Weekly Market Commentary Archives

Apr 21

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Is Rising Inflation Diminishing Hope for Another Rate Cut?

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

At the start of the year, developed-market central banks like the Fed, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of England were almost uniformly poised to gradually ease rates.

A lot can change in a quarter.

As seen in the chart below, markets have rapidly repriced the monetary policy outlook in response to the conflict in Iran. What started as an expectation for steady rate cuts in 2026 has shifted the expectation for rate hikes.¹

The catalyst behind this repricing is clear. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil and natural gas prices higher, feeding directly into global inflation data. Here in the U.S., March’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed headline inflation rising 3.3% year-over-year, a sharp increase from February’s 2.4% pace, with energy prices up 12.5% and gasoline alone jumping nearly 19%. As seen on the chart below, there’s a sharp divergence in inflation data when it includes energy prices (headline), versus when it’s stripped out (core).

Consumer Price Index, January 2024 – March 2026 (blue line is headline, green line is core)

The gap in the chart seen above is important. While headline inflation jumped, core CPI rose a lesser 2.6% year-over-year, which was slightly below expectations. Food prices were largely flat, and many goods categories showed limited pass-through from higher energy costs. In other words, it’s clear that inflation pressure is not broad-based at this stage.

This is an important distinction when considering monetary policy in the U.S. versus abroad. In Europe and the U.K., central banks operate under more explicitly inflation-focused mandates and economies are more exposed to energy costs. The U.S. jobs market is equally important to the Fed, and our economy is far less exposed, given we’re a net exporter of oil and gas. That’s why I think the market pricing-in Fed hikes in 2026 is premature and likely off-base.

To be sure, a prolonged period of elevated energy prices could justify keeping rates higher for longer, delaying the timing of rate cuts. But despite a meaningful shift in underlying inflation dynamics or expectations, the bar for renewed rate hikes remains high, in my view. In that sense, markets may be interpreting a change in timing as a change in direction. That would make a potential rate cut in 2026 a positive surprise, which I see as a net positive for stocks.

My conviction on this point comes from looking at market-based measures such as 5- and 10-year breakeven rates, which continue to hover in the low-to-mid 2% range. And I’d also cite money supply growth, which has returned to a much more modest pace and is broadly in line with pre-pandemic trends.

5-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate (blue) and 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate (green)

Investors should keep in mind that not every inflation spike carries the same policy implications. A rise in headline CPI driven by energy is very different from a broad, demand-led acceleration in prices, and central banks, and especially the Federal Reserve, know that. That is why I think the Fed is more likely to treat the latest inflation data as a reason for caution, not a reason to reverse course. Other developed-market central banks may have less room to look through the shock, but in the U.S., the more likely policy shift is a delay to easing, not the start of a new hiking cycle.

Bottom Line for Investors

Even if markets continue to debate the path of monetary policy, the bigger story for investors may be that the economy appears less dependent on near-term Fed decisions than many assume. S&P 500 earnings are expected to grow to +13.1% in Q1 on +9% higher revenues, with early reports showing +76.6% earnings growth and strong beat rates. Remember that this strength has emerged even as the Fed has taken a relatively limited role in actively supporting growth.

Looking ahead, policy expectations may continue to shift, but underlying drivers of markets like earnings, demand, and corporate fundamentals continue to look strong, regardless of what action central banks take in the near term.

¹J.P. Morgan. March 27, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/ll-central-banks-actually-hike/5vc4px/1515207807/h/WRUY0VCH93f7whKO2tPhc2Ju75rCuDaTuRb41p8x9wI

²Fred Economic Data. April 10, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-CPIAUCSL/5vc4q1/1515207807/h/WRUY0VCH93f7whKO2tPhc2Ju75rCuDaTuRb41p8x9wI

³Fred Economic Data. April 10, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-EXPINF5YR/5vc4q4/1515207807/h/WRUY0VCH93f7whKO2tPhc2Ju75rCuDaTuRb41p8x9wI

⁴Fred Economic Data. March 24, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-WM2NS/5vc4q7/1515207807/h/WRUY0VCH93f7whKO2tPhc2Ju75rCuDaTuRb41p8x9wI

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Zacks Investment Management, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zacks Investment Research. Zacks Investment Management is an independent Registered Investment Advisory firm and acts as an investment manager for individuals and institutions. Zacks Investment Research is a provider of earnings data and other financial data to institutions and to individuals.

This material is being provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. Do not act or rely upon the information and advice given in this publication without seeking the services of competent and professional legal, tax, or accounting counsel. Publication and distribution of this article is not intended to create, and the information contained herein does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment or strategy is suitable for a particular investor. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities, companies, sectors or markets identified and described were or will be profitable. All information is current as of the date of herein and is subject to change without notice. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm as a whole.

Any projections, targets, or estimates in this report are forward looking statements and are based on the firm’s research, analysis, and assumptions. Due to rapidly changing market conditions and the complexity of investment decisions, supplemental information and other sources may be required to make informed investment decisions based on your individual investment objectives and suitability specifications. All expressions of opinions are subject to change without notice. Clients should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any security or investment strategy discussed in this presentation.

Certain economic and market information contained herein has been obtained from published sources prepared by other parties. Zacks Investment Management does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Further, no third party has assumed responsibility for independently verifying the information contained herein and accordingly no such persons make any representations with respect to the accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the information provided herein. Unless otherwise indicated, market analysis and conclusions are based upon opinions or assumptions that Zacks Investment Management considers to be reasonable. Any investment inherently involves a high degree of risk, beyond any specific risks discussed herein.

The S&P 500 Index is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 500 large-company common stocks, mainly blue-chip stocks, selected by Standard & Poor’s. The S&P 500 Index assumes reinvestment of dividends but does not reflect advisory fees. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor. An investor cannot invest directly in an index.

The Russell 1000 Growth Index is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 1000 large-company growth common stocks selected by Russell. The Russell 1000 Growth Index assumes reinvestment of dividends but does not reflect advisory fees. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

Nasdaq Composite Index is the market capitalization-weighted index of over 3,300 common equities listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The types of securities in the index include American depositary receipts, common stocks, real estate investment trusts (REITs) and tracking stocks, as well as limited partnership interests. The index includes all Nasdaq-listed stocks that are not derivatives, preferred shares, funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or debenture securities. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average measures the daily stock market movements of 30 U.S. publicly-traded companies listed on the NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The 30 publicly-owned companies are considered leaders in the United States economy. An investor cannot directly invest in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The Bloomberg Global Aggregate Index is a flagship measure of global investment grade debt from twenty-four local currency markets. This multi-currency benchmark includes treasury, government-related, corporate and securitized fixed-rate bonds from both developed and emerging markets issuers. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The ICE Exchange-Listed Fixed & Adjustable Rate Preferred Securities Index is a modified market capitalization weighted index composed of preferred stock and securities that are functionally equivalent to preferred stock including, but not limited to, depositary preferred securities, perpetual subordinated debt and certain securities issued by banks and other financial institutions that are eligible for capital treatment with respect to such instruments akin to that received for issuance of straight preferred stock. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The MSCI ACWI ex U.S. Index captures large and mid-cap representation across 22 of 23 Developed Markets (DM) countries (excluding the United States) and 24 Emerging Markets (EM) countries. The index covers approximately 85% of the global equity opportunity set outside the U.S. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The Russell 2000 Index is a well-known, unmanaged index of the prices of 2000 small-cap company common stocks, selected by Russell. The Russell 2000 Index assumes reinvestment of dividends but does not reflect advisory fees. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

The S&P Mid Cap 400 provides investors with a benchmark for mid-sized companies. The index, which is distinct from the large-cap S&P 500, is designed to measure the performance of 400 mid-sized companies, reflecting the distinctive risk and return characteristics of this market segment.

The S&P 500 Pure Value index is a style-concentrated index designed to track the performance of stocks that exhibit the strongest value characteristics by using a style-attractiveness-weighting scheme. An investor cannot directly invest in an index. The volatility of the benchmark may be materially different from the individual performance obtained by a specific investor.

Apr 14

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: What Headline-Driven Investing Is Really Costing You

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

The U.S. made an announcement on the global stage that sent the media into a tizzy and financial markets into heightened downside volatility. Investors were left guessing what might come next, and how long the uncertainty would last. Was this the beginning of drawn-out tensions on the global stage? Would a recession and/or bear market follow?

I’m not describing the recent escalation in the Middle East. I’m thinking back to almost exactly one year ago, when sweeping tariff announcements triggered a sharp market selloff and a wave of pessimism about global growth. Investors likely remember how sharply the equity markets initially reacted. Global equities fell roughly -11% in a matter of days.

But the reaction didn’t last long, and we didn’t see a bear market or a recession last year. One could argue that 2025 delivered the opposite. The S&P 500 rose nearly +18% in 2025, while the U.S. economy accelerated into the third quarter, finishing the year with modest but positive GDP growth.

What is critical for investors to remember, in my view, is that tariff headlines and trade tensions did not necessarily let up as the year went on. It would be hard to argue that we ever got ‘certainty’ on trade policy in 2025. We didn’t. But markets did not wait for trade deals to be finalized, for tariffs to be rolled back, or for uncertainty to disappear. Stocks adjusted expectations quickly and moved on.

Last year’s tariff case study underscores what I mean by ‘the cost of headline-driven decision making.’ With the current war in Iran, timing the announcement of a two-week cease-fire may have looked like a great trade on paper, but I think the smarter money would have avoided the short-term volatility altogether. As last year’s tariff episode reminds us, markets can remain very choppy in an hour-to-hour news cycle, and it’s easy for investors to get baited into changing course quickly—which can mean failing to fully participate in the longer-term recovery.

In my view, the same dynamic is at play today. Markets are once again being driven by a steady stream of headlines, only this time it’s centered on geopolitical risk, energy supply, and the Strait of Hormuz. Investors are left trying to assess not just what is happening, but how long it will last and what it means for markets.

Equities are responding in real time, but the price action is not as severe as it was last year. It’s also true that the U.S. has fared far better than international markets over the past several weeks. The U.S. is far less exposed to rising energy costs than many of its global peers, given its role as a major oil and natural gas producer. By contrast, regions like Europe remain heavily reliant on imported energy. Estimates suggest that oil and LNG imports account for roughly 1% to 2% of eurozone GDP, compared to a modest positive contribution from net energy exports in the U.S.²

This isn’t a call to favor U.S. over foreign stocks on this headline alone. It is simply a reminder that the economic consequences of a prolonged conflict are unlikely to fall evenly across regions, and that higher energy prices do not automatically translate into broad-based weakness in the U.S. economy.

If last year’s tariff episode taught investors anything, it is that markets do not wait for resolution. They adjust to the range of possible outcomes quickly, and they often move on well before the news flow improves or the uncertainty fully clears. The same may be true here. By the time this conflict feels more settled and the outlook appears clearer, markets may have already done much of their repricing. The two-week cease-fire may hold, and it may not. Investors would be better served looking further out on the horizon, in my view.

Bottom Line for Investors

The real risk in environments like this isn’t the market volatility itself. It’s how investors respond. Periods driven by macro headlines can create the illusion that action is required, whether that means buying into weakness or pulling back until uncertainty fades. But last year’s tariff episode showed how unreliable that instinct can be. The most significant market moves often occur before the news flow improves, not after.

That’s why trying to position around how geopolitical events unfold is rarely productive. It requires getting both the outcome and the timing right, which is simply not possible without a great deal

¹BEA. 2026. https://www.bea.gov/system/files/gdp4q25-2nd-chart-01.png

²Wall Street Journal. April 4, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/-mod-economy-feat1-global-pos2/5vbfv7/1508659551/h/9XYSbfdZsg3fDfMt7mtAz1z8jVNLpHqtRgZFJVGJpkg

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Any projections, targets, or estimates in this report are forward looking statements and are based on the firm’s research, analysis, and assumptions. Due to rapidly changing market conditions and the complexity of investment decisions, supplemental information and other sources may be required to make informed investment decisions based on your individual investment objectives and suitability specifications. All expressions of opinions are subject to change without notice. Clients should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any security or investment strategy discussed in this presentation.

Apr 07

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: A Market Reset, Not a Breakdown

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Market volatility continues apace, as news headlines, and even simple statements or policy hints, have shown the ability to move markets quickly in both directions. This kind of short-term volatility can feel like it carries greater meaning in the moment. But it doesn’t always tell us much about what is happening beneath the surface. In fact, it often gives investors the wrong message.¹

My case-in-point this week: the growing gap between the market’s largest growth stocks and the broader index. As shown below, the once-heralded names in Technology and the “Magnificent Seven” have declined significantly more than the S&P 500 overall in 2026, with drawdowns approaching three times the magnitude of the broader market.

This divergence is notable not just because of the size of the move, but because of what is happening on the fundamental side at the same time.

‘Mag 7’ and Tech represent the largest growth-oriented segment of the market, and they continue to deliver the strongest earnings growth in the index. The Technology sector, broadly defined, is expected to produce earnings growth of more than 25% in the first quarter on over 20% revenue growth. By comparison, total S&P 500 earnings are expected to rise in the low double digits, and closer to mid-single digits if you exclude Technology’s contribution.

In other words, the sector doing the most to drive earnings growth is also the one experiencing the most pronounced selling pressure.

In fairness, some of this may reflect valuation concerns. Large-cap growth stocks entered the year trading at elevated multiples, and in periods of uncertainty, investors often trim exposure to the most expensive areas of the market first. There are also legitimate questions about how artificial intelligence may reshape competitive dynamics over time, particularly across software and digital platforms. But even taking those factors into account, the magnitude of the recent move appears disproportionate to what we are seeing in current earnings data. If anything, the disconnect suggests that expectations are being reset more quickly than fundamentals are deteriorating. In my experience, that’s a classic sign of a correction, not the beginning of a bear market.

The earnings revisions trend reinforces my argument. Since the start of the year, estimates for the Technology sector have continued to move higher, even as stock prices have come under pressure. The positive earnings revision trend has not been isolated to one corner of the market either, as roughly half of all sectors have seen upward estimate revisions since March, including Financials, Materials, and Industrials. This is not what we typically see in an environment where markets are pricing in a broad earnings slowdown.

Periods like this also tend to reward a disciplined, earnings-driven approach. Corrections driven by sentiment and positioning tend to feel uncomfortable in real time, particularly when leadership is involved, but they often unfold without the kind of broad-based deterioration that typically defines more severe downturns. Strategies that emphasize earnings growth, estimate revisions, and diversification get rewarded most when markets recover.

Bottom Line for Investors

The recent underperformance of large growth stocks is a notable development, but it is important to understand what I believe is driving it. While valuations and longer-term growth expectations are being reassessed, the underlying earnings picture remains relatively strong, with positive revisions across multiple sectors. That combination points more toward a shift in sentiment and positioning than a breakdown in fundamentals.

For investors, it is a reminder that short-term market moves do not always align neatly with earnings trends, and that maintaining diversification across sectors and styles remains critical when leadership changes. It is also worth remembering that when corrections run their course, the areas that were hit hardest often rebound the fastest. For strategies like Zacks Focus Growth, which can create an opportunity to participate when sentiment resets and fundamentals reassert themselves.

¹Zacks.com. March 25, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/ook-improving-despite-iran-war/5v9rbd/1502440565/h/pbQqWP-2Yk8SHW9j_XAlA4v4kFANs5-7t3qSo9oDVVk

²Zacks.com. March 25, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/ook-improving-despite-iran-war/5v9rbd/1502440565/h/pbQqWP-2Yk8SHW9j_XAlA4v4kFANs5-7t3qSo9oDVVk

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Mar 31

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Market Volatility Doesn’t Always Signal Economic Weakness

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Market volatility has been on the rise. The conflict involving Iran has injected fresh uncertainty into the outlook, particularly through its potential impact on energy markets. And just as quickly as oil spiked and stocks wobbled on fears of escalation, markets reversed course early this week after reports of possible diplomatic progress—sending Brent crude sharply lower and stocks higher.¹

This kind of day-by-day price action is a useful reminder that headlines can move markets in the short run. But investors should be careful not to confuse short-term volatility with a lasting change in the underlying economic picture. The more important question is whether higher energy prices are actually beginning to damage growth. So far, the incoming data do not suggest that they are.

Start with the most visible pain point for households: gasoline. Higher prices at the pump are frustrating, and they can weigh on sentiment quickly. But gasoline represents just 1.9% of real personal consumption expenditures. That does not mean rising prices are painless, but it does mean their direct effect on overall consumer spending is more limited than headlines often imply. Consumers may shift spending at the margin, but a jump in gasoline prices alone is not usually enough to derail aggregate demand.

And demand elsewhere still looks intact. Real personal consumption expenditures rose 0.4% month over month in January, while real disposable personal income also increased. In services, which make up the largest share of the economy, activity remains firmly in expansion territory. The ISM Services PMI registered 56.1 in February, the highest reading in four years. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow estimate is tracking first-quarter growth at 2.7% annualized.

Business investment data tell a similar story. Manufacturers’ new orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft (which is one of the cleaner indicators of business equipment demand) remain near recent highs. That is not what an economy on the verge of contraction typically looks like.

The earnings picture is also important here because corporate profits ultimately drive equity markets over time. According to our colleagues at Zacks Investment Research, total S&P 500 earnings for the first quarter of 2026 are expected to rise 12.0% from a year earlier on 8.6% higher revenues, following a 14% earnings increase on 9.1% higher revenues in the prior quarter. Even after the onset of Middle East tensions, estimates for the quarter and for full-year 2026 have remained positive, with revisions still moving in a favorable direction.

It is also worth remembering how different the market’s earnings mix is today than in past oil-shock periods. Energy now accounts for only about 4% of S&P 500 earnings, down from roughly 15% twenty years ago and nearly 30% in 1980. Technology, by contrast, is expected to grow earnings by 24.6% in the first quarter and remains the dominant growth engine for the index. Even excluding Technology, the rest of the S&P 500 is still expected to grow earnings by 5.5%.

I don’t mean to firmly imply that the economy is immune to an energy shock. If oil prices were to rise sharply and remain elevated—in my view, perhaps $130+ per barrel for several months—the impact on inflation and growth would likely become more pronounced. I’m not convinced that’s an outcome that the U.S. or other developed countries would tolerate for very long, but it’s also fair to say that these events are difficult to forecast.

Even still, the current backdrop looks materially different from the periods investors instinctively compare it to. The U.S. economy is less energy-intensive than it was in the 1970s. Domestic oil production is much higher, the labor market is largely stable, and balance sheets (household, corporate, and banking) are generally in strong shape.

Across major geopolitical events since 1950, markets have often experienced short-term volatility, but they have generally stabilized and moved higher in the months that followed as uncertainty faded and the economic damage proved more limited than feared. That does not make conflict bullish. It simply underscores that markets tend to respond more to the gap between expectations and reality than to the headlines themselves.

Bottom Line for Investors

Geopolitical events can create sharp market swings, especially when oil prices are involved. But volatility alone is not evidence of economic weakness. The latest data continue to show consumer demand, business investment, and earnings growth holding up reasonably well, even as energy markets react to the latest headlines.

If oil prices were to spike sharply from here and remain elevated for a sustained period, the risk would increase. But that is not the same as saying the economy is already rolling over. For now, the better reading is that markets are reacting to uncertainty while the underlying economic picture remains more resilient than the headlines suggest.

¹The Street. March 23, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/ence-despite-rising-oil-prices/5v91yf/1496855850/h/v9QiexteW5YTOmM9SOxAg4R8mQrjmrTvdKKCBG2jF6s

²Fred Economic Data. March 18, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-DGORDER/5v91yj/1496855850/h/v9QiexteW5YTOmM9SOxAg4R8mQrjmrTvdKKCBG2jF6s

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Mar 24

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: What the Private Credit Boom is Revealing

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

For the past several weeks, investors have understandably focused on developments in the Middle East. The headlines are constant, and markets often exhibit elevated volatility with every new development.

But investors should not lose sight of other important developments taking shape across capital markets. Private credit is one area worth a closer look, in my view.

For readers who may be new to private credit, it is a segment of the market where investment funds provide loans rather than traditional banks. The industry expanded rapidly after the Global Financial Crisis, when tighter banking regulations limited how aggressively traditional lenders could finance riskier borrowers. Capital moved to nonbank lenders such as asset managers, pension funds, and private investment firms that stepped in to fill the gap.¹

Stronger rules made banks safer, but more lending activity shifted into institutions operating outside the traditional regulatory framework. The risks in the financial system did not disappear with this change, they just shifted.

One area drawing attention today is redemption pressure in funds that market themselves as semi-liquid vehicles. The $33 billion Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund, for instance, recently reported that investors asked to withdraw roughly 14% of the fund’s assets in a single quarter. Because the fund limits withdrawals to 5%, it agreed to repurchase only about half of those requests, with the remainder pushed into future redemption windows.

Similar pressures have appeared elsewhere across the industry. Blackstone’s $82 billion credit fund recently reported net withdrawals for the first time, while firms including Blue Owl, BlackRock, and Morgan Stanley have limited investor withdrawals to preset quarterly caps. These limits are not unusual in private markets, but when investors want their money back, those limits can become far more noticeable.

Valuation practices are also drawing new scrutiny.

Private-credit portfolios can contain thousands of loans and investments that do not trade publicly, meaning their values must be estimated using models and assumptions rather than observable market prices. Cliffwater’s filings show that roughly 71% of its assets are classified as “Level 3,” meaning their valuations rely heavily on unobservable inputs. The fund also invests billions of dollars in other private-credit vehicles and relies on those managers’ reported net asset values, rather than independently determining prices. That’s a slippery slope, in my view.

The result can resemble what one observer described as a financial system of “black boxes inside black boxes,”² where investors rely on layers of valuation judgments that are difficult to independently verify. In stable periods, this structure rarely attracts much attention. But when investors begin questioning valuations, the lack of visibility can suddenly matter a great deal.

The issues I’m describing above land at a time when the industry is becoming increasingly reliant on individual investors. Until recently, private credit was historically dominated by pensions, endowments, and other institutions with long investment horizons. But in recent years, asset managers have increasingly marketed these strategies directly to individuals through interval funds, wealth platforms, and specialized vehicles. Policymakers in Washington are also considering steps that could make it easier for retirement plans to include private investments.

Large firms such as Apollo Global Management, Blackstone, BlackRock, and Blue Owl have made retail distribution central to their growth strategies. For these firms, such a strategy makes good business sense—retail savings pools, including the $12 trillion 401(k) market, represent a vast potential source of capital. The question is whether these strategies make sense for most everyday investors.

Private-market investments typically involve higher fees, less transparency, and more limited liquidity than traditional public securities. For individual investors, the main issue is that these funds often do not work like the rest of a traditional portfolio. Shares may only be redeemable at certain intervals, withdrawals can be capped when demand is high, and reported values may not adjust as quickly as public market prices. That can make these strategies appear steadier on paper, while leaving investors with less flexibility and a murkier picture of risk in real time. Which for many, is the opposite of what you’re seeking in today’s geopolitical environment.

Bottom Line for Investors

To be fair, I do not think we have an impending crisis on our hands, at least not at this stage. Many private-credit loans continue to perform, and recent stresses appear concentrated rather than systemic. But it is still a story worth watching, because moments like this reveal how these structures behave when sentiment shifts—particularly with respect to liquidity, valuation, and investor expectations.

¹Wall Street Journal. March 12, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/-private-credit-craze-d0fbb8af/5v89tw/1489468160/h/bt-JCfBLTQvvBhTkEVYLJphQywjni31WsEN892p2mHE

²Wall Street Journal. March 12, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/-private-credit-craze-d0fbb8af/5v89tw/1489468160/h/bt-JCfBLTQvvBhTkEVYLJphQywjni31WsEN892p2mHE

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Mar 17

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why Rising Pessimism May Ultimately Be Good for Stocks

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Uncertainty is running high at the moment, and it’s making investors more skittish about economic growth and the direction of markets.

I think that’s a good thing.

Investors are not wrong to be cautious. The war in Iran has pushed oil prices sharply higher and raised fresh questions about inflation. Software stocks have stumbled as investors reassess just how much future growth is already priced in. And the latest jobs data raised a few eyebrows, as U.S. nonfarm payrolls fell by 92,000 in February and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.4%. All told, job growth has averaged just 6,000 over the past three months.

Taken together, this confluence of events has unsurprisingly resulted in rising pessimism. As seen in the chart below, bears now outnumber bulls for the first time in several months, while other measures show professional equity positioning has turned more defensive. On its face, this may seem like bad news.

Source: Yahoo Finance¹

But markets have proven to us time and again that they rarely rise in an atmosphere of total comfort. More often, markets move higher while investors remain skeptical and quick to focus on what could go wrong next. And in my view, that best describes the current environment.

Expectations have dropped quickly amid the flood of war headlines, meaning markets may not need especially good news to react positively. Markets only need outcomes that are less severe than investors currently fear. This is why any time you see a hint that the war may end soon, or that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is expected to resume, oil prices plummet and stocks rally.

To be fair, we saw the flip side of that dynamic this week when the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced a record 400-million-barrel emergency release from strategic reserves, with several tankers in the Strait coming under attack the following day. Even though the IEA was adding supply, both moves were interpreted as signs that supply disruptions may be more serious and longer-lasting than previously hoped. But this reaction just gives me more conviction that investors are trading on sentiment, with consensus essentially trying to predict how bad it might get, instead of pricing based on known fundamentals and a longer-term view.

A fundamental trade in the current environment would be long, in my view. The U.S. services sector (as measured by the ISM services index) rose to 56.1 in February, its highest reading since mid-2022. New orders climbed to 58.6, 14 of 18 service industries reported growth, and export orders also improved. These numbers suggest business activity is still expanding fairly broadly.

Credit trends also look very strong. Across the developed world, loan growth is accelerating, with banks in the U.S., U.K., Eurozone, and Japan lending at the fastest pace seen in several years. I think this trend could hold for some time, given that yield curves across major developed markets are upward sloping. Banks can borrow at lower short-term rates and lend at higher long-term rates with attractive spreads. In the U.S., companies are also finding ample financing in bond markets, with investment-grade issuance topping $208 billion in January, one of the few times monthly borrowing has ever exceeded $200 billion.

To be fair, the biggest risk investors are focused on is still Iran. Namely, that the war drags on, the Strait of Hormuz stays disrupted and/or closed, and oil prices remain elevated longer than expected. This outcome would surely be impactful, as higher energy prices can pressure household budgets, push up headline inflation, and complicate the growth outlook. But it is also worth keeping the consumer impact in perspective. Gasoline is highly visible, but it makes up only about 2.9% of the CPI basket. That’s not large enough on its own to dictate the direction of the economy or stock market.

The U.S. economy is also far less vulnerable to oil shocks than it used to be. Americans consumed about 4% less gasoline in 2025 than in 2007, even as real GDP was roughly 42% larger. Energy’s share of household consumption has fallen from 5.7% to 3.7% over that span, and the shale boom has turned the U.S. into a net petroleum exporter. So while higher oil prices can still pinch consumers, they also support producers and investment in ways that were far less true in past oil shocks. I don’t mean to suggest oil can’t or won’t become a bigger problem. But I think it is fair to rule out a replay of the 1970s energy crisis and bear market, even if oil pushes past $100 and this conflict draws out for a few more weeks.

Bottom Line for Investors

Investors have good reason to stay alert. The war in Iran, higher oil prices, weakness in some high-flying stocks, and softer jobs data have all added to uncertainty, and as long as those crosscurrents remain in place, short-term volatility is likely to continue. Markets may stay choppy as investors react to each new headline on oil, shipping, inflation, and the broader growth outlook.

But short-term volatility and medium-term market direction are not the same thing. Markets rarely need a calm, comfortable backdrop to move higher. In fact, some of the strongest advances occur when expectations are subdued, optimism is limited, and investors are constantly bracing for bad news. And that is what today’s setup looks like to me.

¹Yahoo Finance. February 24, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/bulls-see-signs-103000380-html/5v7lpv/1483946041/h/fUM0JsMbInlW2EsTEt9ED1UOKnLSp1nkkgrhrvRRYaI

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Mar 09

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Markets Do Not Panic Over Every Conflict—Investors Shouldn’t Either

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

The headlines coming out of the Middle East this week are unsettling. Investors are undoubtedly wondering how ongoing military strikes, retaliatory attacks, threats of wider escalation, and shocks to energy markets could impact the global economy. These are all valid concerns, and I empathize with the uncertainty many readers are likely experiencing.

But when we step back and analyze events strictly through a market lens—which is our job here at Zacks—history shows something important: regional conflicts rarely alter the long-term trajectory of global markets, unless they materially disrupt global economic activity.¹

As ever, history is the most useful guide we have in these situations. Over the last 75+ years, there is ample evidence to show that regional wars and geopolitical flare-ups have no consistent relationship with recessions or prolonged bear markets. Markets often experience short-term volatility in the run-up to and immediate aftermath of conflict, which investors should expect to see in the coming days and weeks.

But once markets assess the scope and economic reach of the conflict, equities tend to refocus on fundamentals.

Indeed, in modern market history, only World War II independently caused a sustained bear market by materially impairing a significant portion of global productive capacity. More recent conflicts—including the Iraq wars, the Bosnian War, the Gulf War, the Syrian civil war, and the recent Gaza War—produced volatility, but markets ultimately moved on once the economic transmission channels became clearer. One exception may be the Russia-Ukraine war, but that conflict collided with a post-Covid supply chain crisis, soaring inflation, and rapidly rising interest rates. We’re not seeing those types of conditions today.

In the current situation, perhaps the biggest investor focus is on energy markets. Oil is the most immediate economic variable, since roughly 20 million barrels per day (about 20% of global oil production) move through the Strait of Hormuz. To be fair, a meaningful or prolonged disruption there would have implications for inflation, corporate margins, and consumer spending. It’s a factor to watch.

Brent crude prices are on the rise (chart below), but as I write, prices remain well within the range seen over the past several years. Remember, from 2011 through 2014, Brent traded above $110 per barrel for an extended period, during years that coincided with economic expansion and a rising equity market. Rising oil prices alone are not automatically a harbinger for recession.

Global Price of Brent Crude, 2003 – Present

What matters is duration and scale. A temporary spike driven by uncertainty is very different from a sustained supply shock that meaningfully removes production from the global system. And so far, energy markets are not behaving as though investors expect a prolonged shutdown of supply.

This could change, of course, and we’ll be watching closely. But it’s also true that the Strait of Hormuz has not been seriously closed since the 1980s, even during periods of heavy regional fighting. Despite recurring fears over the decades, oil shipments have largely continued to flow. Energy markets are adaptive—producers adjust output, shipping routes can be rerouted where possible, strategic reserves can be deployed, and high prices themselves encourage additional supply.

Natural gas adds another dimension to the energy discussion, particularly for Europe and Asia. In 2022, when Europe scrambled to replace Russian pipeline gas, benchmark European natural gas prices soared to extraordinary levels amid fears of winter shortages. That spike was driven not just by conflict, but by a sudden structural loss of supply combined with low storage levels heading into heating season.

Today’s environment looks materially different.

While recent attacks have temporarily raised concerns around LNG production in parts of the Gulf region, global gas inventories are not in the same fragile position they were three years ago. Europe has diversified supply sources, expanded LNG import capacity, and improved storage buffers. Prices have moved higher in response to uncertainty, but they remain far below the extreme levels reached during the 2022 energy crisis.

Importantly, U.S. natural gas prices, which are often a useful barometer of global LNG tightness, have not exhibited the kind of surge typically associated with a sustained global shortage. That suggests markets are pricing risk, not permanent supply destruction. We’re also moving out of winter, which could be an important demand factor.

Could energy prices move higher from here? Certainly. Markets will continue to incorporate new information as the situation evolves. But for this conflict to meaningfully alter the economic trajectory, disruptions would need to be large, sustained, and broad enough to materially impair global demand. That is a high threshold, and I don’t think investors should act as though it’s a foregone conclusion.

Volatility in response to geopolitical events is normal. It has been a feature of markets for decades. The key distinction investors must make is between unsettling headlines and structural economic damage. And at this stage, I do not see evidence of the latter.

Bottom Line for Investors

The situation in Iran deserves close monitoring, particularly in energy markets. Oil, and to a lesser extent, natural gas, are the primary economic variables to watch. If prices spike sharply and remain elevated, volatility could persist.

But history suggests that regional conflicts tend to produce temporary market disruptions rather than lasting bear markets. The broader economic backdrop of moderating inflation, resilient labor markets, steady earnings growth, and improving market breadth remains intact. Those forces tend to drive longer-term market direction far more than regional conflicts, unless the conflict fundamentally alters global production or consumption patterns. We’re pretty far from that outcome today, in my view.

¹Wall Street Journal. March 2, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/rug-off-this-conflict-bf9f9c62/5v6vv2/1477770604/h/3QTDpSc-IewpJvHmbppoTUcneg0dnwZPPE3m9kvvKeg
²Fred Economic Data. February 12, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-POILBREUSDM/5v6vv5/1477770604/h/3QTDpSc-IewpJvHmbppoTUcneg0dnwZPPE3m9kvvKeg

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Feb 24

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why I Think Investors Should Feel Good About January Economic Data

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

After several months of parsing through incomplete data sets tied to the government shutdown, we finally received a clean January print with complete inflation and jobs numbers. Investors should be encouraged by what they see, but not because the data showed the economy is booming. Instead, what we see is that the balance of risks appears to be shifting.¹

Let’s start with jobs. January payrolls rose by 130,000, and the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.3%. On the surface, that looks like stabilization in the labor market, which is welcome news. But it’s not actually the reason I think investors should feel upbeat. The more consequential part of the jobs report was what it told us about 2025.

Annual benchmark revisions and adjustments to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ business formation model substantially altered 2025’s hiring picture. What markets and the Federal Reserve largely treated as a reasonably healthy year for job growth was revised down to roughly 180,000 total jobs for the entire year, or an average of just 15,000 per month. Outside of recessions, that ranks among the weakest hiring environments since World War II.

I want to be clear that I’m not implying an under-appreciated jobs market collapse. U.S. employers are not broadly cutting payrolls, and initial jobless claims remain historically low. But job openings have fallen meaningfully from their 2022 peak, quits have declined, and hiring momentum has narrowed dramatically. For instance, nearly all of January’s gains came from healthcare-related fields, which is a sector supported by demographics rather than cyclical strength. Professional services, finance, retail, information, and segments of government payrolls have either stagnated or contracted over the past year.

In other words, the labor market has been quietly cooling for some time, and it’s been cooling while the Federal Reserve has remained overwhelmingly focused on inflation. This is an important point, especially when you consider the January inflation report.

The latest CPI reading showed headline inflation slowing to 2.4% year over year, down from 2.7% in December. Core CPI came in at 2.5%, the lowest since the post-pandemic inflation surge began in 2021. Shelter costs, which had been the single largest contributor to elevated inflation, rose just 0.2% month over month and continue to trend lower on a year-over-year basis.

There are still areas of stickiness, and the Fed’s preferred PCE measure is still running closer to 3% than 2%. But the feared reacceleration of inflation has simply not materialized. After several years in which early-year data disrupted the disinflation story, January 2026 did not bring that setback.

Taken together, the revised labor data and the inflation print don’t change my view of the economy dramatically. I’ve been saying for months that growth remains positive and consumers remain resilient. What the January data do change, in my view, is the Federal Reserve’s calculus.

If hiring has been running closer to stall speed than previously believed, the argument that policy remains restrictive gains credibility. Slower labor momentum also arguably reduces the risk of wage-driven inflation pressure, and I think it increases the likelihood that policymakers will weigh employment stability more heavily from here.

This all being said, and as I’ve written many times before, rate cuts alone are not a reason to be bullish. Markets typically care more about why rates are being cut than about the cuts themselves. But in taking a step back, I think we are entering a period in which several potential tailwinds could converge: resilient corporate earnings, fiscal support flowing from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a pending Supreme Court decision that could clarify tariff authority and reduce trade uncertainty, and a Federal Reserve that may have room to ease policy without needing an economic downturn to justify it.

From my vantage, the direction of policy risk appears more balanced than it was this time last year, and that alone should frame a constructive outlook for investors.

Bottom Line for Investors

If inflation continues to ease while employment remains broadly stable, rate cuts become possible without the economy having to slip into recession. When that potential monetary flexibility is layered onto steady earnings and incremental policy clarity, the macro backdrop looks a lot more supportive, in my view.

Markets tend to respond favorably when uncertainty declines and policy flexibility increases. January’s data suggests we may be moving in that direction.

¹Wall Street Journal. February 14, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/5dd00d29-mod-economy-lead-pos3/5v57vm/1466499960/h/LBW3lW2KcI9slsLRKRuwUs5kbjheK3Js2wmUJNAcvd0

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Feb 18

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The Yield Curve Steepens—What Does That Mean for Economic Growth?

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

A relatively quiet, but crucial shift has been taking place in bond markets recently, with the steepening of the U.S. Treasury yield curve. After spending much of the past three years inverted or flat, the gap between short- and long-term interest rates has begun to widen again, which is a development investors should generally view as constructive for future economic growth.¹

The chart below expresses the yield curve by subtracting short-term Treasury bond yields (3-month) from the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield. When the line dips below zero, that means the yield curve is inverted (short-term yields are higher than long-term yields). As readers can see, the line is finally crawling back up into positive territory.

3-month / 10-year U.S. Treasury Bond Yield Curve

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ²

Part of the shift reflects changing expectations around Federal Reserve policy, including the nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair. Markets appear to be interpreting his nomination as a signal that short-term rates could eventually move lower, while long-term rates will reflect supply, demand, and inflation expectations more freely. The view on long rates is based on the fact that Warsh has been vocal over the years about shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet and pulling back from heavy bond-market intervention.

This combination, lower short-term rates and less ‘yield manipulation’ on the long end, naturally points toward a steeper yield curve.

From an economic perspective, a positively sloped yield curve tends to factor as a tailwind for growth, since it supports lending activity. Banks borrow short and lend long, so a wider spread between short-term funding costs and longer-term lending rates improves incentives to extend credit. If businesses can access capital more easily, that’s constructive for investment and growth.

What’s interesting is that the opposite has not necessarily been true over the past few years. Even when the yield curve was inverted for the past two-plus years, bank lending didn’t stall. Total loan growth began in 2025 running at roughly a 2.7% year-over-year pace. By late November, it had accelerated to about 5.4% year over year. That is a meaningful improvement, especially considering rates were largely unchanged for much of the year and liquidity conditions were, by conventional standards, tightening rather than easing. As seen on the chart below, showing the year-over-year change in loans and leases in bank credit (in billions of U.S. dollars), credit has been flowing solidly since 2022.

Bank Lending (Year-over-Year Change in Billions of U.S. Dollars)

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ³

If lending strengthened in 2025 despite relatively tight policy conditions and a flat yield curve, it suggests the economy was already standing on a fairly solid footing. The read here for investors is that looking ahead, a steepening curve is a positive signal, but not because it suddenly “unlocks” growth. Rather, I see the steepening yield curve as reinforcing a trend that was already in place, which reflects normalization. And that’s a good thing, in my view.

Bottom Line for Investors

The yield curve steepening is a constructive development, and it fits with a broader picture of an economy that has generally been healthier than appreciated. Equally important, the past two years showed that growth and lending will not always grind to a halt simply because the curve is inverted, reminding us that many other forces are at work.

But there’s another takeaway here for investors: just as the inverted yield curve for much of 2023 did not signal an imminent recession, a steepening yield curve in 2026 should not necessarily be viewed as a critical turning point for big growth ahead. We’re expecting growth to be solid this year, to be sure. But we expected that outcome even with a flat yield curve, underscoring the fact that lending, spending, and growth have been strong even without a traditionally steep yield curve. In that sense, the recent steepening looks less like a prerequisite for growth and more like an added tailwind to an economy that was already in good shape.

¹Wall Street Journal. January 31, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/i1WiljnrifkKiDv64j154vmpAA3D3D/5v4q6k/1462235389/h/L8P_TOFJ4WYshjSJYlqvePaYN-TpiLeuioNeejw7qRw

²Fred Economic Data. February 10, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-T10Y3M/5v4q6n/1462235389/h/L8P_TOFJ4WYshjSJYlqvePaYN-TpiLeuioNeejw7qRw

³Fred Economic Data. February 6, 2026. https://advisor.zacksim.com/e/376582/series-TOTLL/5v4q6r/1462235389/h/L8P_TOFJ4WYshjSJYlqvePaYN-TpiLeuioNeejw7qRw

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Feb 10

Love0

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: “Precious Metals Rally Underscores the Hazards of Chasing Heat”

By BayTrust Financial Weekly Market Commentary

Gold and silver are all over the news. That alone should give investors pause.

In my read of the current market environment, the rally in precious metals is increasingly being supported by a growing list of rationales for why prices are sure to keep rising. Chief among them:

Trade tensions and tariff uncertainty have prompted central banks to ‘hedge’, increasing purchases of gold reserves.
Ongoing geopolitical risks, spanning the Middle East to Eastern Europe to Venezuela and Greenland, have reinforced the appeal of perceived “safe havens.”
Concerns that heavy government spending and monetary stimulus (via lack of Fed independence) could weaken the dollar and thus strengthen the appeal of gold.
And somewhat classically, as prices kept moving higher, fear of missing out has pulled in more retail dollars.

It’s worth stepping back and recognizing what these arguments above have in common. They are largely forward-looking concerns that often bake in worst-case outcomes and rest on several assumptions at once. The critical question for investors isn’t whether these risks exist, but what happens if reality turns out to be less dire than expected.

We saw a clear example of that just last week.

When news broke that Kevin Warsh would be nominated as the next Chair of the Federal Reserve, precious metals sharply sold off. Markets broadly view Warsh as a disciplined, independent central banker—someone who has argued for a smaller Federal Reserve balance sheet and a more restrained approach to monetary policy. That perception alone was enough to force a reassessment of the so-called “dollar debasement” trade that had been supporting gold and silver prices. No policy had changed, but an assumption had. Prices adjusted accordingly.

In my view, this example offered a timely reminder of how quickly sentiment-driven trades can reverse when expectations shift. The outcome was less-bad-than-feared, which unwound the rationale for ever-rising prices.

History offers plenty of similar lessons. During the Greek sovereign debt crisis in the early 2010s, investors worried that financial stress would spread throughout Europe and threaten the global system. Gold surged to record highs amid those fears, widely promoted as a necessary portfolio hedge. Yet as sentiment cooled and the debt crisis was contained, gold went on to fall more than 40% to a trough in 2015, four years later.

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis provides another example. In theory, 2008 should have been an ideal environment for gold. Instead, during the most acute phase of the crisis, gold declined alongside other risk assets as investors sought liquidity and reduced exposure broadly. The takeaway isn’t that gold is a bad investment; it’s that assets driven primarily by sentiment can behave in unexpected ways precisely when investors expect them to provide protection.

This pattern isn’t unique to commodities. Financial markets are full of episodes where investors chase recent winners based on narratives that feel compelling in the moment, only to discover later that price momentum and emotion—not durable fundamentals—were doing most of the work. When those emotions shift, reversals can take hold quickly.

Remember, long-term investment success does not rely on identifying the hottest trade of the moment. It is built on aligning portfolios with financial goals, time horizons, and risk tolerance, and building an allocation of assets with identifiable drivers of return. Stocks generate earnings and cash flow. Bonds provide income and contractual payments. Their returns can fluctuate, sometimes sharply, but they remain tethered to economic activity. Gold does not have these properties.

Bottom Line for Investors

It is easy to feel pressure to act when a particular asset is getting attention and prices are moving quickly. As gold’s recent run shows, those moves are often supported by a stack of assumptions that can change faster than investors expect.

The key takeaway here is not about the pros and cons of owning gold. It is about recognizing how sentiment-driven trades behave. When prices are rising on narratives rather than fundamentals, reversals can happen quickly once expectations shift. For long-term investors, the more reliable approach is to focus on asset allocations built around financial goals, time horizons, and risk tolerance, and rely on assets with identifiable drivers of return. It also means resisting the urge to chase what’s hot simply because it’s getting attention.

DISCLOSURE
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss.

Weekly Market Commentary

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Is Rising Inflation Diminishing Hope for Another Rate Cut?

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: What Headline-Driven Investing Is Really Costing You

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: A Market Reset, Not a Breakdown

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Market Volatility Doesn’t Always Signal Economic Weakness

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: What the Private Credit Boom is Revealing

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why Rising Pessimism May Ultimately Be Good for Stocks

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Markets Do Not Panic Over Every Conflict—Investors Shouldn’t Either

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: Why I Think Investors Should Feel Good About January Economic Data

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: The Yield Curve Steepens—What Does That Mean for Economic Growth?

Mitch Zacks – Weekly Market Commentary: “Precious Metals Rally Underscores the Hazards of Chasing Heat”

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta