Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: Whether the tentative two-week ceasefire announced Tuesday evening holds or not, look longer term. Businesses and markets are nothing if not relentless at navigating barriers to commerce (see tariffs with any questions). Given the uncertainty of seaborne traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, this piece looks at other historical “chokepoints”—and how maritime disputes over them resolved. Cutting to the chase: The bottlenecks didn’t stay that way for long as motivated parties found workarounds even as countries claimed “control” over the waterways. These provide potential starting points for Iran and the US to agree on a framework both sides find acceptable (since neither country ratified the UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea), like giving potential tolls a palatable branding—should both countries pursue a diplomatic end, rather than a military one. Yet even here, the longer-term economic implications are limited. “Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates managed to circumvent the chokepoint to a limited degree via their bypass pipelines. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are almost certain to double down, expanding those emergency conduits further. Kuwait would doubtless join forces with the Saudis to build its own bypass pipeline.” The upshot? “Iran’s stranglehold over energy supplies will therefore loosen over time. Five years from now, the Persian Gulf will have far better bypass options than it does today. No matter what the US and Iran agree over the future of Hormuz, the strait’s status will change. But the waterway will never be as critical to the global economy as it was when the fighting started six weeks ago.” Capitalism finds a way, which is one reason why global stocks rose—and energy prices fell—before the ceasefire and even after it immediately began looking tenuous. When in doubt trust markets, which are several steps ahead of headlines, looking 3 to 30 months out. Of course, the breaking news everyone is glued to may swing sentiment short term, but that doesn’t confer any long-term advantage. Investors fare better weighing future fundamentals.

MarketMinder’s View: As we wrote last April, one reason we expected tariffs’ actual bite to not match their bark: Importers would be incentivized to discover loopholes, especially with regulatory enforcement (and staffing) lacking. One year later: “Experts say companies most likely began finding ways to reduce the value of the goods they were sending to the United States. Lowering the value of the toys, couches and other products headed for America’s shores meant that companies could also reduce the amount of tariffs they had to pay for those imports.” Read on for more details on the many ways (legal and otherwise, which we absolutely don’t endorse) firms have explored tax avoidance. But for investors the takeaway remains the same as immediately post-Liberation Day: Tariffs’ hit is less than feared, which is why stocks rallied even as extra import taxes bit.

MarketMinder’s View: This article makes the case for adding annuities in employer-sponsored retirement accounts like 401(k)s but inadvertently shows why they aren’t worth it. While billed as providing “lifetime income” so you don’t outlive your savings, as described here, annuities are riddled with complexity and saddled by high fees alongside capping your upside ... upside that would otherwise be available with simpler—and cheaper—options. Ask yourself why insurers want to offer annuities in plans and how they are getting paid. Then consider whether their financial incentives align with yours. Do so and we think it becomes clear why “only about 9% of companies offer one, according to a 2025 survey by Plan Sponsor Council of America, a trade group for company retirement plans.”