Blog

A Blue Wave Reshapes Washington as Divided Government Deflates the War Premium

The U.S. midterm elections have delivered a decisive verdict, with Democrats outperforming expectations and seizing control of Congress, setting up a divided government from January. Over the past two years, sweeping policy shifts from the Trump administration, unchecked by a Republican-controlled Congress, repeatedly jolted global markets, from tariffs to the Iran war. Policy itself became the dominant source of volatility. The market reaction after the vote captures this structural shift clearly: the Dow jumped 3%, Treasury yields fell, and oil slumped. Investors were not betting on any particular new policy, but on fewer policy shocks altogether. The key variable steering the U.S. macro outlook is shifting from the will of a single governing party to the bargaining and friction between the White House and Congress. Two forces are driving this repricing, one fiscal and one geopolitical. On the fiscal side, JPMorgan Asset Management sees a low likelihood of a new large-scale stimulus package over the next two years given divided control. Markets read this as easing concerns about Treasury supply, and the 10-year yield slipped back toward 4.9%, while gold reclaimed the $4,000 an ounce level. On the geopolitical side, the cost of living and the Iran war that began in late February were the main sources of voter discontent, and the rebuke to the president’s party raised the odds that the White House will seek an exit from the war, sending Brent crude down nearly 9%. Opinion remains divided, however. Optimists see gridlock as a stabilizer that will curb extreme policy outcomes. Skeptics note that Trump keeps his veto and Democrats lack filibuster-proof or veto-proof majorities, so Congress cannot end the war outright. There is also concern that tighter Democratic regulation could slow the pace of data center construction, a new headwind for the AI investment cycle, and analysts broadly agree it is unclear whether the drop in yields will last. Over the next one to three months, attention will center on federal funding negotiations and U.S.-Iran diplomacy. Divided government also raises the risk of funding standoffs and shutdowns, and with shipping risks around the Strait of Hormuz still unresolved, further downside in oil depends on whether a ceasefire actually materializes. Over a six- to twelve-month horizon, Democrats are expected to focus on cost-of-living measures and reversing Trump’s tariffs, which could loosen trade policy, though every step will run into the presidential veto, turning policy from a one-directional sprint into a prolonged tug of war. The main reversal risks are a diplomatic breakdown that widens the conflict to regional oil infrastructure, or an escalating standoff that leads to an extended shutdown, either of which could quickly rebuild energy and fiscal risk premia and undo the post-election calm.

The Fed's Hawkish Pause Signals Tightening Isn't Over

The Federal Reserve’s decision to stand pat looks less like the end of its tightening cycle and more like a halftime break that comes with a warning. The FOMC held the federal funds target range at 3.75% to 4% in a 10-2 vote, with Governor Lisa Cook and Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack both dissenting in favor of a quarter-point hike. September’s hike had passed unanimously, so the committee’s split has widened, and it has widened entirely in a hawkish direction. With September CPI up 3.7% from a year earlier, well above the Fed’s 2% goal, the market conversation has shifted decisively from “when does easing begin” to “how much further does tightening go.” Chair Kevin Warsh also announced fewer rate-setting meetings starting next year and reiterated his opposition to forward guidance, which means the Fed will send fewer signals and markets will have to lean more heavily on the data itself. What sustains this hawkish posture is an unusual pairing of an energy shock and robust growth. Warsh acknowledged that energy and related prices have moved higher again in recent weeks, and December WTI crude settled above $102 a barrel on the day, driven by US-Iran tensions. The economy, meanwhile, shows little sign of buckling under higher rates: Warsh said third-quarter growth was likely running above 3%, with business investment rising at roughly a double-digit pace. He noted that since the September hike, credit conditions have tightened for some businesses and households, as expected, and that while overall financial conditions are tighter, he would not call them tight. He added that the overwhelming judgment on the committee is that monetary medicine is starting to work some, though there are no firm conclusions yet. Disagreement within the committee centers on pace. Glenmede’s Jason Pride argues that officials are debating timing rather than the ultimate direction of policy. Warsh also stressed that the economy is not overheating; while acknowledging some demand pressure from the AI investment boom, he did not see growth itself as the source of inflation, implying supply-side forces remain the main culprit. With midterm elections days away, Warsh insisted politics played no role in the decision, but questions about Fed independence linger in the background. In the near term, this week’s third-quarter GDP and September PCE releases, followed by early-November jobs and CPI data, will shape the outcome of the December 9 meeting. After the press conference, futures priced roughly an 85% chance of a quarter-point hike in December and a policy rate approaching 4.7% by September 2027. Over the medium term, if oil stays above $100, the “higher for longer” regime will become more entrenched, and with the 10-year Treasury yield holding above 5% after the meeting, elevated long-term rates risk becoming the norm. The Fed’s deliberate retreat from forward guidance also means each data release will carry outsized market impact, raising volatility around the policy path. The main reversal triggers would be a Middle East de-escalation that pulls oil lower, or tightening credit that visibly drags on business investment and consumer spending. The tail risks are a fresh energy spike that forces more aggressive tightening, or post-election political pressure that erodes confidence in the central bank’s independence.

Middle East Energy Shock Pushes Central Banks Back Toward Tightening

The dominant macro narrative is shifting decisively. The easing cycle that markets spent the past year pricing in is giving way to a reflation story driven by an energy shock. This week, Houthi strikes on a Saudi airport and oil field prompted Washington to order some diplomats and their families out of the Kingdom, and Brent crude rose above $110 a barrel in Asian trading on October 22. The rally is not a one-day burst of geopolitical anxiety. Kpler has counted at least 18 attacks on shipping over the past two weeks, and LSEG analysts warn that Iran’s targeting of tankers now reaches beyond the Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Oman. Once supply risk moves from “potential disruption” to “persistent interference,” oil stops being just a commodity trade and starts to shape central bank policy paths. Three forces are converging behind this trend: geopolitical conflict, the fragmentation of supply chains into rival blocs, and tight physical supply. U.S. crude inventories fell far more than expected last week, and the Department of Energy, citing diesel shortages, is offering to loan heating oil from its emergency reserve. That is a sign energy costs are already flowing from futures markets into end-user prices. The monetary policy response matters most. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh last week declined to guide on the timing or necessity of future hikes. Futures markets expect a hold next week, but they now assign roughly 90% odds to a December rate increase. The concern is not confined to the U.S. Reserve Bank of Australia Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser has said the inflation outlook is “materially worse” than the central bank had forecast, warning that high inflation is becoming entrenched in the Australian economy. Northern Trust describes the outlook as “higher for longer.” The key divergence is clear. One camp argues that a U.S.-Iran peace deal could send oil sharply lower and defuse inflation pressure quickly. The other, as Rabobank stresses, sees a durable strategic premium on energy in what it calls a new Cold War along supply chains. Over the next one to three months, oil and rate expectations are likely to move in lockstep. Any diplomatic breakthrough or escalation could trigger sharp swings, while gold and silver stay under pressure from hike expectations. Over six to twelve months, if energy prices stay elevated, central banks may face a far more painful trade-off between inflation and growth, which raises the risk of stagflation. Potential reversal triggers include renewed U.S.-Iran negotiations, Russia-Ukraine talks resuming as early as November and easing supply constraints, or demand destruction caused by high prices themselves.

An Energy Shock Is Pulling the Fed Back Into Tightening Mode

The central question in global monetary policy is quietly flipping from “when will rates come down” to “how many more hikes are coming.” The Federal Reserve already raised rates unanimously last month, and this week’s U.S. inflation data shows price pressures accelerating, not cooling, with energy leading the charge. September producer prices jumped 1.3% in a single month, the largest gain since 2022, a sign that upstream costs are building faster than markets had assumed. For investors conditioned to an easing cycle, this is an inflection point that demands attention: the tightening cycle may not be over, and could be entering a second phase. The core force behind this inflation revival is an energy supply shock rooted in geopolitical conflict. After an attack on Middle East shipping, Brent crude climbed above $100 a barrel, and those gains are now feeding through transport, airfares, and raw materials into corporate cost structures. More worrying is that core producer prices, which strip out food and energy, are also climbing, which suggests the pressure is broadening rather than reflecting a one-off oil spike. Market opinion is clearly divided. One camp argues that supply shocks eventually fade and the Fed should avoid overreacting. It notes that headline retail sales looked strong mainly because of fuel prices, while underlying consumer spending is already slowing. The other camp points to a still-tight labor market and warns that second-round inflation effects are a real risk. Chair Warsh’s refusal to signal his next move underscores how uncertain policymakers themselves are. In the short term, the late-October FOMC meeting is the key event. Markets still lean toward a hold, but they now put the odds of a December hike at close to 80%. Over the medium term, if energy prices stay elevated, other central banks such as the Bank of Canada may be forced to tighten as well, locking in a “higher for longer” global rate regime in which a U.S. 10-year Treasury yield near 5% becomes the new normal. The main reversal triggers would be a de-escalation in the Middle East that pulls oil lower, or clear evidence that high rates are curbing consumer spending and business investment. The recent correction in semiconductors and growth stocks was driven mainly by doubts over AI spending, but in a high-rate environment the margin for error on richly valued assets has clearly narrowed.

The Fed's Unfinished Tightening Is Repricing Long-Term Money

The Federal Reserve lifted rates by a quarter point to a 3.75%–4.00% range in September, its first hike in more than three years. Minutes from that meeting show the decision was unanimous, and most officials believe another increase before year-end will likely be appropriate. That makes September's move look less like a one-off precautionary step and more like the opening of a new tightening cycle. The bond market got there first: 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have both climbed to roughly 24-year highs, effectively pricing in "higher for longer" ahead of the policy rate itself. Notably, equities remain near record levels and corporate credit spreads stay tight, so the repricing of capital has so far spread mainly into overseas bond markets and currencies, while risk assets have yet to reflect it. The core case for tightening is the risk that inflation stays above target. Energy and tariff shocks are adding direct price pressure, while the AI infrastructure boom is lifting capital spending on the demand side. In the New York Fed's survey, one-year inflation expectations reached their highest level since September 2023 in June and have held at an elevated 3.6% in recent months. As for long-end yields, the minutes cite possible drivers including firmer economic data, rising expectations of AI-related borrowing, and geopolitical developments. Officials still disagree on why they are hiking. Some see it as a way to stop energy shocks from spilling over, but many are focused on demand-driven inflation, and a couple believe the neutral rate itself has moved higher. Markets reflect the same split: the odds of an October hike have fallen sharply from their late-September peak to around 20%, with most bets now on December. Over the next one to three months, September CPI and the October 27–28 policy meeting are the key tests. If inflation is broadening, the odds of a December hike will rise sharply, and the October meeting could bring multiple dissents. Recent data, however, lean dovish: August PCE and core PCE both came in below expectations, and September payroll growth was the slowest this year, leading some officials to argue for waiting. Over six to twelve months, if the view that the neutral rate has risen becomes consensus, the rate plateau will last longer than markets expect, and pressure will keep building on richly valued assets and highly leveraged companies. A reversal would most likely require energy and tariff shocks to fade and the early signs of labor-market cooling to become a clear trend. The tail risk is a disorderly rise in long-end yields that sharply tightens financial conditions. Read More at Datatrack