligence is straightforward. Then foreign flow follows the move, six to twelve months late.

If you understand the sequence, the question becomes: where do you want to be when the rotation starts?

What’s Inside The Discount

EWZS is not a high-beta junk basket. It’s a barbell.

Roughly 35% of the index is domestic consumption, such as apparel, cash-and-carry, malls and cosmetics. About 25% is regulated infrastructure and utilities such as transmission, sanitation, and gas. The remaining 40% is split across financials, materials, healthcare and a long tail of mid-cap industrials.

That structure matters. The same interest rate easing cycle that lifts consumption names also compresses real rates against the regulated yield names. You are not picking a direction. You are picking the part of the barbell with the cleanest variant view.

Five names, five different macro stories. None at peer-premium multiples. All structurally cheaper than what the underlying earnings imply.

The Vehicle: What EWZS Actually Is

If you are a foreign allocator reading this, before you size into it, understand what you are buying. EWZS tracks the MSCI Brazil Small-Cap Index and carries roughly $330mn in AUM. Expense ratio around 0.59% (normal for EM small-cap). Inception October 2010. Holdings count approximately 70–90 names. Currency exposure unhedged BRL.

The top 10 EWZS holdings represent approximately 33.6% of the fund. Two of our five picks sit in the EWZS top 10, Lojas Renner (LREN3) at #2, Allos (ALOS3) at #4. Vulcabras (VULC3). Cosan (CSAN3) and Smart Fit (SMFT3) sit in the fund, but deeper in the holdings stack. Weights drift with quarterly rebalancing.

Typically heavy in consumer discretionary (apparel and retail), real estate (malls and homebuilders), financials (mid-cap banks and fintechs), and materials. Light in energy and large-cap utilities, those live in EWZ. The barbell structure described before is preserved inside the vehicle, just shifted slightly toward consumption.

EWZS sits at the intersection of two facts. First, it’s the only practical foreign vehicle for Brazilian small-cap exposure. Second, its AUM is a small fraction of EWZ, roughly 10% of its size. That gap between theoretical access and practical usage is exactly what the spread is telling you.

When EWZS AUM starts inflecting up, you will know the rotation is real.

Subscribe now

Five Interesting Names

Five single-stock ideas that express different angles of the Brazil small cap thesis: large apparel retailer (Renner), mall operator (Allos), a turnaround case (Cosan), athletic footwear maker (Vulcabras) and a fitness chain (Smart Fit).

For each, I am focused on strengths, why they are ownable now and the challenges they are facing now, so you are not buying blind.

1. Lojas Renner (LREN3): Brazil's largest apparel retailer

The thesis: Quality compounder priced as if it were melting under e-commerce pressure that has not materialized. Same-store sales recovered through 2025; Interest rate easing is the mechanical tailwind on a 100% domestic-revenue retailer with 15%+ ROE through cycle.

Strengths: Largest scale player in a fragmented domestic apparel market, top-five players control under 25%. In-house design teams, vertically integrated supply chain with São Paulo and Northeast factory partnerships, distribution centers that no new entrant can replicate at greenfield cost. Strongest omnichannel execution in domestic apparel. Brand equity that survived the marketplace era. Disciplined capital allocation. Private-label financial services arm contributes meaningful EBITDA.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~10x

• Forward P/E: ~9x

• EV/EBITDA: ~5x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~6.5%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: net cash

• ROE: ~14%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• C&A ~7x

• Arezzo ~16x

• Inditex ~22x

• H&M ~18x

• Fast Retailing ~28x

The MOAT: Scale economics in a fragmented market, every basis point of share concentration accrues to Renner. Vertically integrated fast-fashion model nobody else has built at this scale in Brazil. Switching cost on the supplier side is meaningful. Brand equity reinforced by 100+ years of retail history.

Howard Marks Lens: E-commerce penetration in Brazilian apparel is still 15%, against 40%+ in the US and 30%+ in China. Penetration growth has decelerated since 2022 because Brazilian shopping is social, the climate favors malls year-round, and same-day delivery economics fail outside major capitals. Renner sits squarely in despondency phase, a quality compounder priced for structural decline that is not happening.

Key Challenge to Flag: Renner has its own financial arm that historically boosts returns during healthy consumption cycles but acts as a beta multiplier during downturns. If Brazilian unemployment rises again or real interest rates remain restrictive for longer than expected, delinquency rates will climb faster than retail margins can absorb. This is the primary swing factor for earnings and the reason why the 2026E P/E multiple of 9x hasn't re-rated yet despite the recovery in Same-Store Sales (SSS). The market is still pricing in the underlying risk of the financial portfolio.

RSI & Entry Timing: RSI 4-week mid-30s on recent sessions. Oversold, not yet capitulation. Reasonable starter zone for layered accumulation, leg in over the next 4–6 weeks rather than full-size at print.

Why Now: Q1 2026 print should confirm the same-store-sales recovery already visible in 2H 2025. Each 100bps of Selic cut translates to lower consumer financing rates and stronger realize unit economics. With the Central Bank easing already underway, the macro setup is more supportive than it has been in three years and the multiple has not moved.

2. Allos (ALOS3): Brazil's largest mall operator

The thesis: Best variant-perception trade in Brazilian equities. Foreign allocators map Brazilian malls onto US dead-mall narratives, completely wrong read. Class A urban centers in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro cannot be replicated, foot traffic is at or above 2019 levels, occupancy is 96%+, and real-rate compression is rocket fuel for a leveraged mall REIT-equivalent.

Strengths: Irreplaceable real estate in Brazil's wealthiest urban catchments, Aliansce Sonae portfolio plus brMalls Class A centers. Largest GLA in the country post-merger. Network effects with anchor tenants. Inflation-indexed rents (IGP-M / IPCA mix) provide structural revenue protection. Merger synergies still being captured, operating leverage to come from cost line as integration matures.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~18x

• Forward P/E: ~15x

• EV/EBITDA: ~7.5x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~6%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: ~1.7x

• ROE: ~7%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Multiplan ~12x

• Iguatemi ~10x

• Simon Property ~13x

• Fibra Uno (MX) ~11x

• Parque Arauco (CL) ~13x

The MOAT: Irreplaceable land bank, the best mall locations in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro cannot be reproduced because the land does not exist and zoning makes new construction effectively impossible. Anchor-tenant network effects compound. Switching cost for retailers is high once they have built out a presence. Inflation pass-through baked into lease structures.

Key Challenge to Flag: Allos is a leveraged operator with a inflation linked revenue, the spread between the real yield curve (NTN-Bs) and the malls’ cap rate is literally what drives the thesis. If the Central Bank needs to reverse easing due to fiscal slippage, the real curve steepens, cap rates rise, and the NPV of the malls’ long-term revenues mechanically compresses, even before any operational deterioration occurs. Allos is more sensitive to the real yield curve than to the quality of the malls themselves. The risk here is macro, not micro.

Howard Marks Lens: Malls are compounding NOI. In Brazil, the mall is the primary social and commercial venue in any city above 100k people, climate-controlled in a tropical country, security-intensive in a country where street retail carries real risk premium and the destination for a middle class that does not have disposable income for alternative leisure formats. Foot traffic in Class A Brazilian malls sits at or above 2019 levels. Variant view holds.

RSI & Entry Timing: RSI 4-week 38–42 . Below historical median, not at oversold extreme yet. Patient entry, accumulate on weakness rather than chase.

Why Now: Real-rate compression as interest rate eases is mechanical relief on the financial cost line. Merger synergies should crystallize through 2026 in operating margin. The market still discounts execution risk, every quarterly print that shows occupancy holding above 95% and integration costs declining narrows that discount. The first clean post-integration year is 2026.

3. Cosan (CSAN): a turnaround case of a conglomerate producer of bioethanol, sugar and energy

The thesis: Forced-deleveraging turnaround. The holding company is priced as if it might not survive. The underlying assets (Rumo, Compass, Raízen and Moove) are best-in-class infrastructure businesses compounding through the cycle. Interest rate easing + non-core asset sales close the gap mechanically. Highest-risk, highest-payoff name on this list.

Strengths: The portfolio. Rumo holds the Centro-Sul rail concession, the artery for soybean/corn export from MT/MS to the Santos Port, three-decade contract life remaining, effectively a regulated monopoly. Compass is a regulated gas distribution monopoly in São Paulo (formerly Comgás) that will make its IPO this year and it’s a business that is the best of the portfolio, very high dividend payer and generates tons of cash. Raízen is the world's largest ethanol producer with scale economics nobody else can match. Moove is a niche-quality lubricants exporter. Active management of the portfolio, non-core asset sales already signaled.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~0

• Forward P/E: ~6x

• EV/EBITDA: ~7x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~5%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: ~5x

• ROE: ~-30%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Ultrapar ~9x

• Vibra ~10x

• Brookfield Infra ~16x

• Raizen ~0x

• Rumo ~18x

The MOAT: Asset-level moats are exceptional. Regulated monopolies (Compass and Rumo concession), global scale leadership (Raizen ethanol). Holding-level moat is structural access to capital markets and operational track record. The variant view is that the market is mispricing the holding because of leverage, not because of asset quality.

Key Challenge to Flag: Dilutive equity issuance. This is the ticker’s biggest risk and what keeps the discount wide. If the holding’s deleveraging happens via a secondary offering, the current equity holder takes a material dilution and at depressed prices, value destruction becomes permanent. The market is currently pricing in this probability. The positive catalyst (revaluation) only flips if the next sequence of moves is: non-core asset sale → debt reduction → extraordinary dividend distribution. Any signal to the contrary (capital increase, follow-on) mechanically destroys the thesis. The next quarterly releases must be scrutinized specifically on this point.

Howard Marks Lens: Management has signaled non-core sales, the Selic easing cycle delivers mechanical relief on financial cost (every 100bps of cuts removes hundreds of millions of reais of annual interest expense at the holding), and the underlying assets continue to compound. Holding discount of 30–40% against estimated NAV is the second-level math.

RSI & Entry Timing: Deep oversold readings repeatedly through Q1 2026. Setting up the kind of capitulation print that often marks the bottom in leverage-driven sell-offs. Position sizing should respect the binary nature, start smaller than you would on a quality compounder, add on confirmation of asset-sale execution.

Why Now: Two converging catalysts: interest rates easing relieves financial cost mechanically and non-core asset sales crystallize NAV. The first clean asset-sale announcement in 2026 should re-rate the SOTP discount aggressively. Risk is dilutive equity issuance instead of asset sales. Read the next two quarterly reports closely before sizing aggressively.

4. Vulcabras (VULC3): Brazil's largest athletic footwear maker

The thesis: A 22-consecutive-quarter revenue growth Brazilian compounder trading at low double-digit forward P/E because foreign allocators do not know it exists. Brazil's domestic athletic footwear consumption is structurally growing, Olympikus is the #1 sneaker brand in the country by unit volume and the Mizuno + Under Armour Brazil licenses quietly compound alongside it. ROE near 24%, ROIC of 27%, virtually zero net debt and a forward P/E of ~10.7x.

Strengths: Olympikus dominance in domestic athletic footwear, the brand is the default mass-market sneaker in Brazil. Vertically integrated manufacturing. License portfolio: Mizuno Brasil and Under Armour Brasil are exclusive long-term licenses, with Vulcabras manufacturing and distributing both for the entire Brazilian market. Premium positioning without the brand-building investment. Azaleia recovery contributing through 2025. R$2bn equity base supports the dividend agenda; net debt is virtually zero. 22 consecutive quarters of revenue growth; 2025 revenue +16.7% to R$4.2bn; full-year EBITDA +13% to R$763M.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~9x

• Forward P/E: ~10x

• EV/EBITDA: ~7.5x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~14%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: Net cash

• ROE: ~24%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Alpargatas ~14x

• Grendene ~12x

• Nike ~26x

• Adidas ~30x

• Puma ~16x

The MOAT: Brand strength of Olympikus in Brazil's mass sneaker market, local consumer affinity that international brands cannot replicate at price points below R$200. Manufacturing scale in Brazil: vertical integration of design, sourcing, factory ops and distribution provides a labor and logistics cost structure Asian imports cannot beat once shipping, tariffs and currency overlay are loaded. License portfolio: Mizuno and Under Armour Brazil are exclusive long-term licenses providing premium-tier positioning without the brand-building investment burden. Distribution reach: deep penetration of multi-brand retailers, sports-specialty chains and own e-commerce, last-mile economics Olympikus competitors cannot replicate.

Key Challenge to Flag: Vulcabras' core customer is the mass-market consumer buying sneakers at price points sensitive to real-wage cycles. If unemployment ticks up materially or imports from Asia become unusually competitive (BRL strengthens significantly + tariff regime softens), Olympikus volume growth slows and EBITDA margin compresses. Vulcabras is also fundamentally a manufacturer, meaning operating leverage cuts both ways, fixed-cost factory utilization swings profitability hard if volumes disappoint.

Howard Marks Lens: Vulcabras is a vertically integrated brand owner with manufacturing leverage, closer to a “Brazilian Nike” than to a contract footwear maker. The 24% ROE and 22-quarter consecutive revenue growth are not what commodity manufacturers print. Skepticism phase, foreigners cannot find it because it is not in EWZ, EWZS exposure is small and it does not appear in any global running brand index. Foreign allocator awareness is functionally zero and even local generalist PMs are underweight. Quality compounder priced like a manufacturer.

RSI & Entry Timing: RSI 4-week mid-40s on recent sessions. Mid-range, not oversold, not extended. With the order backlog covering H1 2026 already in management hands, entry timing is more about fundamentals than technicals.

Why Now: Q4 2025 print confirmed margin recovery (gross margin 41.4%, EBITDA margin 21.9%) on top of 16.7% revenue growth. Order backlog covering full H1 2026 gives unusual visibility for a footwear name. Management has guided to return to "near-zero net debt by year-end 2026" with a resumed regular dividend agenda from 2027. The equity carries an implicit 2027 dividend re-rating catalyst on top of organic earnings growth. Interest rate easing tailwind on consumer credit feeds directly into sneaker units at the mass-market price points where Olympikus dominates.

5. Smart Fit (SMFT3): Latin America's largest fitness chain

The thesis: The dominant LatAm fitness platform, with structural moats from scale, brand recognition and supply-chain economics that no regional competitor can match. 30% revenue growth in 2025, record 341 net new club openings and Latin American fitness penetration still well below DM levels. The runway is multi-year. Forward P/E of ~12x against US peers Planet Fitness and Life Time at 21–28x reflects pure liquidity and geography discount, not operational gap.

Strengths: 2,084 clubs across 16 countries, 5.2M+ members, ~31% CAGR in club count over the 2011–2024 window. Brand: Smart Fit is the default low-cost gym brand across LatAm, instant consumer recognition in every market it operates. Supplier and real estate negotiating power: at 2,000+ clubs, terms on rent and equipment are structurally lower than for any smaller chain. Network effects via TotalPass (B2B corporate wellness platform): partner clubs +52% in Brazil and +46% in Mexico in 2025. Geographic diversification: 63% of company-owned-club revenue from outside Brazil. Q4 2025 EBITDA margin 31.3% reflects operating leverage at this scale. R$7bn+ revenue in 2025 (+30% YoY).

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~18x

• Forward P/E: ~12x

• EV/EBITDA: ~6x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~3%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: ~1.8x

• ROE: ~12%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Planet Fitness ~28x

• Life Time ~21x

• Basic Fit ~20x

The MOAT: Scale economics at 2,000+ clubs, supplier negotiation, real estate sourcing and equipment costs are structurally lower than for any smaller LatAm competitor. Brand recognition across 16 countries, the LatAm middle class has effectively been trained to associate "gym membership" with "Smart Fit," much like Costco trained the US to associate warehouse-club retail with one brand. Real-estate footprint cannot be replicated at greenfield cost. The TotalPass corporate wellness platform creates a B2B revenue layer with network effects, more clubs make the platform more attractive to corporates, more corporates drive more demand at clubs.

Key Challenge to Flag: Expansion capital intensity meeting consumer slowdown. Smartfit's growth story requires constant capital deployment, opening 300+ clubs per year is not free. Adjusted net debt grew R$993M in 2025 to fund expansion. If the LatAm consumer cycle weakens at the same time the opening pace stays elevated, the leverage trajectory becomes unfriendly fast. A combination of slower member growth + sticky CapEx + interest rate reversal would push net debt/EBITDA toward 2.5x and trigger a re-rating downward.

Howard Marks Lens: Gym membership in LatAm is a consumer staple trade-up, not a discretionary purchase. The value-fitness category demonstrates countercyclical characteristics in the region, members trade down from premium gyms to Smart Fit in tough cycles, not out of fitness entirely. Net debt/EBITDA at 1.78x is comfortable for a real-estate-heavy operator with consistent cash generation.

RSI & Entry Timing: RSI 4-week mid-40s on recent sessions. The stock has been range-bound through Q1 2026, neither dramatic rally nor breakdown. Layered accumulation appropriate. The next quarterly print (Q1 2026, expected early May) will confirm whether the 2025 club-opening cadence and TotalPass momentum are continuing, that is the natural calibration point for sizing.

Why Now: 2025 revenue surpassed R$7bn for the first time on 30% growth. EBITDA margin expanded to 31.3% in Q4 despite the heaviest expansion year on record (341 new clubs, taking total to 2,084). International business now 63% of company-owned-club revenue, providing geographic diversification within the same equity. The forward P/E of ~12x against US peers at 21–28x reflects pure liquidity and geography discount, there is no operational reason for the gap. As the LatAm rate-cut cycle deepens (interest rate in Brazil, similar moves in Mexico, Chile, Colombia), discretionary income for value-fitness memberships expands across all 16 markets simultaneously.

Final Thought

The 20-year wide gap between EWZS and EWZ is not telling you Brazilian small caps are broken. It is telling you they are priced as if broken while the underlying earnings, in most of the EWZS names, are quietly compounding.

The mechanism that produced the gap is liquidity, not fundamentals. The mechanism that closes the gap is domestic rotation as interest rate eases, not foreign arrival.

Foreigners will arrive. They always do. They arrive late.

"Are you waiting for the foreigners? Or front-running them?"

Tell me where you'd add or where you'd disagree. There are 50+ tradeable names in EWZS beyond the top 10 and I want to hear what you're seeing. Comments open below.

Disclaimer: The content of this publication is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. All investment decisions should be made in consultation with a qualified financial advisor, based on individual circumstances and risk tolerance. Valuation metrics cited are illustrative and as-of-recent; investors should verify current data before acting.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I want to push back with data, not conviction.

“This time is different” is the most dangerous sentence in finance. But “it’s another bubble” is a close second.

After walking through the standard bubble checklist and running the numbers, my conclusion is that this is not a bubble in the dotcom sense. What it is is a capital-expenditure supercycle colliding with a physical-world bottleneck (power, grid, nuclear construction, memory, electricians). That is a very different animal and it requires a very different playbook.

Below is the evidence, the caveats, and, importantly, the three places where I think the bears are right.

The Bubble Checklist

Every historical bubble shares six features: prices that decouple from fundamentals, concentration in a handful of names, excess leverage, a “this time is different” narrative, IPO frenzy and overbuild of capacity ahead of demand.

AI checks some boxes. It fails the most important ones.

Concentration? Yes and arguably worse than 2000. AI-linked stocks at 45% of S&P 500 weight, up from 25% in 2022. Apollo's Torsten Sløk notes that if private mega-caps like OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX list this year, top-10 concentration in the index will approach 50%, a level the U.S. market has never seen.

IPO frenzy? Not really. Pockets of speculation exist, quantum-computing names trading at $16B market cap on $90M of revenue, but total IPO issuance is nowhere near 1999-2000 levels.

Leverage? Contained at the hyperscaler level. The Mag 7 are funding capex from operating cash flow, not high-yield issuance. But the leverage is migrating to the neocloud tier (CoreWeave, Nebius) and to Oracle's balance sheet. Morgan Stanley now estimates hyperscalers will borrow $400B in 2026, more than double the $165B in 2025.

Narrative? “This time is different” is everywhere. Guilty as charged.

Overbuild? No and this is where the bear case breaks.

Demand Is Leading Supply

The dotcom bust wasn’t caused by the internet failing. It was caused by supply running miles ahead of demand for a decade. Between 1995 and 2000, U.S. telecoms spent roughly $2 trillion laying 80-90 million miles of fiber. After the crash, 95% of that fiber was dark, unused. Five years later, in 2005, 85% was still dark, unused.

That is the textbook definition of a supply-led bubble: capacity built on a narrative, demand arriving a decade late.

Today’s AI buildout is the complete opposite. Demand has been leading supply for three-plus years. ChatGPT went from 0 to 800 million weekly users in under three years. Sam Altman confirmed the number in October 2025 and the platform crossed 900 million WAU in February 2026. Anthropic went from a $9B annualized run-rate at end-2025 to $30B by April 2026, tripled in four months. For reference, Salesforce took roughly 20 years to reach $30B in annual revenue.

And even today, with hyperscalers spending toward $740B in 2026 capex, users are being actively rationed. Paid plans hit token limits. Enterprise customers wait months for GPU capacity. The binding constraint is not demand generation. It is compute, power, memory and electricians.

AI is a demand-pull phenomenon, structurally unlike any prior technology adoption curve.

The Valuation Math Doesn't Rhyme

At its 2000 peak, Cisco traded at a trailing P/E above 200x by some measures (101x on a more conservative basis). Sun Microsystems at 120x. Oracle at 87x. The Information Technology sector as a whole traded at 50x next-twelve-months earnings.

Where is the tech sector today? After the 2026 Q1 repricing, forward P/E has compressed back to 20x, pre-AI-boom levels. NVIDIA sits at 30x forward on $216B of revenue growing 65% YoY with 71% gross margins. Microsoft trades at 22x forward. Alphabet at roughly 20x.

These are not bubble multiples on any historical yardstick.

More importantly: in 2000, 74% of 207 publicly traded internet companies had negative cash flow and more than 50 were projected to run out of money within twelve months. Today, the companies driving the index concentration are the most profitable businesses in human history, funding capex out of operating cash.

Besides that, in the dotcom bubble, we had a rising interest rate scenario, we have the complete opposite now.

FactSet’s Q1 2026 earnings analysis is the killshot on the bubble framing. The Mag 7 is expected to deliver 22.8% earnings growth vs. 10.1% for the S&P 493. This is not valuation inflation. It is operating performance differential.

The Capex Has a Physical-World Floor

The standard bear question is: “How will $2 trillion of AI capex ever be earned back?” It’s a fair question. But it frames the spend as abstract capital allocation, when in reality it is pouring into physical infrastructure with multi-decade useful lives and binding supply constraints.

Morgan Stanley now expects $740B of AI capex in 2026, a 69% increase over 2025. Apollo’s Sløk pegs 2026 hyperscaler capex at $646B, or roughly 2% of US GDP, equivalent to the entire GDP of Singapore, Sweden or Argentina. MS also flags that hyperscaler cash capex-to-sales is running 34-39% in 2026-28, above the 32% dotcom peak, a data point that gives bears oxygen but must be read against today’s very different margin structure.

Where it becomes concrete: power. The IEA’s Electricity 2026 report, their just-released five-year forecast, projects global data-center electricity demand growing 15% per year through 2030, four times faster than growth from all other sectors, reaching 945 TWh by 2030. In advanced economies, data centers will account for over 20% of all demand growth this decade.

Nowhere is this more visible than Virginia. Data centers went from under 5% of Virginia’s electricity consumption in 2010 to roughly 25% today. Peak load is projected to more than double by 2040.

The bottleneck narrative is reinforced on the supply side. China has 29 reactors under construction; the U.S. has effectively zero new conventional builds. Union electricians in hyperscaler build-out zones are reportedly commanding $600K/year packages. Gas turbine order books are sold out through 2029. Behind-the-meter natural gas and small modular reactors are being deployed because the grid cannot absorb the load fast enough.

You cannot overbuild into that. The physical economy is holding the capex back, not accelerating it past demand.

Labor Productivity Is Finally Moving

The hardest variable to prove has always been productivity. For three years the macro data was silent. That’s now changing.

Hyperscalers have held headcount roughly flat for four years. Based on FY2025 results, revenue per employee now sits at $2.37M at Meta, $2.03M at Alphabet, and $1.28M at Microsoft, all up materially from 2020-2021 levels, tightly correlated with internal AI adoption. In April/2025, Microsoft stated that 30% of the code was now AI-written, at Google in April/2026, Sundar Pichai disclosed that figure is now 75% of new code.

Goldman’s framework estimates generative AI could lift global GDP by 7%, roughly $7 trillion and raise U.S./DM labor productivity by 15% at full adoption, with around 300 million jobs globally exposed to automation. The administrative-support and legal-services segments, 18 million workers in the U.S. alone, are the most exposed. Even a conservative substitution assumption generates roughly $1.5 trillion of annual U.S. labor-cost reduction, which is the operative back-of-envelope for why enterprises are paying what they’re paying for API access.

Yes, Goldman also notes in March 2026 there is still “no meaningful economy-wide productivity relationship” with AI adoption yet. That’s true. But dotcom-era tech didn’t show up in productivity statistics until 2004-2007 either. The J-curve is real, it’s just delayed.

The Three Risks I Actually Watch

I want to be direct about this. “Not a bubble” does not mean “no risk.” Three things in this cycle genuinely worry me:

1. OpenAI’s dependence on external funding. After its March 2026 funding round at an $852B valuation (Amazon $50B, NVIDIA $30B, SoftBank $30B), OpenAI has committed to capex and compute deals (Oracle’s $300B cloud deal, NVIDIA partnership, CoreWeave’s $22.4B) that vastly exceed anything it can fund from operations. The company is a funding-cycle risk. If capital-markets sentiment turns for any reason, a geopolitical shock, a Fed surprise, a data-privacy regulatory event, OpenAI’s ability to keep spending is not self-sufficient. That is the pivot point for the entire GPU demand curve.

2. The neocloud depreciation mismatch. CoreWeave depreciates its GPUs over six years. Nebius uses four. Michael Burry argues the realistic life is two to three. CoreWeave carries $18B+ in debt, much of it collateralized by the GPUs themselves. If auditors force a shorter useful-life assumption and they likely will, eventually, the combination of accelerated depreciation, collapsing book value, and GPU-collateralized debt creates a textbook credit-event setup.

3. Circularity. The Bloomberg-mapped web of NVIDIA ↔ OpenAI ↔ Oracle ↔ CoreWeave ↔ AMD ↔ Amazon is real and some of it is troubling. AMD granted 10% equity warrants to OpenAI in exchange for chip purchase commitments. NVIDIA committed (and has since partially walked back) up to $100B into OpenAI, but NVIDIA carries little circular risk. NVIDIA’s chip revenue is not coming from OpenAI. It is coming from Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon, Oracle, CoreWeave, sovereigns, and a long tail of enterprises, all paying cash for hardware, all with their own demand drivers. Oracle borrowed heavily to finance OpenAI’s compute and this is where the bears are right. Oracle has committed roughly $300B of cloud capacity to OpenAI, out of a total backlog around $520B. Roughly $800B+ of “circular financing” has been documented across the ecosystem. Most of it is defensible as customer-financing, vendor financing is not automatically a bubble signal and the underlying compute is real.

So What?

This is not a bubble.

A bubble is a specific analytical phenomenon. It is when asset prices divorce from the underlying cash flows, when capacity is built on narrative instead of demand, when leverage accumulates in the system as a whole and when the marginal buyer is borrowing to chase a story. Dotcom was a bubble. Housing in 2006-2007 was a bubble. This is not.

Run the checklist one more time:

• Valuations, in general, aren’t stretched.

• Earnings are carrying the returns.

• Demand is leading supply.

• The bottleneck is physical, not financial.

• The engine is profitable.

That is not what a bubble is.

That is the largest industrial capex cycle in modern U.S. history colliding with the fastest technology-adoption curve ever measured.

That’s where I am. I’d love to know where you are.

Sources: Apollo, Business of Apps, Epoch AI, FactSect, IEA Electricity, Morgan Stanley Research, JP Morgan Investment Outlook, Bloomberg, TrueUP+, CNBC, Goldman Sachs Research.

Disclaimer: The content of this publication is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. All investment decisions should be made in consultation with a qualified financial advisor, based on individual circumstances and risk tolerance. Valuation metrics cited are illustrative and as-of-recent; investors should verify current data before acting.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Since the start of 2026, foreign inflows into B3-listed Brazilian equities have crossed the BRL 68 billion mark (roughly USD 13 billion), a pace not seen since the post-pandemic reflation trade of 2021. EWZ, the iShares MSCI Brazil ETF, has outperformed the S&P 500 by double digits YTD. The Brazilian Real has strengthened to 4.98 per USD, having already tested 4.95 past week. And the most interesting part? This is happening with the Brazilian easing cycle barely underway, just a single 25-basis-point cut delivered at the last central bank meeting, taking the benchmark rate from 15.00% to 14.75%. The capital appreciation tailwind of a full easing cycle is still ahead.

In other words: the smart money is already on the plane and the real rate asymmetry hasn’t even fully repriced yet.

A quick note on positioning before we dig in, because it matters for how this piece should be read: I write from inside the Brazilian market, not about it. I was born and raised in Brazil, I live here, I have covered and invested in these companies across multiple political and commodity cycles, I bank at Itaú and Bradesco, I use the water Sabesp delivers to my São Paulo apartment and I have been watching Petrobras' fuel pricing policy play out at the pump for longer than most foreign analysts have had Brazil on their radar. That is not a credential, it is a disclosure. Foreign commentary on Brazil too often gets the macro right and the ground truth wrong. My aim here is to bring both.

This piece lays out the macro thesis for Brazil as a 5-10 years long, then drills into five single-stock ideas I believe best express it for a foreign investor. If you are a U.S or Europe-based allocator looking for diversification away from crowded Mag 7 positioning, Brazil is the trade you should at least be arguing about in your next meeting.

The Macro Setup: Why Brazil, Why Now

Four vectors explain the rotation. None of them are new individually. What’s new is that they are aligning simultaneously.

1. The rate asymmetry is enormous. Brazil’s Central Bank has held the benchmark interest rate at 14.75% after delivering its first cut of the easing cycle, a modest 25 basis points from the 15.00% peak. With 12-month consumer price inflation running at 4.14% against a 3.0% central bank target, the real interest rate sits above 10%, one of the highest anywhere in the world. For a foreign investor hedged back to USD, the local carry is extraordinary and the capital appreciation optionality from the early stages of an easing cycle is essentially a free call option on duration. In a world where the FED is stuck at 3.50–3.75% with limited room to ease (see my prior article on the Fed’s Impossible Triangle), Brazilian local rates offer a differentiated return stream that is only starting to reprice.

2. Fiscal is the bear case and it’s already priced, with a potential political catalyst ahead. This is where the skeptics push back and rightly so. Gross government debt currently sits at roughly 78% of GDP, with consensus trajectory projections pushing toward the 92% range by 2030 under unchanged policy. Every fiscal framework negotiation is a source of headline volatility and the market is not ignoring that tension.

But two things matter here. First, Brazilian equities trade at a forward P/E of 8x versus 22x for the S&P 500, the discount is explicit compensation for fiscal risk, not obliviousness to it. Second, and this is the part getting less airtime globally, 2026 is a presidential election year in Brazil. Recent polling has consistently shown the center-right opposition ahead and the leading opposition candidates have built their platforms around fiscal orthodoxy: a return to spending discipline, renewed commitment to the fiscal framework and credible debt stabilization. Markets are beginning to price a non-trivial probability of a political regime change that would materially improve the debt trajectory. That asymmetric upside has not yet been fully internalized by the consensus.

3. Commodities and strategic endowments: the real structural story. Foreign allocators who still think of Brazil as a “soy and iron ore” economy are mispricing the asset class. Brazil is, simultaneously, a food superpower, water superpower, energy superpower, mineral superpower, and carbon superpower, a rare concentration of strategic endowments in a single jurisdiction.

• Energy: Brazil is the 9th-largest oil producer in the world, with deep pre-salt reserves and a production base at scale. Add in a 85% renewable electricity matrix (hydro, wind, solar, biomass) and the energy portfolio is both enormous and clean, a meaningful advantage in an AI-capex world that needs gigawatts of low-carbon power.

• Food: The global swing producer for soy, corn, sugar, coffee and beef. Brazilian agricultural productivity compounds year after year and the country is now indispensable to global food supply balances.

• Water: The Amazon basin and the Guarani aquifer represent one of the largest freshwater reserves on Earth. In a world where water is becoming a strategic commodity, this is not an environmental footnote, it is a structural asset.

• Critical minerals: The world’s second-largest rare earths reserves; CBMM controls over 80% of global niobium supply; significant nickel, copper, lithium and graphite, the building blocks of the energy transition.

• Carbon: The tropical forest base and regenerative agriculture position Brazil as a uniquely relevant player in voluntary and compliance carbon markets as they scale.

And then the structural kicker that foreign allocators underweight: Brazil has no strategic chokepoints. No Hormuz. No Suez. No Malacca. No Panama exposure on its export flows. Its commodities reach global markets via open Atlantic and Pacific-facing ports. In a world where every serious risk analyst is pricing chokepoint tail risk into portfolios, Brazil’s geography is a durable premium. Equally important: Brazil is a stable, functioning democracy with a long history of peaceful electoral transitions and independent institutions. For DM allocators navigating a world where political regime risk in other emerging markets is increasingly a live variable, that institutional profile is increasingly rare and increasingly valuable.

4. Geopolitical neutrality as a premium, not a discount. In a world fragmenting into U.S. and China-aligned blocs, Brazil’s explicit non-alignment is a feature rather than a bug. Brazil trades with everyone, refuses to be categorized and sits on resources both blocs need. That optionality is worth real basis points when Russia is sanctioned, China faces tariffs and the Middle East remains a tail risk. Brazil is the “de-risked” commodity play.

Put these together and the setup is clear: high real rates that are just beginning to ease, deeply discounted equity multiples, strategic commodity and infrastructure endowments perfectly aligned with the next decade’s themes, a geopolitical profile that attracts capital and a potential fiscal reset via the 2026 election. That is not a consensus trade. Yet.

The Vehicle: What EWZ Actually Is

For most U.S-based investors, the cleanest first expression of the Brazil trade is EWZ, the iShares MSCI Brazil ETF. AUM of roughly $6 billion, deep liquidity and a holdings list that tells you exactly what the Brazilian equity market looks like to a foreign index investor.

The top 10 holdings of EWZ account for roughly 58% of the fund’s weight and the concentration is revealing. It is overwhelmingly a commodities + financials story, with a light sprinkle of consumer and industrials.

EWZ is a reasonable starter position. But if you are a stock-picker or if you want to tilt away from richly valued names like $NU toward deeper-value exposures, the single-stock approach is more rewarding. That is what the rest of this piece is for.

The Five Names I’d Focus On

Five single-stock ideas that express different angles of the Brazil thesis: integrated energy (Petrobras), diversified mining (Vale), premium private-sector banking (Itaú), deep-value turnaround banking (Bradesco) and the post-privatization water utility (Sabesp).

For each, I am focused on strengths, why they are ownable now and the challenges they are facing now, so you are not buying blind.

1. Petrobras (PBR): The Highest-Quality Oil Major Nobody Wants to Own

The thesis: Petrobras is a Tier-1 integrated oil major that trades at a Tier-3 multiple because the market has convinced itself that political risk dominates the fundamentals. At $100 Brent, near-monopoly domestic positioning and a multiple at a deep discount to every Western peer, the asymmetry is wide.

Strengths:

• Near-monopoly at home. Petrobras produces roughly 90% of Brazil’s oil and gas output and operates approximately 80% of Brazil’s refining capacity. That is not a typical oil company, that is a sovereign-scale integrated energy franchise with effectively captive domestic demand for its downstream product. Revenue visibility is structurally better than most of its Western peers.

• Operating into a $100 Brent environment. With Brent trading around $100/bbl, Petrobras’ pre-salt asset base is generating enormous cash flow. The company has consistently delivered strong free cash flow through the cycle.

• Sovereign-adjacent risk profile. Petrobras is controlled by the Brazilian federal government. That means the equity risk effectively inherits the Brazil sovereign risk profile and Brazil is investment-grade sovereign credit. For a foreign investor looking for levered, liquid Brazil exposure, that is a feature.

• Balance sheet fortified. Leverage has compressed meaningfully from post-2014 levels. Investment-grade ratings have been reaffirmed by all three majors.

• Dividend track record. Petrobras has historically been among the highest-yielding integrated oil majors globally. The 5-year average dividend yield is approximately 10%, smoothing across the 2022–2023 windfall payouts and the more normalized periods before and since.

Key challenge to flag: The same government control that de-risks sovereign exposure is also a governance risk. The government has, in multiple episodes, used Petrobras’ domestic fuel pricing as a de facto instrument of inflation management, holding downstream prices below international parity to cushion consumer CPI at the expense of shareholder value. That tension is real and recurrent and it is the single most important structural risk to underwrite. But remember, we have elections this year and a right-wing government could unlock a lot of value.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~5x

• Forward P/E: ~4.5x

• EV/EBITDA: ~2.5x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~10%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: ~0.8x

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• ExxonMobil ~12x

• Chevron ~13x

• Shell ~9x

• TotalEnergies ~9x

• Saudi Aramco ~16x

Petrobras trades at roughly a 60% discount to the Western majors and a much wider discount to Aramco, despite delivering sector-leading return on capital and a 10% 5-year average dividend yield.

The MOAT: Petrobras moat is multi-layered.

Resource moat: the pre-salt fields are a once-in-a-generation geological endowment. Competitors cannot drill their way into Brazilian pre-salt.

Regulatory and concession moat: Petrobras was granted the “Transfer of Rights” over key pre-salt blocks, a structural right no new entrant can replicate.

Infrastructure moat: the fleet, subsea systems, refining network, pipelines and port logistics represent decades and tens of billions of dollars of accumulated capex.

Sovereign privilege: Petrobras is, in effect, the energy policy of the Brazilian state. There is no scenario where a competing Brazilian integrated supermajor emerges. The moat is not a marketing claim, it is geological, legal and structural.

The Howard Marks Lens: What has to happen for this to be a bad investment from here? The intervention has to be materially worse than the current price already assumes and it has to persist longer than the political cycle itself. History tells us the pendulum swings back. The current administration is mid-term, 2026 polling favors a fiscally orthodox opposition and even under this government, the dividend policy has continued to deliver. The asymmetry favors holders: additional political bad news is substantially priced, political relief is essentially a free call option.

RSI & Entry Timing: Petrobras ADRs have traded in an RSI range of roughly 55–68 over the past four weeks, currently sitting near the upper end of that band after the recent Brent + inflows tailwind. The read: constructive but not extended. Not overbought enough to force a delay, not oversold enough to call a perfect entry. I would scale in rather than chase, a first tranche now, a second tranche on any pullback to the 50-day moving average.

Why now: Oil at $100, a domestic monopoly footprint, a 5-year average dividend yield near 10% and a multiple at a 60% discount to Western integrated majors. The market keeps pricing Petrobras as if politics overrides fundamentals. The fundamentals keep winning.

2. Vale (VALE): The Mining Giant Pivoting to the Energy Transition

The thesis: Vale is no longer just an iron ore story. The management pivot toward energy transition metals, copper and nickel in particular, is a multi-year optionality the market has not yet re-rated. Meanwhile, the core iron ore business remains one of the lowest-cost producers globally.

Strengths:

• Iron ore cost leadership. Vale sits at the low end of the global cost curve in iron ore, structurally profitable through most realistic price scenarios.

• The base metals pivot is real. Copper production is set to expand materially through the end of the decade. Nickel exposure positions Vale for EV and battery demand. Copper is arguably the single best-expressed commodity for the AI/electrification capex wave.

• Capital returns discipline. Vale has returned tens of billions via dividends and buybacks in recent cycles. The 5-year average dividend yield runs approximately 8%, with meaningful cycle variability, peak-cycle years paid well into double digits, trough years closer to 4–5%.

• Low leverage. Net debt/EBITDA below 1.0x provides cyclical cushion.

• Brumadinho legacy is stabilizing. Provisions and remediation are largely in the base. The tail is closing.

Key challenge to flag: China dependency is the core cyclical risk. Vale’s earnings remain substantially levered to Chinese construction, steel production and property-sector capital formation. If the Chinese property adjustment deepens or if the credit impulse fails to re-accelerate, iron ore realization is directly exposed. The base metals pivot diversifies this over time, but for the next 2–3 years, the China cycle is the dominant earnings driver. You cannot own Vale without also having a view on China.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~6x

• Forward P/E: ~5.5x

• EV/EBITDA: ~3.5x

• 5-year average Dividend Yield: ~8%

• ROE: ~20%

• Net Debt/EBITDA: ~0.5x

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• BHP ~11x

• Rio Tinto ~10x

• Fortescue ~7x

• Anglo American ~12x.

Vale trades at roughly a 40–50% discount to BHP and Rio Tinto despite comparable asset quality, a superior balance sheet position and a credible transition-metals pivot.

The MOAT: Vale’s moat is the classic low-cost producer + integrated logistics combination.

Resource moat: the Carajás complex is one of the best iron ore deposits on Earth high grade, low strip ratio, massive scale. Nobody can manufacture a Carajás.

Infrastructure moat: Vale operates the mine-rail-port integrated system that took decades to build and cannot be replicated. When your competitor in Australia has to truck their ore, you have a structural cost advantage that compounds through every cycle.

Scale moat: Vale is a top-three iron ore producer globally and is building scale in copper and nickel that puts it in the top tier of transition-metals producers.

Regulatory/compliance moat: post-Brumadinho, regulatory oversight and dam safety compliance costs have risen dramatically. For incumbents who have already invested in that compliance machinery, this is a barrier to entry for new competitors. Vale’s moat is wider than the commodity-price-taker framing suggests.

The Howard Marks Lens: Yes, Vale depends on China and that dependency is precisely why it trades at 6x earnings. The question is not whether the dependency exists; it is whether the current price already assumes a worst-case China outcome. At 6x trailing P/E with a 5-year average 8% dividend yield and iron ore elevated, the price is implicitly pricing a meaningful Chinese deceleration. What is not priced: the possibility that Chinese policy response is working, ore inventories at Chinese ports have normalized and, critically, that Vale is simultaneously executing a base-metals pivot that structurally diversifies the cash flow mix away from Chinese construction over the next 3–5 years. I also see a free call option here.

RSI & Entry Timing: Vale ADRs have traded in an RSI range of roughly 50–62 over the past four weeks, currently in the mid-50s. Less extended than Petrobras, the tape has been choppier, reflecting ongoing China uncertainty. That is, counterintuitively, a better technical setup: you are not buying into a euphoric move. A current-price entry with a defined add-on level on any sub-50 RSI dip is the framework I’d use.

Why now: Copper is a structural multi-year long. Iron ore at current levels is a cash machine. Vale is the cheapest clean way to own both exposures in a single ticker at a ~40%+ multiple discount to direct peers.

3. Itaú Unibanco (ITUB): The Best-Run Bank in the Hemisphere

The thesis: Itaú is, full stop, one of the best-managed large banks globally. It prints ROE in the low-20s through the cycle, runs a disciplined efficiency ratio, has the best default rates of the country and has executed a digital transformation that most developed-market incumbents can only aspire to. At single-digit multiples, the market is not pricing the franchise.

Strengths:

• Cross-cycle ROE of 20–22%. Very few large banks in the world deliver this. JPMorgan’s through-cycle ROE is closer to 15%. European money-center banks sit in single digits. Itaú’s ROE durability is a premium asset in its own right.

• Efficiency ratio in the 40s. One of the best globally.

• Digital franchise. Itaú has defended market share against Nubank and the neobank wave more effectively than most expected.

• Credit book discipline through the 2023 Brazilian credit stress, a period in which peers took significant provisions that Itaú largely avoided.

• Capital returns. Dividends and buybacks compound shareholder value at attractive rates with a CET1 ratio consistently above 13%.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~9x

• Forward P/E: ~8x

• P/B: ~1.7x

• ROE: ~22%

• Dividend Yield: ~5.5%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Banco do Brasil ~5x

• Bradesco ~8x

• Santander Brasil ~8x

• JPMorgan ~13x

• Bank of America ~11x

• HSBC ~8x

The MOAT: Itaú’s moat is a textbook case of compounding network effects in a regulated industry.

Network moat: the largest private-sector deposit and payments franchise in Latin America

Data moat: decades of Brazilian consumer and SME credit history create an underwriting edge that a neobank cannot buy. Itaú has been pricing credit through Brazilian cycles for nearly a century.

Brand and trust moat: in a market where consumer trust in banks is hard-earned, the premium brand position matters.

Switching cost moat: payroll accounts, auto-debits, merchant rails, corporate cash management.

Regulatory moat: Brazilian banking capital requirements, compliance cost and “too big to fail” implicit status favor the top private-sector incumbents. This is a moat the market has spent the last five years convincing itself was being eroded by Nubank and being proven, year after year, to be wrong.

The Howard Marks Lens: Nubank won the low-ticket, high-volume, low-margin consumer segment. Itaú retained its grip on the high-value, high-margin segment: affluent retail, SME banking, corporate, private banking and wealth management. The two franchises increasingly coexist rather than substitute. The proof is in the ROE: Itaú has printed 20–22% ROE through the disruption narrative. If the disruption thesis were right, ROE would be collapsing. It is not. The market is still partially pricing the disruption narrative; the variant view is that the disruption ceiling was reached, the niches have settled, and Itaú’s franchise was more defensible than the fintech bulls claimed.

RSI & Entry Timing: Itaú ADRs have traded in an RSI band of roughly 58–70 over the past four weeks, currently near the upper end. The stock has participated meaningfully in the Brazil rally. Tactically, you are entering an uptrending but moderately extended tape. The sensible approach: initial position now with a scheduled add-on on any RSI pullback to the low 50s.

Why now: The Brazilian credit cycle is turning favorably as rates start easing. Book value compounding alone delivers attractive returns even without multiple expansion. Re-rating toward global premium-bank multiples (12–14x) is meaningful upside on top of that.

4. Banco Bradesco (BBD) — The Turnaround Trade

The thesis: Bradesco is the deep-value sibling in Brazilian banking. After a difficult credit cycle in 2022–2023 that crushed ROE and led to a management transition (CEO Marcelo Noronha), the franchise is rebuilding and the stock has not fully reflected it.

Strengths:

• Valuation discount to Itaú is historically wide. Mean reversion alone is a meaningful return driver.

• Insurance arm is a hidden jewel. Bradesco Seguros is one of the largest insurance operations in Latin America, with strong underwriting margins and a dividend stream that cushions consolidated earnings.

• New leadership has credibility. The restructuring plan under CEO Noronha branch rationalization, tech investment, credit recalibration follows the playbook of successful global bank turnarounds.

• Credit book repositioning largely complete. The worst of the NPL provisions appears to be behind. The path from here is ROE expansion, not contraction.

• Capital return optionality. As earnings recover, dividend + buyback resumption is a near-term catalyst.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~9x

• Forward P/E: ~7x

• P/B: ~1.0x

• ROE: 15%

• Dividend Yield: ~6%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Banco do Brasil ~5x

• Itau Unibanco ~9x

• JPMorgan ~13x

• HSBC ~8x

• BNP Paribas ~7x

• Intesa Sanpaolo ~8x

The MOAT: Bradesco’s moat is narrower than Itaú’s but real and under-appreciated by the market that is currently focused on the recent operational stumbles.

Distribution moat: the physical branch network plus the insurance arm provides multi-product coverage across Brazil, including regions where digital-only competitors struggle to penetrate.

Insurance moat: Bradesco Seguros is a top-tier Latin American insurance franchise, insurance is a structurally sticky business with regulatory capital advantages for scale players and it materially cushions consolidated earnings through banking cycles.

Scale moat: top-three private Brazilian bank with systemic importance, which brings regulatory advantages.

Switching costs moat: the bancassurance cross-sell (banking + insurance + asset management) creates product density that is hard to unwind. The moat was always there. The credit stumble of 2022–2023 made the market forget.

The Howard Marks Lens: Precisely because the 2022–2023 episode was so painful, so visible and so widely discussed, the current price fully reflects it. A new CEO is executing a credible restructuring. The credit book has been cleaned. The insurance arm continued to print. The stock trades at ~1x book value, essentially assuming the franchise earns nothing more than its cost of equity in perpetuity. That is an extraordinarily low bar.

RSI & Entry Timing: Bradesco ADRs have traded in an RSI range of roughly 52–64 over the past four weeks, currently mid-range around ~58. As a higher-beta name, it has participated in the rally but less aggressively than the high-conviction index holdings. Constructive technical setup, uptrending, not extended, with room to run if the ROE recovery narrative takes hold. A standard scale-in approach fits well here.

Why now: Turnaround stories reprice violently once the market recognizes the inflection. Bradesco is closer to that inflection than the current multiple suggests. You are buying a top-three Brazilian bank at ~1x book value with visible ROE recovery and a potential re-rating catalyst from capital return resumption.

5. Sabesp (SBS): The Post-Privatization Infrastructure Play

The thesis: Sabesp is the infrastructure pick and the one least likely to be on foreign investors radar. It is the largest water utility in the Americas, serving the São Paulo metropolitan region with 30 million people served. Privatized in 2024, the company has entered the “efficiency unlock” phase that typically follows state-owned enterprise privatizations. Global comparables on this transition are overwhelmingly positive for equity holders.

Strengths:

• Monopolistic franchise. Water and sanitation for the São Paulo megalopolis, roughly 30 million people, including the industrial and commercial heart of Brazil.

• Regulated returns with clear tariff trajectory. Regulatory framework provides cash flow visibility.

• Privatization thesis is straightforward. State-owned utilities are structurally inefficient. Private management typically closes a 300–500 bp EBITDA margin gap over 5–7 years, a pattern consistent across Telefónica, NTT, BAA and European utilities.

• Universalization capex is the growth vector. Regulatory mandate to achieve universal water and sanitation coverage in São Paulo by 2033 drives material investment and the regulated return framework compensates for it.

• Water as a strategic asset. Owning the premier water utility in one of the most important EM urban agglomerations is a structural long, not a niche trade.

• Dividend inflection ahead. Sabesp’s current dividend yield runs around 3–4%. More importantly, the company has signaled a payout ratio step-up from 25% to 50% in 2027, which should effectively double the dividend distribution as it implements a clear re-rating catalyst for income-oriented investors and a meaningful tailwind to total shareholder return.

Valuation snapshot:

• Trailing P/E: ~14x

• Forward P/E: ~15x

• EV/EBITDA: ~8x

• Current Dividend Yield: ~3.5%

• ROE: 15%

Peer comparison (trailing P/E):

• Sanepar ~7x

• Copasa ~15x

• American Water Works ~22x

• Severn Trent ~20x

• United Utilities ~18x

• Essential Utilities ~20x

The MOAT: Sabesp is as close to a textbook economic moat as exists in public markets.

Regulated monopoly: exclusive concession for water and sanitation across most of São Paulo state, a legal right no competitor can bid for.

Natural monopoly economics: water distribution is the canonical case in every industrial economics textbook, the infrastructure cost to duplicate a parallel water network is prohibitive and no regulator would allow it.

Physical infrastructure moat: the reservoir, treatment plant and distribution system is decades of capex embedded in the ground. Even if a competitor had the capital, it would not have the land rights, the concessions or the time.

Customer captivity: customers cannot switch providers. There is no Nubank of water.

The Howard Marks Lens: Utilities are boring because they are predictable and predictability is what compounds capital over time. Sabesp is not a typical utility, it is a newly privatized monopoly with a clear efficiency-unlock trajectory and a payout ratio doubling in the near term. The market is still pricing it in the “Brazilian SOE” valuation frame; the variant view is that within 3–5 years it will be re-rated to the “LatAm/EM regulated water utility” frame and DM water utilities trade at 18–25x.

RSI & Entry Timing: Sabesp has traded in an RSI range of roughly 50–60 over the past four weeks, currently near ~55. Of all five names in this piece, Sabesp has the most measured chart, less participation in short-term flow-driven rallies, more steady-compounding behavior. That is actually ideal for an infrastructure compounder: you are not trying to time the tape, you are trying to own the re-rating over a multi-year window. A standard position sizing approach without tactical cleverness is the right call here.

Why now: Privatization-driven re-ratings typically deliver over 3–5 year windows, not 3–5 quarter ones. Year two of the transition with the operational transformation ramping, capex plan visible and a payout ratio doubling on the horizon is the sweet spot.

Final Thought: The Rotation Is Already Underway

The most reliable signal in emerging markets is not the headlines. It is the flow data. When foreign portfolio investment accelerates quietly against a backdrop of persistent fiscal noise and political volatility, the market is telling you something.

What it is telling you now is that the combination of cheap multiples, the highest real rates in the world beginning to ease, a strategic commodity and infrastructure mix without global parallel, no chokepoint exposure, functioning democratic institutions and a potential fiscal reset via the 2026 election is too attractive to ignore. Brazil is re-rating. The question is not whether, it is how far and how fast.

The five names above are how I would express it. They are not without risk. Each deserves a deeper look at the challenges, fiscal drag, political cycle, commodity price sensitivity, China exposure, governance tensions and regulatory uncertainty.

For now: the setup is real, the discount is wide and the first movers are already in.

What’s your view on the Brazil trade? Are you already positioned, watching the tape or do the fiscal risks keep you on the sidelines? Drop your take in the comments.

Disclaimer: The content of this publication is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. All investment decisions should be made in consultation with a qualified financial advisor, based on individual circumstances and risk tolerance. Valuation metrics cited are illustrative and as-of-recent; investors should verify current data before acting.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

The Old World Order

For decades, institutional investors operated on a bedrock principle: when risk-off hits, you hide in U.S. Treasuries. The logic was elegant in its simplicity. Flight to quality compressed yields, pushed bond prices higher and provided the natural hedge for an equity book bleeding out during a drawdown. The 60/40 portfolio was not a coincidence, it was a mathematical expression of the negative correlation between equities and government bonds.

The dollar reinforced this. In every major geopolitical crisis since the Cold War, capital moved into dollars and into dollar-denominated debt simultaneously. DXY up, 10Y yields down. Safe haven demand expressed itself as a unified trade. You didn’t have to choose between the currency and the bond, they moved together and both worked.

The Dollar and the Treasury Go Their Separate Ways

Since the onset of the Iran conflict and the U.S.-led blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the FX market has sent a fractured and revealing signal. The dollar has held against the euro and sterling. But it has weakened against the Swiss franc, the market's purest safe-haven currency and more strikingly, it has sold off against a broad basket of emerging market currencies. The Brazilian real has been among the outperformers, as have other commodity-exporting EM currencies revalued upward by the crude shock. Capital did flee somewhere, just not into U.S. assets. It did not flow into Treasuries either. Yields opened. The 10-year reached 4.34% not the 3.5% or below you would expect in a genuine risk-off regime.

Read that FX picture carefully: the Swiss franc outperformed the dollar. In a crisis, the market chose Zurich over Washington as its safe destination. EM commodity currencies outperformed the dollar too. The dollar held against Europe, but that tells you more about Europe's own vulnerabilities than about dollar strength. The U.S. asset complex did not attract crisis capital. The dollar and the Treasury were the same trade for thirty years, the twin expressions of American safe-haven status. Today, neither is playing that role fully.

Why? Because the inflationary vector of this shock is uniquely hostile to bonds. When global capital perceives inflation as the dominant risk, Treasuries lose their hedge properties. Investors demand compensation to hold duration risk precisely when you need that duration to be your protection.

The Golden Paradox

Gold confounds even further. By any historical playbook, a military conflict in the Middle East, a blockade of the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, a multi-standard-deviation move in crude, all of this should have gold spiking. Instead, it has sold off materially. This is not a minor anomaly. This is gold breaking its oldest narrative.

The mechanism at work is both rational and uncomfortable: emerging-market central banks are liquidating gold reserves to acquire dollar liquidity. Nations that cannot receive oil payments through the Strait, or are scrambling to secure alternative energy supply chains priced in dollars, need cash, not bullion. Gold’s historical role as a crisis asset is being trumped by the immediate operational need for the world’s transaction currency. The irony is profound: the geopolitical stress that should be gold’s finest hour is instead generating the selling pressure that undermines it.

The conclusion is uncomfortable but unavoidable: gold failed. Not because the asset is broken in any fundamental sense, but because the nature of this crisis, an inflationary, liquidity-driven shock that has undermined confidence in the entire U.S. asset complex, has temporarily suspended its traditional function. Whether this is structural or cyclical is one of the most important questions in macro right now.

Every Hedge Broke at Once

Step back and look at what has actually happened since the crisis escalated. Equities sold off, that was expected. But the assets that were supposed to absorb the blow have done nothing of the sort:

In the same moment, Brent crude surged past $100, and oil, the very asset causing the shock, became the only thing going up. This is what a genuine structural dislocation looks like. Not one hedge failing, but all of them, simultaneously.

Brent at $100 Is Not the Story

Goldman Sachs has already stated that, under a prolonged Hormuz disruption, Brent could remain above $100 throughout 2026 and JPMorgan puts the upside scenario closer to $150 if the closure extends into mid-May. These are extraordinary price targets for a commodity that had been expected to trade in the $70–80 range before the conflict began.

But even Goldman’s oil call is not the story. The story is what oil at these levels means for the Treasury market. Every $10 sustained increase in crude translates into measurable headline CPI impulse, erodes real wage growth, and, critically, forces the FED into an impossible position. The FED cannot cut rates to support growth while oil is fuelling an inflationary re-acceleration. And if the FED stays on hold longer, or is forced to hike, the already-elevated 4.34% 10-year yield has room to go higher still.

The market, in other words, is not just pricing a transitory supply shock. It is pricing the possibility that this inflationary episode will be sticky, that even when the conflict ends, the energy market will have been permanently repriced. Goldman's baseline scenario already assumes Brent above pre-crisis levels even after a resolution, driven by structural underinvestment in upstream capacity, redirected shipping infrastructure and recalibrated OPEC+ supply discipline.

The Treasury Is Now Part of the Problem

This is the sentence that should concern every multi-asset investor and every central banker: the U.S. Treasury is no longer the hedge. It is part of the problem.

The old regime assumed that government bonds were a store of risk-free value, the floor beneath which no rational investor needed to go. That assumption rested on two conditions: low and anchored inflation expectations and absolute confidence in the U.S. fiscal path. Both conditions are now contested. The FED’s credibility is being tested by an oil shock it cannot address through demand destruction without engineering a recession. And the U.S. fiscal position, running deficits at levels unprecedented outside of wartime, means the supply of Treasury paper is structurally elevated, while the traditional buyers (Japan, China, EM central banks) are either reducing holdings or deploying reserves elsewhere.

Treasuries did not just fail to hedge the current drawdown, they amplified it. Investors who held duration as a hedge to equity exposure saw both legs of their portfolio move against them simultaneously. That is not what a hedge does. That is what a risk asset does.

The Dollar Wavers. The Debt Cracks.

Here is where the nuance matters. The dollar has not collapsed, it has even gained modestly against the euro and sterling, reflecting Europe’s own exposure to the energy shock. But the franc has outperformed it, EM commodity currencies have outperformed it and U.S. Treasuries have sold off alongside equities. The dollar’s mixed performance reveals a market in transition: it is still the default invoicing currency for global trade and the denomination of oil contracts and that structural role has not disappeared overnight. But it is no longer the reflexive destination for crisis capital.

The dollar’s institutional role and the dollar’s safe-haven appeal are diverging. The first remains largely intact. The second is being seriously contested. The Treasury used to be the expression of both, a claim on American creditworthiness backed by an unassailable reserve currency. Today, the market is willing to hold dollars for transactional purposes while simultaneously selling dollar-denominated duration. You can acknowledge the dollar as the global medium of exchange and still refuse to lend to its government at current yields.

That is not a rhetorical question. It is the most consequential open question in institutional portfolio management right now. Commodities offer partial protection but introduce their own volatility and correlation regime shifts. Real assets can hedge inflation but are illiquid and operationally complex. Cash offers no real return but preserves nominal capital. TIPS exist, but their real yield dynamics in a high-vol environment are far from straightforward.

The uncomfortable truth of 2026 is that the architecture of multi-asset portfolio construction, built on decades of observed correlations and crisis behaviors, may need to be fundamentally rethought. The playbook that worked from 1982 to 2021 assumed a world of disinflationary forces, globalized supply chains and an unchallenged Treasury market. That world is gone.

The flight to quality happened. The problem is, there was nowhere left to fly.

What do you think the new global hedge is? Is there one? Drop your view in the comments — this is the debate that will define asset allocation for the next decade.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Always conduct your own due diligence.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Yestarday night, April 7th, President Trump announced a 14-day ceasefire with Iran, brokered not by a Western ally, not by the UN Security Council, but by Pakistan. Oil fell 14%. S&P futures surged 2%. Treasury yields slid 10 basis points. The financial media declared victory.

They are celebrating the wrong outcome.

What actually happened on tuesday night

Strip away the theatrical framing, the “whole civilization will die tonight” threat, the 90-minute countdown, the triumphant Truth Social post and examine the actual terms.

The ceasefire requires Iran to provide “complete, immediate, and safe opening” of the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange: the U.S. suspends bombing. That’s it. No dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. No dismantling of the yuan-denominated toll infrastructure that Iranian parliament codified into law in late March. No restoration of the pre-war order. Peace talks will convene in Islamabad on April 10th, with Vice President Vance likely leading the U.S. delegation.

Iran’s 10-point counter-proposal, which Trump described as “workable,” includes: controlled passage through the strait coordinated by Iran’s armed forces, compensation for war damages and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from “all bases and positions in the region.”

Let that sink in. The dominant oil chokepoint on the planet, through which 20% of global oil supply transits daily is now subject to a peace framework where Iran retains operational control of the passage as a negotiating term. The Strait is not being restored to pre-war neutrality. It is being restored to Iranian management.

The toll booth is already open and it’s in yuan

Here is the detail that the relief rally is completely ignoring.

While diplomats were still arguing over ceasefire terms, the structural shift was already happening at the water level. On April 3rd, four days before Tuesday’s announcement, the first Western-linked vessels completed transit through Hormuz under IRGC escort, paying a toll of up to $2 million per voyage, settled in chinese yuan.

This is not a temporary wartime measure. Iran’s parliament legislated this system permanently: fees, payment currency, the explicit ban on U.S and Israel-linked vessels and the institutional framework for IRGC enforcement. Iran is simultaneously finalizing a bilateral maritime protocol with Oman that would embed Iranian authority over tanker traffic into a standing regional agreement transforming what was an act of war into a recognized governance arrangement.

The ceasefire does not unwind this. It legitimizes it.

The Strait of Hormuz, the physical keystone of the petrodollar architecture since 1974, is now operationally managed by a country pricing access in yuan, enforced by the IRGC and backed by the institutional weight of China’s banking system. The market is pricing oil below $95. It has not yet priced the structural erosion of the payment infrastructure beneath global energy markets.

The 1956 parallel

The original Suez Crisis is routinely misremembered as a military story. It was a monetary story.

In 1956, British and French forces successfully seized the Suez Canal militarily. They won on the ground. What defeated them was not Egyptian resistance, it was the threat of financial coercion. A run on the pound forced London to capitulate. Britain withdrew. France withdrew. The canal was egyptian’s.

The petrodollar system works because Gulf oil producers recycle dollar revenues into U.S. Treasuries, creating a self-reinforcing loop of demand for the world’s reserve currency. That loop depends on one foundational premise: that the U.S. can guarantee safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

That premise has now been publicly, demonstrably and irreversibly tested and it cracked. Not catastrophically, but the crack is visible and capital flows on the margin.

What the geopolitical architecture looks like

Three structural dynamics will define the outcome regardless of what is agreed in the negotiating room.

China has already extracted its strategic dividend. The yuan toll booth at Hormuz is not contingent on the outcome of peace talks. It is operational, it is generating data on which buyers are willing to pay in yuan and it is giving Beijing a real-time intelligence picture of global energy trade flows. Even if a final deal eventually restores nominal freedom of navigation, the proof-of-concept for yuan-denominated energy settlement has been demonstrated at scale.

Iran exits this conflict in a structurally stronger position regardless of the final terms. It deterred the world’s most powerful military from achieving its stated objectives. It institutionalized control over the world’s most important energy chokepoint. It forced the U.S. to accept Pakistani mediation, a geopolitical humiliation that would have been unthinkable. Tehran will enter the post-war order with meaningfully elevated regional standing.

The U.S. security guarantee to Gulf monarchies has been materially degraded. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait have watched for 40 days as the U.S. proved unable to reopen a strait it has guaranteed since the Carter Doctrine of 1980. The private conversations in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi about reserve currency diversification, petrodollar alternatives and strategic hedging toward Beijing have not leaked to the press. They don’t need to. The Gulf states’ sovereign wealth fund allocation data will tell the story over the next several quarters.

The market mispricing

Tuesday’s relief rally was rational as a tactical response to ceasefire news. Oil below $100 reduces near-term inflation pressure. Lower yields improve equity valuations. Risk-on positioning makes sense for a two-week window.

It is deeply irrational as a structural assessment of what has changed.

The market is pricing the ceasefire as real and a step toward coalition restoration, with oil normalizing toward $75–$80 and the Fed regaining space to cut. This is wrong. What we have is early-stage Suez Moment in slow motion: the terms of the ceasefire reflect an American negotiating position that is weaker than it was 40 days ago, the yuan toll infrastructure is operational and self-reinforcing and the peace talks are being mediated by a country that was not a central player in the pre-war strategic architecture.

The specific mispricing:

Oil below $95 is not the right equilibrium. Even in a full ceasefire scenario, Hormuz passage is now subject to Iranian-managed “controlled passage” with IRGC coordination. The risk premium that should be embedded in energy prices, reflecting the permanent increase in structural uncertainty over the strait, is being bid away by a market that wants to believe this is over. It is not over. It is in a two-week pause. More than 800 ships remain stranded in the Persian Gulf, with only a handful of crossings recorded compared to an average of about 135 per day in peacetime, according to Bloomberg.

The dollar rally on Tuesday is a sentiment trade, not a structural signal. The structural dollar story, petrodollar recycling flows, reserve currency demand, is quietly deteriorating. That trade takes months to fully reprice, but the directional bet is becoming clearer.

Long-duration U.S. Treasuries remain the wrong trade despite Tuesday’s yield compression. Treasury yields falling 10 basis points on ceasefire news is a gift to sellers. The medium-term pressure on long-duration paper has not changed: a weakening petrodollar system reduces structural demand from Gulf sovereign wealth funds, a dollar that may be in a slow secular decline reduces the real return for non-U.S. holders and an economy still facing above-target inflation has limited room for a sustained bond rally. The 30-year at 4.85% is not an attractive entry point for a structural long.

Gold’s recovery trade is becoming a structural trade. In our prior piece, we flagged gold as a recovery trade, not yet a structural hedge. That characterization is evolving. In this scenario world, gold is the asset that reprices when the reserve currency architecture undergoes stress. We are not there yet. But the distance has shortened.

The portfolio playbook for this scenario

The two-week ceasefire changes the tactical landscape without changing the structural thesis. Here is how we update the playbook:

Energy equities: hold, but revise the thesis. The quick-resolution trade is partially off the table. What energy equities now offer is not merely optionality — they are a structural hedge against a world where Hormuz passage remains episodically constrained and the risk premium in crude never fully normalizes. The sector’s free cash flow generation at $90+ oil is extraordinary. Maintain the position, but the holding period has extended.

Non-U.S. equities: upgrade the conviction. European and select EM commodity exporters benefit from dollar weakness, energy windfall and reduced exposure to U.S.-specific geopolitical risk premium. The Gulf monarchies are quietly accelerating sovereign wealth fund diversification. The capital flows will follow.

Short-duration IG credit: still the right risk-adjusted fixed income trade. Carry without the duration trap. In a world where the long end of the Treasury curve faces structural selling pressure from diversifying reserve managers, you do not want to be long 30-year paper.

Dollar: begin structurally reducing overweights. Not a panic trade. A deliberate, multi-quarter rebalancing. The petrodollar system is not going to collapse by end of Q2. But the directional thesis for a weaker dollar over a 12–24 month horizon is materially stronger today than it was before February 28th. Hedge accordingly.

Final thought

In 1956, the day after Britain agreed to withdraw from Suez, sterling rallied. The immediate financial pressure had been removed. The crisis, for a moment, appeared resolved. It was not resolved. It was concluded in the sense that the old order had quietly but definitively ended and a new one had begun.

Markets always find it easier to price the cessation of acute stress than to price the slow structural reordering that follows. The most dangerous trade in the room right now is the one that treats Tuesday’s ceasefire as a signal to rebuild pre-war positioning.

The Suez Moment does not announce itself. It is recognized in retrospect, by investors who ask themselves: when exactly did the world change?

The answer, I suspect, will be: April 3rd, 202, the day the first tanker paid Iran in yuan to transit the Strait of Hormuz, while the world was watching Trump’s deadline.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Always conduct your own due diligence.

Sources: CNBC, Axios, Al Jazeera, Fortune, Asia Times, Bloomberg, NPR, Financial Times.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

On February 28th, the United States and Israel struck the Iranian regime in a coordinated operation designated Operation Epic Fury. The stated objectives were familiar: degrade Iran's nuclear program and neutralize its regional proxy network. What followed was not. Within days, Iran retaliated by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow choke point through which approximately 20% of global oil supply passes every day.

None of those objectives have been fully achieved. As of April 1st, the question is no longer whether this conflict will be quick. The question is where is the world heading toward.

To thicken the plot, President Trump will address the nation tonight, with all major networks interrupting their programming to air the announcement.

President Trump may signal that the Iran war is over and it will dominate the headlines, but it will be very misleading. Israel will probably not stop and the war will go on.

One thing can be assured. The result is not a return to normal.

So what does that mean to the global markets?

Capital & Cycles is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

The macro foundation: war into a fragile equilibrium

When the first strikes hit Tehran, the global economy was already navigating a narrow channel. The FED was holding rates at 3.50%–3.75%, with PCE inflation sticky at 2.7%, 70 basis points above mandate. Growth was decelerating. Recession probability sat at 23%.

Into this precarious setup, the war injected a simultaneous supply shock and geopolitical rupture. Brent crude crossed $100 per barrel for the first time in years. The FED, caught between an energy-driven inflation spike it cannot cure with rate hikes and a growth deceleration it cannot cure with rate cuts, did the only thing a cornered central bank can do: it held. On March 18th, the FOMC voted to keep rates unchanged, with Powell acknowledging inflation “isn’t coming down as much as hoped.” Markets now price zero cuts through July. The “higher for longer” narrative, which had partially unwound in Q4 2025, has been violently reinstated.

What 33 days of war have done to markets

Bonds have defied the safe-haven playbook. Rather than rallying as investors fled risk, developed-market sovereign bonds have sold off alongside equities, because surging oil feeds inflation expectations, which pushes yields higher. The classic 60/40 portfolio has become a 60/40 problem.

Equities have endured a bruising five-week drawdown across all three major U.S. averages. Some contrarian desks are calling quality stocks at their cheapest relative valuations since 1999, historically a generational entry point. The caveat: “cheap” means nothing without a catalyst to close the discount.

Gold has failed its most important test in years, behaving like a risk-on asset rather than a hedge, dragged down by a stronger dollar and rising real yields. Gold is currently a recovery trade, not a portfolio hedge.

Commodities broadly face inflationary upstream pressure: roughly one-third of global fertilizer trade transits Hormuz and Iranian strikes on Gulf infrastructure are disrupting aluminum and petrochemical supply chains.

The three scenarios

Scenario 1: coalition restoration

The U.S. and Israel successfully reopen the Strait through a combination of military and diplomatic pressure, Iran’s capacity to resist collapses and a settlement restores the pre-war order.

Timeline: 60–90 days.

Probability: Low.

Market impact: Oil reverts toward $70–$80, taking 1.0–1.5 points off PCE. The FED gets political space to cut. Long-duration bonds rally, Quality equities reprice sharply higher, dollar maintains its structural bid. This is what WTI futures curves are currently pricing, a market betting on resolution that tactical analysts say understates the difficulty of actually achieving it.

Scenario 2: the Suez moment

The U.S. fails to reopen the Strait on acceptable terms, either through military failure or a negotiated settlement that leaves Iran in control. American security guarantees are revealed as unreliable.

Timeline: 3–6 months, ending in a negotiated exit.

Probability: Medium.

Market impact: This is the scenario where gold decouples and spikes. A structurally weakened dollar, no longer supported by petrodollar recycling flows, pushes Treasury yields higher even as the FED cuts into a weakening economy. The result is stagflation with a currency dimension: dollar falls, import prices re-accelerate, U.S. long-duration bonds lose their safe-haven premium. Yuan-denominated assets and commodity exporters who can invoice in alternative currencies significantly outperform. Dalio’s Big Cycle says this happens to every reserve currency empire eventually. This conflict may be forcing the timeline.

Scenario 3: the attrition war

Neither side achieves a decisive outcome. Iran applies just enough pressure to make the war politically and economically unbearable, while the U.S. maintains a costly presence in the Gulf without a path to resolution.

Timeline: 6–18 months, ending when domestic political pressure in the U.S. becomes untenable. At 54% public opposition and Trump’s approval at a second-term low of -16.7%, the political clock is already running.

Probability: Medium.

Market impact: Oil stays volatile above $100, acting as a silent killer of the U.S. housing market, every point of rate-driven affordability erosion compounds quarterly. The equity multiple faces a structural derating. The sectors hit hardest: aviation, petrochemicals, agriculture and shipping. The sectors that benefit: energy producers, defense, and alternative energy, as the security imperative accelerates the energy transition faster than any climate policy ever could.

Final thought

There is a temptation, during historical moments, to anchor portfolio construction to the prior equilibrium.

The Suez Crisis. The Nixon Shock. The 1973 oil embargo. Each looked, in the middle of the episode, like a temporary disruption. Each permanently altered the architecture of global finance. No one rang a bell at the inflection point.

No one knows which of these three paths we are on. What distinguishes the serious practitioner from the crowd is not forecast accuracy it is the discipline to build portfolios that are honest about that uncertainty, while remaining positioned for the full range of what comes next.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Always conduct your own due diligence.

Sources: CNBC, Bloomberg, Deutsche Bank Strategy, Investing.com, Federal Reserve FOMC Statement, Ray Dalio — Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order.

Leave a comment

The FOMC held the federal funds target range at 3.50%–3.75%, its third consecutive hold, while quietly revising its PCE inflation forecast upward to 2.7% — a full 70 basis points above its stated 2% mandate. In the same breath, the Fed trimmed its growth outlook and acknowledged that tariff-driven cost pressures are not, in fact, transitory.

Welcome to the FED’s impossible triangle.

For the next 12–18 months, the world’s most powerful central bank is trapped at the intersection of three forces that cannot all be satisfied simultaneously: sticky inflation, recession risk, and trade war-induced stagflation. The resolution of this triangle — and the timing of that resolution — is the single most important macro trade of 2026.

This piece breaks down the mechanics, the historical analogues, and what it means for your portfolio.

Setting the stage: a policy framework under siege

Let’s be precise about the FED’s mandate. The dual mandate is maximum employment and price stability — not “pick whichever is convenient.” The current environment makes the tradeoff between those two goals almost impossibly tight.

Inflation remains above target. Headline PCE at 2.7% is not catastrophic, but it’s also not 2.0%. Core readings have been sticky for longer than the consensus expected, driven by a combination of services inflation, shelter costs that have been slow to unwind, and now a new exogenous shock: tariffs. Goldman Sachs estimates the current tariff regime has raised inflation by approximately 1 percentage point relative to a no-tariff counterfactual — a supply-side cost-push shock the FED cannot cure with a rate cut.

Growth is wobbling. The IMF projects global growth at 3.3% in 2026 — trend-like on paper, but the distribution matters enormously. The US is decelerating. Recession probability, which spiked to 53% following “Liberation Day” tariff announcements last year, has since receded to 23% — but that is far from benign. One in four is not a tail risk; it is a base-case scenario that demands hedging.

The labor market is softening. Payroll prints have been coming in below trend. If job creation disappoints meaningfully in Q2, the unemployment-inflation tradeoff stops being academic and starts being politically explosive.

The tariff wildcard: supply shock in slow motion

Unlike demand-driven inflation — which the FED can address by raising rates and squeezing consumption — tariff-driven inflation is a supply shock. It raises prices not because consumers are spending too much, but because the cost of producing goods has increased. Hiking rates into a supply shock doesn’t cure the inflation; it just strangles the economy.

This is precisely the trap the Fed finds itself in.

The US has imposed tariffs on key categories of European exports — notably autos and steel — disrupting supply chains and compressing margins across industrial America. China tariffs remain elevated. The net effect is a structural wedge between the price level the Fed wants and the price level the tariff regime enforces.

Think of it as a price floor imposed by trade policy. The FED can push inflation down toward 2%, but only if it’s willing to accept enough economic damage to offset the tariff effect. That’s a brutal calculus.

Markets have repriced accordingly. From expecting three FED cuts in 2026 at the start of the year, the consensus has collapsed to one cut at most — and some desks are no longer ruling out the next move being a hike if energy prices re-accelerate.

The ghost of stagflation past

The word “stagflation” gets thrown around loosely, but the technical definition is precise: simultaneously elevated inflation and elevated unemployment. We are not there yet. But the directional risk is real enough that serious macro practitioners are running the scenario.

The last genuine stagflationary episode in the US was the 1970s — a period bookended by oil shocks, wage-price spirals, and a FED that was too slow to respond. Arthur Burns, Fed Chair at the time, was notoriously reluctant to hike aggressively because of political pressure and a misdiagnosis of the underlying inflation dynamic. The result was a decade of eroded purchasing power and financial repression.

Paul Volcker’s correction in 1979–1982 was brutally effective — inflation was killed — but the cost was a deep recession and unemployment above 10%.

The current FED faces a structural version of that same dilemma, but with less room to maneuver. Rates are already restrictive at 3.5–3.75%. There is no Volcker-style shock available. And unlike the 1970s, the inflation driver is partly trade policy — which is a political variable, not an economic one, and therefore outside the FED’s control.

The more instructive parallel may be 1994. In that cycle, the FED raised rates aggressively to front-run inflation that never fully materialized, triggering the largest bond market sell-off since WWII. The lesson: when policy is calibrated to a scenario that doesn’t materialize, the repricing can be violent.

Market implications: what the triangle means across asset classes

Fixed income: the front end is range-bound until the data forces a decision. The 2-year Treasury is a volatility trade, not a carry trade. Real yields remain elevated, which continues to pressure duration. Watch the 10-year breakeven inflation rate — if it moves above 2.5%, the FED will have a credibility problem that markets will price before the FOMC acknowledges it.

Equities: the equity market has been remarkably sanguine, with the AI capex boom providing a powerful earnings offset to the macro headwinds. But the fat part of the distribution has narrowed. Multiple expansion is off the table in a 3.5%+ rate environment. The burden falls entirely on earnings growth — which requires either top-line acceleration or sustained margin expansion, neither of which is guaranteed as input costs rise from tariffs.

Sector implications: Financials benefit from a higher-for-longer curve; Industrials face margin compression from tariff-driven input cost inflation; Energy is the primary hedge if geopolitical risk re-escalates; Technology remains the consensus long, though valuations require either rate cuts or a step-change in monetization of AI to justify.

FX: The dollar is the macro variable with the most asymmetric skew. EUR/USD 12-month consensus sits at 1.18 — a significant move from current levels — driven by ECB rate normalization, European fiscal expansion, and a structural erosion of the dollar’s premium as trade flows diversify away from USD settlement. If the FED is forced to cut into a weakening economy while the ECB holds, the interest rate differential trade flips dramatically.

Gold: In a world where the Fed cannot credibly commit to either a hawkish or dovish path, gold performs as the ultimate optionality asset. Central bank buying — particularly from EM reserve managers diversifying away from dollar-denominated assets — provides structural support. A stagflationary outcome would be the single most bullish scenario for gold since 2008.

The portfolio playbook: positioning for the triangle

Rather than predicting the specific resolution of the impossible triangle — rate cuts, hikes, or extended hold — the more durable framework is barbell positioning that performs across multiple scenarios:

Core long: short duration bonds + floating rate credit. In a higher-for-longer environment, you want to be paid now, not on a duration promise. Short-dated investment grade credit at 5–6% yields offers carry without the duration risk.

Tactical long: commodities and energy equities. The tariff-driven supply shock doesn’t resolve cleanly. Energy remains the cheapest geopolitical hedge in the portfolio.

Structural long: non-US equities. European equities trade at a 30%+ valuation discount to the S&P 500. With fiscal stimulus accelerating and EUR/USD potentially moving to 1.18, the FX tailwind alone could deliver meaningful alpha. Brazilian equities also very discounted.

Hedge: Gold. Not as speculation, but as insurance against the tail scenario where the FED loses credibility and the dollar weakens faster than the consensus expects.

Underweight: long-duration US Treasuries. Until the inflation picture clears, the 10-year offers asymmetric downside risk if breakevens move higher.

Final thought: the fog of policy

There is a temptation to resolve uncertainty by finding the most confident-sounding forecast and betting on it. Resist that temptation.

The most intellectually honest position right now is that the distribution of outcomes is wide, and the range of policy responses is genuinely constrained. The FED doesn’t have a good option — it has a least-bad option and identifying which least-bad option it chooses, and when, is the macro trade of the year.

The investors who profit in this environment won’t be the ones with the loudest macro call. They’ll be the ones who built portfolios robust enough to withstand being wrong, while still capturing the upside when they’re right.

That’s not a hedge fund pitch. That’s just risk management.

Disclaimer: this content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Always conduct your own due diligence.

Leave a comment

Share Sandro Vergueiro

Subscribe now