Blockade on the Gulf of Negative Sentiment

17/04/2026

How markets are discounting risk, distributing exposure, and who ends up holding it.

Equity markets are recovering to beyond the highs set prior to the latest crisis in Iran, and in the case of the S&P reaching an all-time high. This price performance reflects little to nothing of the palpable anxiety detectable in many conversations. The explanation frequently offered has been that the volume and velocity of policy change has created considerable difficulty in assuming risk in either direction. Further complicated by the fact that the economic data currently available to equity markets does not yet reflect the true cost being paid in physical markets.

What is being set aside

A variety of risks that were commanding significant analytical oxygen only weeks ago have receded from focus. Russia and Ukraine negotiations are reported to be progressing - perhaps a more unified Europe post the Hungarian elections has changed Moscow's calculus, perhaps not. Tariff regimes and challenges have gone quiet - although the mechanism for reclaiming IEEPA tariff payments is now being established. Private credit vulnerabilities, accumulating in leveraged loan books and direct lending vehicles over several years, are not currently front of mind. Fertiliser supply constraints and semiconductor bottlenecks, both carrying material downstream consequences, have also been crowded off the agenda.

Energy markets: the gap between paper and physical

The Strait of Hormuz - the well documented energy and broader trade choke point - continues to operate under considerable constraint. The market is currently treating the disruption as a dynamic of the U.S./Iran negotiations that will ultimately resolve, rather than a dramatic nascent supply shock underway. This is a collective judgement reached via the negotiated auction of pricing.

One of the clearest expressions of this constraint is the growing divergence between futures pricing and the effective cost of physical barrels. This is evidence that the supply shock already underway is of a scale that futures markets are not yet fully transmitting.

Governments have cushioned the immediate shock through strategic reserve releases, but those inventories are being drawn down at pace and will require rebuilding. The options market is flagging near-term implied volatility in crude, and the vol surface is exhibiting unusual call skew - participants are paying more to protect against upside price shock than downside, the inverse of the typical crude structure.

The positioning data makes the tension explicit. At the end of 2025, managed money net length in Brent had reached near zero - gross longs had collapsed to multi-year lows while gross shorts reached their highest recorded level on a dataset extending back to 2010. The bear case, driven by demand destruction anxiety, OPEC+ supply overhang, and tariff anxiety, had overwhelmed any bull case entirely.

The subsequent reversal has been one of the most complete sentiment shifts on a sixteen-year data series. Gross longs have rebuilt to approximately 425,000 contracts, well above the long-run average of 301,000. On the producer side, gross shorts -- which had been climbing structurally from 850,000 contracts in late 2022 to a peak of 1,642,000 in March 2026 - have begun to pull back modestly to 1,519,000. Producers reducing forward price protection at the margin, at precisely the moment speculative longs are pressing toward the upper end of their historical range, represents a quiet convergence of directional view - yet prompt date futures pricing has not followed.

Also worthy of mention is the notable share (~10%) of the speculative long being expressed through options rather than outright futures, consistent with participants seeking asymmetric exposure rather than committing fully to the directional view.

Distribution and the structure of access

The cost pressure building in energy and raw materials will transmit to consumer prices, business margins, and household purchasing power on a horizon of months rather than years. The retail investor and end consumer finding themselves simultaneously exposed to deteriorating conditions across multiple fronts is not currently treated as a central concern. It may prove to be the catalyst that brings the outlier scenarios from the edges of the distribution toward the centre.

SpaceX, currently valued at approximately $2 trillion, is preparing an IPO in which roughly 30% of the offering is reserved for retail participants - approximately six times the conventional retail tranche in a transaction of this type. The company's operational achievements are not in question. What warrants scrutiny is the timing and the structure.

SpaceX has not previously been accessible to retail investors at any stage of its valuation history. The first price retail participants will encounter is the price set at the conclusion of a decade of private appreciation, informed by successive institutional funding rounds, management access, and iterative price discovery that retail was excluded from entirely. They are being given access at the point where those who built the position require an exit mechanism.

Late-cycle dynamics often coincide with the broadening of access to previously institutional asset classes. Distribution at this stage presents itself as inclusion. The proposed extension of private credit into retirement platforms reflects both the search for yield and the need for new capital sources as existing holders seek liquidity. These structures introduce exposure to illiquid, leveraged, and less transparent credit instruments within vehicles designed for long-term savers. The argument in favour, that broader access corrects a historical imbalance, holds over the long run. The question is whether this particular expansion serves the interests of those receiving it at this point in the cycle.

In Conclusion.

This note does not argue that the risks being overlooked will necessarily materialise, or that markets are straightforwardly wrong about the direction of travel on Hormuz, Ukraine, or credit. Resolution remains possible and price stability may persist.

What it does argue is that the redistribution of exposure is occurring within an environment that presents as more benign than the compilation of factors discussed would ordinarily permit. The gap between what futures markets are pricing and what physical markets are paying is already measurable. The economic impact of the current disruption has not yet arrived fully in the data that equity markets are watching. And the architecture through which financial exposure is being transferred to retail participants is being assembled at precisely the moment that real-economy cost pressure is building toward transmission

Important Disclaimer

This article is intended for general information purposes only and reflects the market environment at the time of writing. It does not constitute investment advice, a personal recommendation, or an offer to engage in any trading activity. The content does not take into account individual objectives or circumstances and should not be relied upon as the basis for any investment decision. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. 

Content may have been created by persons who have, have previously had, or may in the future have personal interests in securities or other financial products referred to therein. All conflicts and potential conflicts relating to our business are managed in accordance with our conflicts of interest policy. For more information, please refer to our Summary of Conflicts of Interest Policy. 

For more information and important risk disclosures, please see our Derivative Product Trading Notes and Privacy Policy. AMT Futures Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.