The Market That No Longer Cares About the Truth

Markets make the money and remain devoid of morality

There’s a growing sense that financial markets have drifted into a parallel reality. Not the usual detachment that comes with speculation, but something deeper — a structural break between what is happening in the world and what markets choose to see.

This is how the stock market feels at the moment. I might be wrong, but the overwhelming sense of despair feels so real. I believe the markets are broken at their core, and nobody seems to care. Markets make money and remain devoid of morality.

The system is morally bankrupt.

You can watch a crisis unfold in real time, with footage, statements, explosions and diplomatic failures, and yet the markets behave as though they’re responding to a completely different script.

A ceasefire that barely exists is treated as a turning point. A strategic waterway that is “open” only in the loosest, most cosmetic sense is priced as fully restored. The disconnect isn’t subtle. It’s brazen.

And yes — it feels deceptive

Not because traders are conspiring to mislead anyone, but because the modern market has evolved into something that no longer requires truth to function.

It only needs a narrative.

A headline. A phrase that can be interpreted as “less bad than yesterday”. That’s enough to ignite a rally, even if the underlying situation is deteriorating by the hour.

This wasn’t always the case. There was a time when markets, for all their volatility and irrationality, still behaved like instruments tethered to reality.

When a major shipping lane was threatened, prices moved accordingly. When a ceasefire collapsed, markets reflected the renewed danger. There was at least a rough correlation between events and valuations — imperfect, but recognisable.

Today, that correlation has snapped. The market trades on sentiment, not substance. On the idea of stability, not the presence of it.

Appearance

On the appearance of progress, even when the facts on the ground contradict every optimistic headline. A ceasefire announcement is enough to send equities higher, even if the ceasefire is violated before the ink dries.

A promise to reopen a strait is enough to calm oil prices, even if only a handful of ships actually move.

The deception is structural. It’s the product of algorithmic trading that reacts to keywords rather than conditions.

It’s the result of a decade of central bank intervention that has taught investors to treat every crisis as temporary and every dip as a buying opportunity. It’s reinforced by political communication that prioritises market stability over factual clarity.

The system rewards optimism, even when it’s unjustified. It punishes realism when it’s inconvenient.

Surreal

This is why the current moment feels so surreal. You can see the footage of strikes in Lebanon while reading headlines about “regional de‑escalation”. You can watch tankers stalled while analysts talk about “normalising flows”.

The market shrugs, because the narrative — however flimsy — is enough to sustain the illusion.

If markets don’t need truth, then they are, in effect, trading a deception. Not a deliberate deception, but a functional one.

Economic Truth

A deception that keeps prices elevated, volatility suppressed, and investors soothed.

A deception that allows the charts to climb even as the world beneath them fractures.

A deception that has become the operating principle of a system that no longer reflects reality, only the stories it finds convenient to believe.

This isn’t investing – this is pure manipulative gameplay and benefits only those who know how to play the game.

And ‘they’ set the rules.

Markets make the money but remain devoid of morality.

I feel like I am playing a video game without the controller or at least with a rule book.

Update:

U.S. announces it will blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, or rather Iranian ‘linked’ ships. And not in the Strait but further out in international waters. This is designed to reduce the risk of conflict.

China, I assume, will not be happy.

Be careful – nothing is as it seems.

April 10, 2026April 10, 2026

U.S. Inflation Stays Stubborn at 3% as Geopolitical Tensions Rise

America’s latest inflation figures show price pressures proving far stickier than the Federal Reserve would like, with the core PCE index — the Fed’s preferred gauge — holding at 3% in February 2026.

Headline inflation came in slightly lower at 2.8%, but both measures remain well above the central bank’s 2% target.

What makes this reading particularly significant is its timing. The data captures the state of the economy just before the U.S. and Israel launched military action against Iran.

Energy chaos

A conflict that has since sent global energy markets into turmoil. Oil briefly surged past $100 a barrel, and U.S. petrol prices jumped by more than a dollar, none of which is reflected in February’s figures.

Beneath the surface, the numbers paint a mixed picture. Consumer spending rose 0.5%, suggesting households were still willing to open their wallets, yet personal income unexpectedly slipped 0.1%.

Stagflation?

Fourth‑quarter GDP for 2025 was revised down to a sluggish 0.5% annualised, reinforcing concerns that the U.S. may be drifting into a mild stagflationary phase — slow growth paired with persistent inflation.

Fed officials have been cautious in recent weeks, signalling openness to rate cuts later in the year but unwilling to commit while geopolitical risks and energy‑driven price spikes cloud the outlook.

With March’s CPI due imminently — and expected to show a sharp jump — policymakers face a narrowing path between supporting a cooling labour market and preventing inflation from becoming entrenched.

For now, the message is clear: underlying inflation was already proving stubborn before the shock of war.

The next few months will reveal whether the Fed can still engineer the soft landing it has been aiming for, or whether the global energy shock forces a rethink.

April 10, 2026April 9, 2026

Iran’s 2026 Energy Crises: Echoes of the 1970s in a New Era of Risk

The 1970s crises were triggered by political embargoes and revolution, causing sharp but smaller supply cuts and extreme price spikes.

Today’s crisis is driven by war, infrastructure attacks, and the near‑closure of the Strait of Hormuz, producing a larger supply disruption, though price rises so far have been less extreme.

Energy shock

The energy shocks of the 1970s remain some of the most disruptive economic events of the modern age. Triggered first by an embargo and later by revolution, they exposed how deeply the global economy depended on Middle Eastern oil.

Half a century later, Iran still sits at the centre of global energy anxiety — but the nature of the threat has shifted.

The world is no longer facing an outright supply collapse, yet the structural vulnerabilities that defined the 1970s have not disappeared. They have simply evolved.

Yom Kippur War

The first major shock came in 1973, when Arab oil producers cut exports to countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The result was a sudden loss of roughly seven per cent of global supply. Prices quadrupled, queues formed at petrol stations, and governments imposed rationing, car‑free days, and speed‑limit reductions.

The economic fallout was severe: inflation surged while growth stalled, creating the era‑defining condition of stagflation.

A second blow followed in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution removed millions of barrels per day from the market. Prices tripled once again, and the world was forced to confront the fragility of its energy systems.

IEA

The International Energy Agency was created in direct response, tasked with coordinating emergency measures and strategic reserves.

These two crises set the benchmark for what an energy shock looks like — sudden, sharp, and globally destabilising.

Today’s risks are different. The world is not experiencing a supply loss on the scale of the 1970s, but the potential for disruption remains high.

Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of global oil flows, is a strategic chokepoint vulnerable to conflict, tanker seizures, and infrastructure attacks.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to close or disrupt the strait during periods of tension, and even limited incidents in recent years have pushed prices higher.

Markets remain acutely sensitive to any sign that the corridor could be compromised.

Diverse energy

Unlike the 1970s, modern economies have more diversified energy systems, larger strategic reserves, and a growing share of renewables.

Yet these advantages do not eliminate risk; they merely soften it. A serious disruption in the Gulf would still send shockwaves through global markets.

The comparison between then and now is not one of scale but of structure. The 1970s showed how quickly energy can become a lever of geopolitical power.

Today’s world is more resilient, but no less exposed. The lesson endures: when a single region holds the key to global supply, the world remains only one crisis away from another shock.

We also need to ask – how and why this happened again!

What’s your answer?

How the crises affected the UK in the 1970s

The 1970s energy crisis had a profound and lasting impact on the United Kingdom, reshaping its economy, politics, and industrial relations.

When global oil prices quadrupled after the 1973 OPEC embargo, Britain was already struggling with domestic energy tensions.

Coal remained the backbone of electricity generation, and the miners’ dispute with Edward Heath’s government over pay and working conditions collided with the global fuel shock.

As coal output fell and oil costs soared, the government-imposed emergency measures — most famously the Three‑Day Week in early 1974, limiting commercial electricity use to conserve power. It led to the Winter of Discontent.

Power Cuts

Factories shut down, television broadcasts ended early, and households faced rolling power cuts. Inflation surged, unemployment rose, and the economy slowed sharply.

The crisis deepened public frustration with the Conservative government, contributing to Heath’s defeat in the February 1974 general election.

Trade Union Turmoil

The turmoil also strengthened trade unions, whose strikes became a defining feature of the decade.

By the late 1970s, another oil shock — triggered by the Iranian Revolution — compounded Britain’s economic malaise, leading to the “Winter of Discontent” and paving the way for Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979.

In short, the 1970s energy crisis exposed Britain’s dependence on imported fuel and unstable domestic supply, ushering in years of inflation, industrial unrest, and political upheaval that reshaped the country’s economic direction for decades.

March 25, 2026March 25, 2026

Steady February 2026 UK Inflation Masks Rising Risks from Iran Conflict

UK inflation before war shock filters through

The UK’s inflation rate remained unchanged at 3% in February, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics.

After months of gradual easing, the pause reflects a delicate moment for the UK economy, with price pressures beginning to shift beneath the surface.

Clothing was the biggest upward driver, with prices rising this year after falling during the same period in 2025.

This was offset by cheaper petrol, though those figures were captured before the recent surge in global oil prices triggered by the outbreak of war involving Iran.

While inflation is far below the peaks seen a few years ago, households are still contending with the reality that prices continue to rise—just more slowly.

ONS data

The ONS also introduced supermarket scanner data for the first time, offering a more accurate picture of food costs.

Economists warn that the conflict‑driven spike in oil and gas prices could push inflation higher again later in the year, with some forecasts suggesting a potential rise towards 4.6%.

Businesses already reliant on fuel, such as regional bus operators, report steep cost increases that may soon feed through to consumers.

The government insists it is working to ease cost‑of‑living pressures, though global events may limit its room for manoeuvre.

March 18, 2026March 18, 2026

The Market’s Coiled Spring: Why Ultra‑Tight Ranges Rarely End Quietly

Coiled spring - pure stock market energy

Markets rarely sit still without reason. When they do — as they have in recent sessions, grinding sideways in an ultra‑tight range — it signals not calm but compression.

Price action becomes like a coiled spring: energy building, tension rising, and traders waiting for the moment when restraint snaps into motion.

This week’s narrow trading bands reflect a market holding its breath. Geopolitical tension in the Middle East, oil volatility, and a Federal Reserve decision all loom over investors, yet equities have refused to break down.

Futures are edging higher, European indices are opening firmer, and even the tech wobble — with Nvidia’s muted reaction to its latest showcase — hasn’t derailed broader sentiment

Tight range – a waiting game.

Historically, such tight ranges rarely resolve with a whimper. When volatility is suppressed for too long, the eventual breakout tends to be sharp and directional. The question, of course, is which way.

Right now, the evidence suggests upward. Markets have absorbed war‑driven oil swings, shrugged off hedge‑fund losses, and continued to find buyers on dips.

Breadth is stabilising, and risk appetite — surprisingly resilient given the backdrop — is creeping back into European and Asian sessions.

That doesn’t guarantee a bullish surge, but it does suggest the path of least resistance is higher.

Fed tone

If the Fed avoids surprising investors and signals comfort with the current trajectory, the spring is more likely to uncoil to the upside.

A dovish‑leaning tone could ignite a breakout as sidelined capital rushes back into equities. Conversely, a hawkish shock would release the same stored energy — but violently downward.

The market is coiled. The catalyst is imminent. And when the range finally breaks, it won’t be subtle.

You know, it almost doesn’t matter what disasters are ongoing in the world – the stock market just wants to win and go up!

Just how bad does it have to be before the stock market corrects? And what will be the catalyst to make that happen?

Debt, credit concerns, geopolitical tension, political scandal, Epstein, a rogue nuclear attack, AI failure, war or just another Trump tariff scenario?

Who knows? And does anybody really care as long as ‘making money’ isn’t interrupted.

March 12, 2026March 12, 2026

THE WIDER FALLOUT: How a Prolonged U.S.–Iran War Radiates Through the Global Economy

If the U.S.–Iran conflict drags on for weeks or months, the global impact will extend far beyond oil markets. Energy prices are only the first domino.

The deeper, more destabilising effects emerge through shipping disruption, fertiliser shortages, food‑price inflation, financial volatility, cyber escalation, and regional political instability.

For the UK — already wrestling with structural food‑system fragility — the conflict becomes a real‑world stress test.

This report outlines 15 potential major knock‑on effects that would shape the global economy if the conflict becomes protracted.

1. Global Shipping Disruption

The Strait of Hormuz is not just an oil artery; it is a global shipping chokepoint. As vessels reroute or halt operations:

Container shipping delays spread across Asia, Europe and the Gulf.
War‑risk insurance premiums spike for all vessels.
Freight costs rise, feeding into non‑energy inflation.

This is the mechanism by which a regional conflict becomes a global economic event.

2. Aviation and Travel Disruption

Iranian retaliation has already included strikes on Gulf airports and hotels. If this continues:

Airlines reroute or cancel flights across the Gulf, South Asia and East Africa.
Longer flight paths increase fuel burn and fares.
Tourism in the UAE, Oman, Bahrain and potentially Turkey contracts sharply.

Aviation is one of the fastest channels through which geopolitical instability hits consumers.

3. Financial Market Volatility

Markets dislike uncertainty, and this conflict delivers it in abundance.

Investors flee to gold, the dollar and U.S. Treasuries.
Emerging markets face capital outflows.
Equity volatility rises in shipping, aviation and manufacturing sectors.

The longer the conflict persists, the more entrenched this volatility becomes.

4. Fertiliser Disruption: The Hidden Trigger

Over one‑third of global fertiliser trade moves through the Strait of Hormuz. With shipments stranded:

Urea, ammonia, phosphates and sulphur prices surge.
Farmers worldwide face higher input costs.
Lower fertiliser availability leads to reduced crop yields.

This is the beginning of a food‑system shock that unfolds over months, not days.

5. Global Food‑Price Inflation

As fertiliser shortages ripple through agriculture:

Wheat, rice, maize and oilseed yields fall.
Livestock feed becomes more expensive, pushing up meat, dairy and egg prices.
Food‑importing regions face acute pressure.
Grain futures markets become more volatile.

This is how a conflict becomes a global cost‑of‑living crisis.

UK Exposure

The UK is particularly vulnerable because:

It imports a large share of its fertiliser and food.
Its agricultural sector is energy‑intensive.
Supermarket supply chains are sensitive to freight and insurance costs.

Bread, cereals, dairy and meat are the first categories to feel the squeeze.

6. Supply Chain Strain Beyond Food and Energy

A prolonged conflict disrupts:

Petrochemicals
Plastics
Fertilisers
Industrial metals
Gulf‑based manufacturing and logistics

This feeds into higher costs for everything from packaging to electronics.

7. Corporate Investment Freezes

Businesses hate uncertainty. Expect:

Delays or cancellations of Gulf megaprojects.
Slower investment in petrochemicals, logistics and tech hubs.
Reduced appetite for Gulf‑exposed assets.

This undermines diversification efforts like Saudi Vision 2030.

8. Cyber Escalation

Iran has a long history of cyber retaliation. Likely developments include:

Attacks on Western banks, utilities and government systems.
Disruptions to Gulf infrastructure, including airports and desalination plants.
Rising cybersecurity costs for businesses globally.

Cyber conflict is asymmetric, deniable and cheap — making it a likely pressure valve.

9. Regional Political Destabilisation

The killing of senior Iranian leadership has already shaken the region.

Possible outcomes include:

Internal instability within Iran.
Escalation involving Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, Syrian factions and the Houthis.
Pressure on Gulf monarchies if civilian infrastructure continues to be targeted.

This is where the conflict risks widening beyond its initial theatre.

10. Migration and Humanitarian Pressures

If the conflict intensifies:

Refugee flows from Iran, Iraq and Syria could rise.
Europe — especially Greece, Turkey and the Balkans — faces renewed border pressure.
Humanitarian budgets shrink as Western states divert funds to defence.

This adds a political dimension to the economic fallout.

11. Insurance Market Stress

War‑risk insurance is already spiking.

Expect:

Higher premiums for shipping, aviation and energy infrastructure.
Reduced insurer appetite for Gulf‑exposed assets.
Knock‑on effects on global trade costs and consumer prices.

Insurance is a silent amplifier of geopolitical risk.

12. Higher Global Borrowing Costs

Sustained conflict spending creates:

Budgetary strain for the U.S., UK, EU and Gulf states.
Reduced fiscal space for domestic programmes.
Higher global borrowing costs as markets price in sustained uncertainty.

This tightens financial conditions worldwide.

13. Pressure on Emerging Markets

Countries heavily reliant on imported energy or food face:

Worsening trade balances
Currency depreciation
Higher inflation
Greater risk of sovereign stress

This is especially acute in South Asia, North Africa and parts of Latin America.

14. Strain on Multilateral Institutions

A prolonged conflict diverts attention and resources from:

Climate finance
Development aid
Humanitarian relief
Global health programmes

Institutions already stretched by Ukraine, Gaza and climate disasters face further overload.

15. The Strategic Reordering of Alliances

A drawn‑out conflict may accelerate geopolitical realignment:

Gulf states hedge between Washington and Beijing.
India and Turkey pursue more independent foreign policies.
Europe faces renewed pressure to define its own security posture.
Russia benefits from higher energy prices and Western distraction.

This is the long‑term consequence: a shift in the global balance of power.

Conclusion: A Conflict That Radiates Far Beyond Oil

If the U.S.–Iran war limps on, the world will feel it in supermarket aisles, shipping lanes, financial markets and political systems.

The most consequential knock‑on effect is not oil — it is fertiliser. That is the hinge on which global food security turns.

For the UK, the conflict exposes the fragility of a food system dependent on imports, long supply chains and energy‑intensive agriculture.

This is not just a Middle Eastern conflict. It is a global economic event in slow motion.

And who says we don’t need oil still!

June 24, 2025September 12, 2025

From Missiles to Tariffs: A desensitised stock market faces Trump’s new world

Markets desensitised to U.S. policy making

In years past, the mere hint of U.S. airstrikes or heightened geopolitical tension would send global stock markets into panic mode.

Yet, following President Trump’s re-election and his increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance, investor reactions have become notably muted.

From missile strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to an orchestrated ceasefire between Iran and Israel, markets have barely flinched. The question arises: are investors becoming desensitised to Trump’s geopolitical theatre?

Take the latest skirmish between Iran and Israel. After nearly two weeks of missile exchanges, Trump’s announcement of a ‘complete and total ceasefire’ barely nudged the S&P 500.

That calm came despite the U.S. launching pre-emptive strikes on Iranian facilities and absorbing retaliatory attacks on its military base in Qatar.

In another era, or under a different administration even, such developments might have triggered a broad risk-off sentiment. Instead, Wall Street just shrugged.

One reason may be fatigue. Trump’s approach – rife with tariffs, sanctions, and sudden reversals – has bred a kind of market immunity.

Investors, well-versed in the rhythm of Trump’s provocations, have begun treating them as background noise. His revived tariff agenda, particularly the threats aimed once again at China and EU auto imports, has likewise failed to prompt major selloffs.

Similarly, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, once a source of intense volatility, now registers as a strategic stalemate in the market’s eyes.

While Trump’s rhetoric surrounding Ukraine has shifted unpredictably, investors appear more focused on earnings, inflation data, and central bank signals than on diplomatic fallout and war!

This is not to suggest markets are indifferent to geopolitical risk, but rather that they’ve adapted. Algorithmic trading models may be increasingly geared to discount Trump’s headline-grabbing tactics, while institutional investors hedge through gold, volatility indices, or energy plays without dumping equities outright.

Critics argue this detachment is dangerous. Should a flashpoint spiral out of control, be it over Hormuz, Ukraine, or Taiwan, the slow-boiling complacency could leave portfolios badly exposed.

Still, for now, Trump’s policies are being priced in not with panic, but with complacency maybe.

The real story may not be what Trump does next, but how long the markets can continue to look away.

Trump announces he had brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran?

Tensions between Israel and Iran reached a boiling point after 12 days of cross-border missile and drone strikes.

The situation escalated further when U.S. forces under President Trump launched targeted airstrikes on key Iranian nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, prompting a direct Iranian missile response on a U.S. base in Qatar.

In a dramatic turn, President Trump announced what he called a ‘Complete and Total CEASEFIRE‘ – announced on Truth Social. According to Trump’s plan, Iran would begin the ceasefire immediately, with Israel to follow 12 hours later.

The truce would reportedly be considered complete after 24 hours if all attacks stopped.

While Trump touted the ceasefire as a triumph of ‘peace through strength’, analysts questioned the ceasefire’s enforceability – especially since missile exchanges reportedly continued despite the announcement.

Nonetheless, Trump claimed credit for halting the region’s slide into all-out war without committing to prolonged U.S. military involvement.

Critics argue Trump’s strategy relies more on military pressure and media theatrics than diplomatic engagement.

Supporters counter that his boldness forced both sides to the table. Either way, the world is watching to see whether this fragile peace endures – or erupts again in fire.

If this turns out to be a masterstroke in political brinkmanship – hats off to Trump, I guess. Whichever way you look at it, the precision U.S. strike on Iran was exactly that – precision. And, you have to take note.

Iran has been weakened, and this may even influence Russia’s war on Ukraine. Hopefully Israel with Palestine too – regardless of stock market reaction.

And that has to be a good thing!

But has Israel finished their war?

Despite all the noise regarding stock market reaction, one thing is for certain – the anxiety and worry for the people of the Middle East is unquestionable.

It’s not a happy time.