Insight & Outlook: Fidelity Market Signals Weekly

Five Questions on the Table

A new Fed chair, an unwinding oil shock, and equities at record highs—all in the span of a month. Here are the five questions we’re hearing most from advisors, and how we’re thinking about each.

1. The Fed held rates but is still signaling a hike by year-end. Should I be repositioning for higher rates?

Not defensively, no. The instinct when a dot plot turns hawkish is to brace for impact—shorten duration, raise cash, get cautious. We’d resist that reflex, because why rates are drifting higher matters far more than the fact that they are. Nine of eighteen members now see a hike before year-end, with six penciling in two, and the median projection has moved the year-end funds rate toward 3.8% from 3.4% in March. But notice the reason they’re moving: The labor market is firm and demand is holding—not because the Fed is staring down a crisis. That’s the distinction that should drive positioning.

Ninety years of data make the case plainly: Both stocks and bonds have delivered their strongest risk-adjusted returns in the highest real-rate environments¹, precisely because elevated real rates tend to coincide with a healthy economy rather than a fragile one. And it’s worth being explicit about what today is not. This is not 2022, when rates climbed into 9% CPI, earnings fell, and a hiking cycle started from zero. Rates rising into strength and rates rising into stress are different setups that happen to share a direction. (For more, please see “Why 2026 is not 2022: Higher oil, different economy”).

So the repositioning that makes sense isn’t toward defense. If there’s a tactical adjustment worth making, it’s less about duration and more about volatility: With new Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh running a divided committee on less communication, rates volatility looks underpriced, and optionality there offers an asymmetric profile relative to where it’s priced today. Beyond that, we’d lean toward the parts of the market built to carry higher rates rather than away from risk altogether.

2. The latest Fed meeting brought a markedly shorter statement, no forward guidance, and five new task forces. How should investors think about the “Warsh regime”?

This is the most underappreciated story of the month, because it’s structural rather than numerical. Warsh didn’t just hold rates—he changed how the Fed communicates. The statement was markedly shorter, forward guidance was stripped out, and he stood up five task forces to review policy operations, communications, data, productivity and the labor market, and the causes of inflation.

The practical implication for investors is straightforward: expect less hand-holding. The Jerome Powell era told you where it thought it was going; the Warsh-era Fed is signaling it will react to the data and say less in advance. We think that likely means more two-way volatility around each data release, because the market may have fewer precommitments to lean on—the same dynamic that makes us flag rates volatility as underpriced.

It’s just as important to say what this isn’t. We wouldn’t read hidden hawkishness or dovishness into the shorter statement itself. Less guidance is a process choice, not a policy stance, and the temptation to decode it for directional clues could prove dangerous. The cleaner adjustment is one of weighting: assigning greater emphasis on the incoming inflation prints, and discounting the running commentary—partly because, under this regime, there will simply be less of it. The path to avoiding a hike this year is narrow, and it runs almost entirely through the data rather than through Fed rhetoric. For advisors fielding “what is the Fed thinking” questions, the honest answer is that the Fed is telling you to watch the same numbers it’s watching.

3. The Fed raised its inflation projection and trimmed its growth forecast. Is this stagflation?

We’d push back on the label. The Fed did nudge its year-end inflation projection up—toward 3.6% from 2.7%—while trimming growth toward 2.2% and putting unemployment near 4.3%. On the surface, higher inflation plus slower growth sounds like the makings of stagflation. But stagflation is a specific and unpleasant condition: it requires genuine stagnation—output stalling, joblessness climbing, and price increases broadening and entrenching across the economy.

What the projections actually describe is something far more benign. Growth near 2% is slower, not stalled. Unemployment around 4.3% is a healthy labor market by any reasonable historical standard. And the inflation impulse was overwhelmingly energy-driven—a single, identifiable shock that, as the next question covers, is now reversing rather than spreading. The composition is the tell. A genuine stagflation diagnosis would need the slowdown to show up in the labor market and the inflation to broaden well beyond a single input. Neither is happening.

Another indicator of stagflation is the “Misery Index,” tracking both inflation and unemployment. As outlined in Exhibit 1, misery is relatively mild and nowhere near the peak of the late 1970s.

The broader cycle picture reinforces the point. By the business-cycle framework we’ve leaned on, the U.S. sits squarely mid-cycle—credit growth intact, profit growth healthy, policy near neutral—historically the most durable phase of the expansion for risk assets, and a long way from the late-cycle conditions that actually end expansions. For advisors worried the data is flashing a 1970s rerun, the more accurate read is an economy growing near trend while it digests a temporary, energy-led price disturbance. We’d file this one under “slower and warmer,” not “stalled and spiraling.”

4. With the US–Iran memorandum signed in mid-June, what does it mean for supply chains, inflation, and the consumer?

Despite the potential for uncertainty as negotiators firm up a lasting peace plan, the memorandum sets the conflict on a path to wind down over roughly 60 days. The Strait of Hormuz—which carries close to a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil—is beginning to reopen, with millions of barrels already moving back through. Crude has fallen to the mid-$70s from triple digits at the peak. This is where we feel the macro picture begins to improve.

What makes this more than a price story is the kind of shock it was. The spring’s inflation was largely cost-push—a supply-side disruption sitting on top of the economy, not demand running hot—and supply-driven energy shocks haven’t historically forced the Fed’s hand. Their reversal works the other way. The transmission to the real economy runs in three steps:

• First, supply chains: The shipping and insurance premiums that built up around the choke point should ease as transit normalizes.
• Second, inflation: Energy was the single largest driver of the spike, so a sustained pullback is disinflationary at the headline level and takes pressure off the very data that turned the Fed hawkish in the first place.
• Third, the consumer: Lower prices at the pump act like a tax cut, handing purchasing power back to households right where they feel it most—and a steadier consumer is the foundation the rest of the expansion rests on.

The caveat we’d keep top of mind is durability. A 60-day framework is not a signed-and-sealed settlement, and any breakdown would likely reverse these channels quickly. But taken at face value, the geopolitical story that has dominated in the first half of the year is likely to flip from a headwind into a modest tailwind.

5. Equities are at all-time highs, and the IPO window is reopening with marquee names. Are we in bubble territory?

Froth in pockets, yes; a market-wide bubble, not yet. Record highs and a reopening IPO window are classic late-cycle signals, and they deserve respect—when capital turns easy and private companies start racing to go public, risk appetite is usually running ahead of fundamentals somewhere. But a bubble is a specific claim: valuations broadly detached from earnings. That’s not the picture today, and two things argue against the call.

The first is where the risk actually sits. The valuation stretch is concentrated in the software and chip-design layers of the AI stack, where multiples are most exposed to rate-driven compression and where ROI skepticism has the most traction. The physical infrastructure layer beneath it—power, cooling, networking, storage—is a different animal: Capital commitments are locked in over multiyear build cycles, tied to physical timelines rather than quarterly guidance, and largely model-agnostic. Treating the whole complex as one frothy trade produces a bubble narrative the underlying fundamentals don’t support.

The second is the character of the recent move. The leg to new highs was led not by the mega-caps where concentration risk lives, but by small caps and cyclicals as yields eased at the margin. Broadening participation is the opposite of a narrowing, blow-off top—it’s what a healthy advance looks like. And earnings have continued to support the tape rather than lag it.

The reality is that valuation risk is real but localized, and it’s heaviest in the most narrative-driven, AI-levered corners. That’s where discipline matters most. But “expensive in places” is not “bubble everywhere,” and we’d suggest staying invested with an emphasis on diversification^*.

Investment Implications

Strip away a noisy month and the same signal runs beneath all five questions: a mid-cycle economy carrying higher rates for healthy reasons, with the geopolitical overhang now easing rather than building. The stance that follows is unchanged—favor earnings quality and free-cash-flow visibility, keep constructive exposure to the mid-cycle cyclicals and the AI infrastructure layer that the capital-investment cycle rewards (industrials, materials, financials, and the physical layer of technology), and consider owning optionality on rates volatility into a quieter, more reactive Fed. Stay invested through the static. The fundamentals are the signal.
​