TL;DR

· Nomura cross-asset strategist Charlie McElligott believes the most effective trades in the current market still revolve around equities, commodities, energy, and AI, but the macro risks behind them have not disappeared.

· The recent pullback in energy prices has temporarily eased upward pressure on interest rates and helped tech and AI-related stocks rebound, but this stability may be only a brief respite.

· What truly warrants vigilance is the possibility that the U.S. may restrict diesel exports. Once policy leads to a further tightening of global energy supply, commodity prices could spike again and reignite inflation and long-end rates.

· McElligott's core judgment is: "All assets are short rate volatility." Once rate volatility suddenly spikes, bonds will not only fail to hedge equities but may fall simultaneously with stocks.

· In an extreme scenario, the market could experience the full chain of "energy shock → rate spike → tightening financial conditions → global growth concerns."

Editor's note: Over the past few weeks, energy has once again become a core variable in global asset pricing. Escalating tensions in the Middle East briefly drove crude oil and diesel prices sharply higher and pushed U.S. long-term Treasury yields to elevated levels; on September 18, after China urged Iran to use its influence to de-escalate Houthi attacks on Saudi oil facilities, oil prices pulled back and U.S. stocks got a breather. Reuters data showed that Brent crude settled at $104.87 that day, while WTI settled at $100.30.

But for Nomura cross-asset strategist Charlie McElligott, the oil price itself is not the most noteworthy issue. What really matters is: if the energy supply shock escalates again, will it reignite inflation and long-end rates, and further trigger a nonlinear rise in rate volatility?

In McElligott's framework, an important precondition for equities, commodities, and trend strategies to still function simultaneously is that although rates are high, volatility remains roughly within a range the market can tolerate. Once this condition is broken, Treasuries may no longer serve as an effective hedge for equities, and a traditional 60/40 portfolio could even see bonds and stocks fall in tandem.

Therefore, the so-called "Doomsday Scenario" in the original text is not a direct prediction of economic collapse, but rather a tail-risk thought experiment: energy supply shock → commodity price surge → rate volatility spike → sharp tightening of financial conditions → repricing of risk assets. For investors, what needs to be watched in the next phase is not just oil prices, but whether a positive feedback loop re-forms among energy, long-end rates, and rate volatility.

The following is a translation of the original text:

The most crowded yet most effective trade in the current market still appears to be "the same trade."

According to McElligott's summary, the high-Sharpe strategies that have continued to work over the past period are roughly concentrated in several directions: long equities, long commodities, long trend strategies, and long bottlenecks in energy and AI infrastructure.

Among them, the most typical combination in trend strategies currently is: long commodities, short bonds, long equities. Another group of funds generates returns through Carry, trend, and momentum strategies, while allocating long volatility and defensive assets as hedges.

The ability of this trade to persist is essentially built on a macro backdrop: the economy has not yet clearly fallen into recession, but supply constraints, fiscal expansion, and energy prices keep inflationary pressure persistent. As a result, commodities and equities can rise, while bonds continue to face upward pressure on interest rates.

The real problem is that rates can only "rise slowly" — they cannot suddenly spiral out of control.

Oil prices temporarily pull back, but what the market is really trading is easing interest rate pressure

On September 18, a notable reversal occurred in the energy market.

Reuters reported that after a request from the Saudi side, China urged Iran to use its influence to limit Houthi attacks on Saudi oil facilities. After the news emerged, the market lowered the probability of further short-term deterioration in energy supply, and international oil prices pulled back accordingly.

According to the original data, at that time Shanghai crude oil had already fallen about 13% from its high earlier in the week. McElligott interpreted this as the pullback in energy prices temporarily easing the pressure of persistently rising global interest rates, which had been an important variable driving higher macro volatility.

Two layers need to be distinguished here.

First, the oil price pullback itself is a fact; the easing effect of cooling energy on rates and equity sentiment belongs to an explanation at the level of market pricing.

Second, the original text further speculates that China intervened because the earlier pace of energy price gains had been too fast, had already begun to affect its own economic stability, and involved broader geopolitical considerations. This part is McElligott's interpretation of the situation, not confirmed fact, and is therefore more suitable as a scenario judgment rather than the event itself.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve had just completed a 25 basis point rate hike. The market interpreted this hike partly as a reaffirmation of inflation control and policy credibility; U.S. stocks subsequently rebounded, with the technology sector especially strong. Reuters also noted that the recent U.S. stock market has been affected simultaneously by changes in oil prices and long-term U.S. Treasury yields.

McElligott observed that funds are even flooding back in a big way into AI and semiconductors. According to the original text, investors poured a total of about $100 million in premium into short-term call options on Intel, Marvell, SanDisk, and Micron expiring on October 2.

On the surface, this signals a renewed rise in risk appetite.

But in McElligott's view, this actually makes another issue more important: if energy prices rise again, will positions currently built on the assumption of "controllable interest rate volatility" reverse rapidly?

If the U.S. restricts diesel exports, the risk is not in the U.S., but in global supply chains

McElligott points to U.S. diesel exports as the policy risk that may emerge in the next phase. Against the backdrop of recently tightening diesel supply and rapidly rising U.S. fuel prices, the Trump administration has indeed discussed the possibility of restricting fuel exports.

But it must be emphasized here: as of the publication of the original text, this was still a policy discussion, not an already enacted export ban.

The Wall Street Journal reported on September 18 that the U.S. government is evaluating relevant options and may focus on diesel. Potential measures include cutting a certain proportion of export quotas, or linking export volumes to U.S. domestic commercial inventories, rather than simply imposing a full embargo.

This is basically consistent with McElligott's judgment.

In his view, even if a policy is eventually introduced, it is more likely to be a kind of "refined restriction," increasing U.S. diesel supply by adjusting export ratios and domestic refinery resource allocation, rather than completely halting exports.

The short-term logic is not complicated: reducing exports can increase U.S. domestic supply, thereby pushing down local diesel prices. The problem is that the United States is also a major global supplier of refined products.

EIA data show that, on a four-week average basis through September 11, U.S. distillate exports were about 1.674 million barrels per day. Once this supply declines significantly, buyers in Europe and Asia will need to seek alternative sources from other regions, and the global refined products market may tighten further.

Furthermore, The Wall Street Journal, citing energy industry figures, pointed out that if export restrictions suppress refineries' marginal returns, U.S. refineries may over the long term adapt to demand changes by reducing crude oil processing volumes, thereby weakening overall output of diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel.

Therefore, what McElligott worries about is not that "export restrictions will definitely push up global energy prices," but rather that, in an environment where global energy supply is already relatively tight, if the United States further reduces diesel exports, it could become a new amplifier of supply shocks.

What McElligott Is Really Worried About Is Rate Vol

This is also the most important part of the entire piece.

McElligott does not view energy prices themselves as the ultimate risk. In his framework, the real channel through which energy affects global assets is Rate Vol — interest rate volatility.

Over the past few months, the market has adapted to a slow grind higher in long-end rates. High yields do not necessarily mean immediate systemic risk, as long as the move higher is relatively orderly, equity valuations and bond positioning still have time to readjust.

But if a new energy supply shock suddenly pushes commodity prices and inflation expectations higher, the situation could be different.

The original text notes that at the time, the Vol of Vol in the interest rate swaption market — that is, the volatility of volatility itself — was already at multi-year highs, and payer skew was notably steep. This means that certain rate option structures themselves already reflect investor demand for tail-risk protection against a sharp rise in yields.

Mechanically, once yields suddenly spike, the options hedging behavior of certain dealers could further amplify rate moves, shifting from what was originally a slow grind higher into more violent position adjustments.

McElligott calls this state a potential VaR Event.

VaR, or Value at Risk, is a metric used by financial institutions to measure the potential loss of a portfolio within a given confidence interval. When market volatility suddenly rises, funds using volatility controls or VaR constraints often need to simultaneously reduce risk exposure, which can further amplify price moves.

The original text sums it up very directly: the market is just waiting for a match to ignite rate volatility, and next time equities may not be spared either.

A more accurate reading of this statement is not "stocks will definitely fall," but rather: if rate volatility rises non-linearly, the current equity market's relatively stable tolerance for rate risk could deteriorate rapidly.

"All Assets Are Short Rate Vol"

McElligott has repeatedly used one phrase recently: "All Assets are Short Rate Vol."

It does not mean that market investors have literally all built short positions in rate volatility, but rather describes an asset pricing structure: the current strong performance of a large number of assets implicitly depends on rate volatility remaining relatively stable. Once rates suddenly swing sharply, equities, bonds, leveraged strategies, and risk parity portfolios could all come under pressure simultaneously.

This also leads to his second judgment: in an inflation environment driven by supply shocks, bonds may no longer effectively hedge risk assets. An important foundation of the traditional 60/40 portfolio is that stocks and bonds often have a certain negative correlation during risk events.

When the economy enters a demand recession, stocks fall while funds may flow into Treasuries, pushing bond prices higher and thereby offsetting some equity losses.

But the problem brought by an energy supply shock is different. If rising oil prices drive inflation expectations higher and the market demands higher long-term interest rates, then equity valuations and long-duration bonds may come under pressure at the same time. In this case, bonds are no longer naturally a hedge for stocks.

McElligott therefore believes that if yields rise rapidly again, U.S. Treasury losses could compound stock declines, putting greater pressure on traditional balanced and 60/40 portfolios.

This is the core of the original article's "doomsday scenario," rather than simply predicting that oil prices will continue to rise.

From an inflation shock to a growth shock

If this chain develops further, the market may eventually undergo a second shift in trading logic.

The first stage is: energy rises → inflation rises → interest rates rise. But if interest rates and energy prices continue to climb and financial conditions keep tightening, this could eventually begin to weigh on consumption, investment, and economic growth. At that point, the market's focus may shift from "whether inflation will continue to rise" back to "whether the global economy is beginning to slow markedly."

The original article therefore mentions the historical experience of 2008: in July 2008, international oil prices rose to a record high, but subsequently the energy shock and tighter financial conditions ultimately caused growth concerns to replace inflation concerns. This is not to say that McElligott judges that 2026 will repeat 2008.

More precisely, he is pointing to a possible macro path: a supply shock initially manifests as an inflation problem, but if it lasts long enough, it may ultimately turn into a demand and growth problem.

What should we really watch next?

McElligott also listed several "off-ramps," or exit paths, that could prevent the above extreme scenario from continuing to develop.

The most direct one is a phased cooling of the situation in the Middle East. China's involvement in coordinating Iran and the Houthis has already reduced the market's pricing of the worst energy supply scenario in the short term. A subsequent Reuters report also showed that Saudi Arabia is gradually restoring the East-West Pipeline previously affected by attacks, and the market has recently resumed trading on the possibility of improved supply.

But McElligott stressed that such news is more about pressure release and does not mean the regional conflict has been resolved.

Therefore, for the market, what needs to be watched most in the future is not a single policy, but three sets of variables:

First, energy prices. If crude oil and diesel prices continue to fall, the recent inflation risk surrounding supply shocks will further decline.

Second, long-end U.S. interest rates and rate volatility. What is truly dangerous is not the absolute level of yields, but whether the pace of yield increases is accelerating again, and whether tail-risk premiums continue to appear in the interest rate options market.

Third, the correlation between stocks and bonds. If rising energy prices are once again accompanied by simultaneous declines in stocks and U.S. Treasuries, the framework McElligott describes as "all assets are short rate volatility" will gain more market validation; conversely, if energy pressure fades and bonds regain their safe-haven properties, this tail-risk logic will clearly weaken.

Therefore, the real question raised by this article is not whether a so-called "doomsday scenario" will occur.

What deserves more attention is whether, after supply shocks once again become a macro variable, a basic assumption investors have grown accustomed to over the past few decades—that bonds can provide protection when stocks fall—is becoming unstable.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia