Briefing

Cartera Modelo Conservative

• Evolución neta del mes: 3.47 % vs -0.02 % índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta del año: 7.93 % vs 11.28 % índice comparable ajustado

Cartera Modelo Thematic

• Evolución neta del mes: 3.39 % vs -0.01 % índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta del año: 28.81 % vs 13.99 % índice comparable ajustado

Cartera Modelo Growth

• Evolución neta del mes: 1.50% % % vs -0.01% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta del año: 15.45% vs 13.99% índice comparable ajustado

Pesos de Carteras Septiembre

Read more

Node Analytica Sata Tesis

258KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Subscribe now

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

Estas Trade Ideas no constituyen asesoramiento financiero personalizado, recomendación individual de inversión ni una oferta de compra o venta de instrumentos financieros.

La implementación real depende de las restricciones, costes, fiscalidad, perfil de riesgo, horizonte temporal y plataforma de ejecución de cada inversor.

Resumen Carteras Modelo

Conservative (Antes Standard)

• Evolución neta del año: 2.14% vs 7.08% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta del mes: -1.30% vs 0.36% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta desde el inicio (2018): 137.10% vs 67.24% índice comparable ajustado

Thematic (Antes Institutional)

• Evolución neta del año: 13.77% vs 11.64% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta del mes: -4.03% vs 0.36% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta desde el inicio (2018): 273.66% vs 116.62% índice comparable ajustado

Growth

• Evolución neta del año: 11.73% vs 11.64% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta del mes: -5.35% % % vs 0.36% índice comparable ajustado

• Evolución neta desde el inicio (2018): 330.04% vs 153.62% índice comparable ajustado

Julio dejó una imagen muy distinta según se mire a los grandes índices o a lo que ocurrió debajo de ellos. El benchmark S&P 500 Risk Adjusted de Node Analytica avanzó un 0,36%, mientras las tres carteras cerraron el mes en negativo: Thematic cayó un 4,03%, Conservative un 1,30% y Growth un 5,35%.

El mayor daño se concentró en los modelos con más exposición a temáticas de crecimiento y a segmentos que habían liderado con fuerza durante los meses anteriores. La lectura del año, sin embargo, sigue siendo bastante diferente. Thematic acumula un 13,77%, frente al 11,64% de su benchmark. Growth se mantiene prácticamente en línea, con un 11,73%. Conservative, con un 2,14%, continúa por detrás de su referencia en el conjunto de 2026.

Read more

Read more

Read more

1. Puesta en Marcha

Antes de ejecutar cualquier acción, lo primero de todo …

Read more

Read more

Read more

Welcome to our Market Overview section. Each week, we break down the major risk assets to assess what is changing across global markets, what is driving those moves, and why it matters. Our aim is to deliver a clear and practical view of the underlying macro and market forces that shape price action and, over time, define longer-term trends.

This is no longer just a geopolitical headline. Markets are increasingly pricing a full macro transmission mechanism: higher energy prices, renewed inflation pressure, tighter financial conditions, and a less benign path for central banks. The Strait of Hormuz matters because it remains one of the world’s key energy chokepoints. The IEA says roughly 20 mb/d of oil, around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, transits the Strait, with about 80% of those flows heading to Asia; it also carries almost one-fifth of global LNG trade, with very limited rerouting capacity. UNCTAD has also warned that disruptions there threaten not only oil and gas, but fertilizers and broader trade flows.

That is why the current market move matters. Brent has surged more than 50% since the conflict began and Reuters reports analysts still see materially elevated oil prices across most war scenarios, with the downside only reopening meaningfully under a genuine de-escalation. At the same time, central bankers are openly acknowledging that the balance of risks has shifted back toward inflation. The macro message is straightforward: if the conflict persists, the world moves further away from the clean disinflation narrative that many assets were still assuming just weeks ago.

Fixed Income

The bond heatmap is sending a very clear signal: negative price returns in 10-year government bonds mean yields have moved higher. The main question is not whether yields are rising, but why. In my view, the answer differs by market.

In the U.S., the pattern looks increasingly like a term premium story layered on top of a hawkish repricing of the front end. The chart shows the U.S. 10Y down across most windows, including -2.17% at 6M and -3.99% at 1Y, which suggests a sustained rise in required compensation for holding duration. That makes sense in the current macro context. If oil remains elevated, investors will demand more inflation compensation and more protection against policy uncertainty. Reuters reported that Fed Governor Lisa Cook now sees the balance of risks as having shifted toward inflation because of the Iran war, while Philadelphia Fed President Anna Paulson has warned that fuel and fertilizer shocks could make inflation expectations more fragile.

The UK looks even more acute in the near term, but there the signal appears more concentrated in short-rate expectations. Our chart shows the UK 10Y bond posting the sharpest 1M loss in the group at -3.68%, while Reuters notes markets have moved to price as many as three Bank of England hikes this year and that 2-year gilt yields are near multi-year highs. That suggests the UK selloff is being driven less by a pure long-end inflation premium and more by a forceful repricing of the policy path. In other words, gilts are reacting as if the market fears the BoE may be forced to respond more aggressively if energy shock transmission starts feeding into inflation psychology again.

The Eurozone is more nuanced. Eurozone 10Y bonds are weak in the short run, but less dramatically so than the U.S. or UK, with some resilience at 3M and 1Y in the heatmap. That fits the current ECB tone. Reuters reports that Isabel Schnabel said the ECB should not rush to raise rates, but also made clear that a persistent energy-driven inflation shock that seeps into wages and expectations would require action. So Europe is pricing inflation risk, but the official reaction function has not yet fully validated the most hawkish market scenario.

Japan is different again. The Japanese 10Y is relatively stable versus peers and even positive over 1Y in our chart. That makes sense because Japan is facing a more ambiguous shock mix: imported inflation on one side, demand and growth fragility on the other. Reuters reports that the BoJ is likely to warn about “inflation whiplash” from the Iran war, precisely because the economy could face both higher input costs and weaker demand simultaneously.

The bottom line in rates is this: bonds are telling us the market no longer sees the energy spike as a harmless headline shock. In the U.S., term premium is likely playing a bigger role. In the UK, front-end policy repricing looks more dominant. In Europe, inflation risk is rising faster than the ECB is willing to validate. And in Japan, the inflation-growth tradeoff is becoming more unstable.

World Indexes

Equities are not reacting uniformly because the Hormuz shock does not hit all regions through the same channel. Some markets are more exposed to physical energy dependence. Others are more exposed to rates, duration, and valuation compression. Others still benefit, at least initially, from stronger commodity terms of trade.

The key point is that the Strait is not just an oil story. It is also an LNG story, a fertilizer story, and therefore a growth, inflation, and margin story. That is why this episode has broader macro significance than a standard geopolitical flare-up. UNCTAD has explicitly highlighted the risks to energy, fertilizers, and vulnerable economies, while FAO says a prolonged crisis could push fertilizer prices 15% to 20% higher in H1 2026.

Asia & Middle East

Asia remains the region most directly exposed to a prolonged Hormuz disruption. The IEA says around 80% of oil flows through the Strait are destined for Asia, while UNCTAD’s recent work shows Asia also absorbs the majority of LNG passing through the chokepoint. That makes the region especially vulnerable to energy inflation, power cost pressure, industrial margin compression, and downstream trade disruption.

The heatmap captures this well. Many Asian markets still show strong 6M to 1Y gains, especially Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, but the short-term picture has deteriorated materially. That is not yet a full trend reversal. It is a de-rating. Investors are starting to price the idea that higher oil, more expensive gas, and supply chain fragility will hit exporters, manufacturers, semis, transport, and chemicals if the shock persists.

Korea and Taiwan are especially vulnerable because they combine cyclical equity beta with heavy energy dependence. Japan has the same energy sensitivity, but it also faces an added macro complication: the BoJ cannot respond to energy-driven inflation the same way a conventional central bank can without risking damage to already fragile domestic demand. Reuters also reports that Japan’s government has warned that the oil spike could have a lasting economic impact over coming quarters.

The Middle East itself is more complex than “higher oil equals higher equities.” Oil producers benefit from the price shock, but their equity markets also carry geopolitical, security, and capital-flow risk. That is why Saudi equities are not behaving like a simple levered Brent trade. Investors are weighing improved revenue conditions against regional instability, infrastructure risk, and a higher discount rate.

If the conflict drags on, Asia looks like the region most exposed to the direct energy route. If the conflict fades quickly, Asia may also be one of the biggest relief trades, because so much of the current discount is tied to imported energy risk rather than broken domestic fundamentals.

America

The Americas are more bifurcated. The U.S. looks most vulnerable through the rates and valuation channel. Our charts show U.S. indices under pressure in the short term, with the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, and Nasdaq Composite all weakening while long-end yields rise. That makes sense. U.S. equities, especially large-cap growth, are still heavily exposed to discount-rate sensitivity. Higher oil matters, but higher real and nominal rates matter even more for richly valued duration-heavy equity segments.

Latin America is a different story. Brazil, Mexico, and parts of the broader regional complex have held up better over medium horizons in the heatmap. That is logical in a commodity shock regime. Markets with more exposure to energy, mining, agriculture, and financials can initially absorb oil-driven macro stress better than markets dominated by long-duration tech and consumer sectors.

The future path, though, still depends on whether the oil shock remains supportive for external balances or starts becoming globally recessionary. A short conflict can be a net positive for parts of Latin America. A prolonged shock that crushes global demand is a very different regime.

Europe

Europe may be the cleanest stagflation setup in this entire map. Not because it is the single largest direct buyer of Hormuz oil flows, but because it imports the global price shock very quickly and is highly sensitive to the second-round effects: gas, industrial feedstocks, chemicals, fertilizers, transport, and household purchasing power.

European heatmap shows broad short-term weakness almost everywhere, even where 6M and 1Y performance is still positive. Germany stands out as relatively weak, which fits the macro backdrop: more industrial sensitivity, tighter profit margins, and higher exposure to energy-intensive production. By contrast, some markets with more financials, more domestic defensiveness, or more commodity linkages have held up better.

Reuters reports that EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis now openly warns the Iran war could mean stagflation for the EU, with even a short disruption capable of shaving 0.4 percentage points off 2026 growth and adding up to 1 percentage point to inflation. That is exactly the framework investors should have in mind when reading the European board: weaker growth, higher inflation, less policy room.

This is where the fertilizer angle matters. Hormuz disruptions are not just about fuel. UNCTAD and FAO both stress that fertilizers are part of the transmission channel, which means Europe faces a risk not only to industrial costs but potentially to food inflation later on. That keeps the inflation impulse broader and stickier than a narrow oil shock.

In a prolonged conflict, Europe probably remains the region with the worst macro mix: imported inflation, margin compression, weak growth, and central banks that cannot fully look through the shock if inflation expectations become less anchored.

Commodities

The commodity complex is the cleanest expression of the macro backdrop. Energy is leading, and by a wide margin. In the heatmap above, Brent is up 47.37% over 1M, 67.60% over 3M, 50.58% over 6M, and 42.91% over 1Y. WTI shows the same pattern. This is not a subtle move. It is the market pricing a structural energy risk premium.

Reuters says Brent has risen more than 50% since the war began, and analysts continue to see elevated prices across most scenarios because even partial disruption at Hormuz tightens global balances quickly. The EIA’s latest outlook also says the main upside risk to oil remains an extended Hormuz closure, given the Strait carries nearly 20% of global oil supply.

Gold and silver also fit the macro story. Gold is doing what it should do in a regime of geopolitical risk, inflation uncertainty, and unstable policy expectations. Silver is even stronger over longer windows in our chart, reflecting both its hard-asset status and its higher beta profile. In a prolonged conflict, the most coherent commodity expression remains energy plus precious metals.

The less appreciated point is food inflation. FAO warns that fertilizer prices could average 15% to 20% higher in the first half of 2026 if the crisis persists, while Reuters and UN sources have emphasized the risk that fertilizer and food costs become the next leg of the inflation story. That matters because it broadens the inflation shock beyond gasoline and utility bills.

So the commodity outlook remains constructive as long as the conflict persists, but with an important distinction: oil has already repriced aggressively, which means future upside may still exist, but the asymmetry is not as clean as it was earlier in the move. Gold still looks more structurally robust because it does not depend on a continued supply disruption to justify elevated pricing.

Digital Assets

Crypto is starting to show selective strength, but the board still looks like a market that has not fully repriced a benign post-conflict scenario. Bitcoin and Ethereum are modestly positive over 1M in the heatmap, and some assets have bounced over 1W, but a large part of the space is still deeply negative across 3M, 6M, and 9M windows.

That is important. It suggests digital assets may still offer more upside convexity than many commodities or developed-market indices if the war de-escalates. Why? Because crypto is a higher-beta expression of improving liquidity conditions, easing macro volatility, a softer dollar, and lower fears of renewed monetary tightening. If the conflict ends and oil gives back a meaningful part of its geopolitical premium, crypto could rerate much faster than commodities, which have already had their move, or equities, which still face earnings and margin uncertainty.

So yes, it is reasonable to argue that digital assets may have greater upside potential than commodities or major indices from here, but only under a specific macro path: de-escalation in the Middle East, a moderation in energy prices, and no renewed surge in real yields. Without that combination, crypto remains a conditional trade rather than the cleanest macro expression.

In other words, it may make sense to begin thinking about positioning, but the timing argument is not “buy because war exists.” The timing argument is “accumulate selectively before a peace or de-escalation regime is fully priced.”

Macro Status

Our Global Risk Regime Indicator is probably the best summary of the current macro mix. Liquidity Impulse remains strongly positive, with a high percentile reading, which tells us the system still has an important supportive pillar underneath markets. But that support is being offset by a deeply negative Volatility Block and sharply negative Policy Uncertainty Relief. Credit Relief is also soft, while Dollar Impulse is mildly negative and Real Yield Support is only neutral.

That is a very specific macro regime. Liquidity is still cushioning the system, but it is no longer dominating the tape. Volatility, policy uncertainty, and inflation risk are doing more of the short-term price discovery.

A continuation of the Middle East conflict would likely worsen most of the fragile drivers. Volatility would stay elevated. Policy uncertainty would remain impaired. Credit could deteriorate further if spreads widen. The dollar could strengthen as a safety bid. And Real Yield Support could fade if markets continue pushing back rate-cut expectations or start pricing outright hikes in more jurisdictions. Reuters reporting from the Fed, ECB, BoE market pricing, and Japan all points in the same direction: central banks are no longer able to treat the energy shock as irrelevant noise.

So the macro status today is not outright collapse. It is more subtle. Liquidity is still constructive, but geopolitical uncertainty is preventing that liquidity from translating into a cleaner risk-on regime.

Bottom Line

The market is repricing a world in which the Hormuz shock does not stay isolated inside oil.

In fixed income, rising bond yields are telling you that investors are reassessing inflation risk and central bank reaction functions. In the U.S., term premium appears to be doing more of the work. In the UK, front-end rate expectations look more aggressive. In Europe, the stagflation risk is becoming harder to ignore.

In equities, Asia looks most exposed to the direct energy route, Europe to the stagflation route, and the U.S. to the duration-and-valuation route. Latin America remains relatively better positioned while commodities stay firm.

In commodities, oil remains the dominant macro signal, with gold and silver still well supported by the broader uncertainty regime. In digital assets, the big opportunity may not be the war itself, but the post-war repricing if oil retreats and liquidity regains control of the narrative.

For now, the message is simple: as long as Hormuz stays under pressure, markets will continue to price higher inflation risk, tighter financial conditions, and a shallower path for global monetary easing. If that pressure breaks, the next major rotation could be violent and fast.

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.

Welcome to our Monetary Approach section, where we analyze the actions of major central banks and governments, focusing on their short- and medium-term impact on risk assets.

This week’s central-bank cycle delivered a clear message: policymakers are not reacting to a standard demand slowdown, but to a far more difficult mix of slowing activity, sticky domestic price pressure, and a renewed external energy shock. The three charts above tell the story well. Long-end borrowing costs remain elevated across the major economies, nominal spread differentials have widened materially since 2022, and policy paths are no longer synchronized. That means relative rates, FX repricing, and inflation-pass-through are once again becoming the main transmission channels into real assets.

The most important implication for investors is that monetary policy is no longer just about the level of rates. It is about how each central bank interprets the trade-off between near-term inflation persistence and medium-term growth damage. That distinction matters enormously for real assets. In the short run, markets tend to reward assets with direct pricing power, scarcity value, or commodity linkage. In the medium run, once growth slows enough or the energy shock fades, leadership can rotate back toward duration-sensitive segments such as REITs, long-duration infrastructure, and quality cyclicals. The key is that this rotation will not happen simultaneously across jurisdictions.

Subscribe now

Reserve Bank of Australia

The Reserve Bank of Australia delivered one of the most important surprises of the week. On 17 March, the RBA raised the cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.10%, and the decision was not unanimous: five members voted to hike while four preferred no change. The Board explicitly argued that inflation had picked up materially in the second half of 2025, that capacity pressures appeared greater than previously assessed, and that the Middle East shock had pushed fuel prices and short-term inflation expectations higher. In other words, the RBA chose to treat the new energy shock not as a transitory nuisance, but as a potential amplifier of already-sticky domestic inflation.

For real assets, that is a classic near-term “higher nominal, higher dispersion” backdrop. Australian duration-sensitive sectors such as listed property and highly levered domestic cyclicals face a valuation headwind from a more restrictive cash-rate path. By contrast, resource-linked equities, infrastructure assets with contractual inflation pass-through, and firms with domestic pricing power should remain relatively resilient. Governor Bullock also emphasized in the press conference that policy works not only through household cash flow but also through savings behavior and, crucially, the exchange rate. That matters because a firmer AUD can partly soften imported inflation, but it can also tighten financial conditions further.

At the medium-term horizon, Australia now looks like one of the more hawkish developed-market nodes. If domestic demand, housing activity, and public spending continue to keep the economy running close to capacity, real assets tied to nominal growth and scarce-resource exposure should continue to outperform pure multiple-expansion trades.

Bank of Canada

The Bank of Canada held its policy rate at 2.25% on 18 March, but the tone was more nuanced than a simple pause. The Bank acknowledged that the Middle East shock had increased volatility in energy prices and financial markets, that global bond yields had risen, equities had fallen, and credit spreads had widened. At the same time, it stressed that the Canadian economy was already growing slowly, still operating with excess supply, and facing a soft labor market, with the unemployment rate rising to 6.7% in February. Inflation eased to 1.8% in February, but the Bank also made clear that higher gasoline prices would lift headline inflation in coming months.

That combination is important for asset allocation. Canada is closer than Australia or the U.K. to a growth-sensitive hold rather than an inflation-dominant hold. In the short term, higher oil prices are supportive for Canadian energy equities, pipelines, royalty businesses, and commodity-sensitive real assets. But domestic real estate and purely rate-sensitive cyclicals are unlikely to enjoy a clean relief rally yet, because the Bank is explicitly trying to support activity while ensuring that an energy spike does not morph into persistent inflation.

Over the medium term, Canada may be one of the first major developed markets to recover easing optionality if energy prices stabilize and labor-market softness persists. That would be constructive for longer-duration real assets and selected housing-related exposures later on. For now, however, the better positioning remains barbelled: hard-asset exposure on one side, quality balance-sheet defensives on the other.

Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve held the federal funds target range at 3.50% to 3.75% on 18 March. The statement described economic activity as expanding at a solid pace, job gains as low, and inflation as still somewhat elevated. More importantly, the Fed explicitly said uncertainty about the outlook remained elevated and that developments in the Middle East posed uncertain implications for the U.S. economy. The Committee maintained a data-dependent stance, but one voting member dissented in favor of a 25-basis-point cut, which tells us that the internal debate has shifted from whether rates are restrictive to whether growth softness will eventually dominate inflation persistence.

The March SEP reinforces that interpretation. The median projection now shows 2026 GDP growth at 2.4%, unemployment at 4.4%, and both headline and core PCE inflation at 2.7%. The median projected federal funds rate for end-2026 remained 3.4%, while participants’ risk assessments shifted further toward upside inflation risks. That is not a Fed eager to ease into an oil shock; it is a Fed that still sees room to wait while monitoring whether higher energy prices contaminate inflation expectations and wages.

For real assets, the short-run implication is straightforward: real yields are unlikely to fall decisively until the Fed sees clearer labor-market deterioration or cleaner disinflation. That is a headwind for interest-rate-sensitive property vehicles and speculative duration trades. However, it is supportive for scarce assets with inflation-hedging characteristics, particularly gold and energy-linked equities. In equities more broadly, it argues for a narrower leadership profile centered on balance-sheet strength, pricing power, and lower funding dependence. In the medium term, if the labor market softens faster than inflation reaccelerates, the Fed can still pivot and reopen the door to a more durable bid for REITs, infrastructure, and long-duration growth. But that is a second-step trade, not the first one.

Bank Of Japan

The Bank of Japan kept its policy setting intact on 19 March, with the uncollateralized overnight call rate maintained at around 0.75% by an 8-1 majority vote. Yet the substance of the statement was unmistakably hawkish. The BOJ said real interest rates remain significantly low and stated that, if the January outlook is realized, it will continue to raise the policy rate and adjust the degree of monetary accommodation. Two details stand out: first, the Bank continues to see a wage-price mechanism gaining traction; second, a dissenting member argued for lifting the operating target to around 1.0%, effectively signaling that a more aggressive normalization path is already live inside the Board.

This matters globally, not just domestically. Japan has long been the anchor of cheap funding for global carry structures. A BOJ that remains on a gradual tightening path raises the probability of further JGB repricing, tighter global financial conditions at the margin, and a less forgiving backdrop for levered cross-border risk. In the short term, that tends to support the yen, compress the attractiveness of yen-funded carry, and pressure the most crowded high-beta trades. It is less supportive for export-heavy Japanese equities, but more constructive for domestic financials and other nominal-growth beneficiaries.

At the medium-term horizon, BOJ normalization is one of the most underappreciated forces for real-asset allocation. A structurally less-suppressed Japanese yield curve changes the global discount-rate architecture. That does not automatically mean a crisis for risk assets, but it does mean investors should be more selective. Real assets backed by real cash flows and domestic pricing power become more attractive than pure liquidity-beta exposures.

Swiss National Bank

The Swiss National Bank left its policy rate unchanged at 0% on 19 March, but the real signal came through the exchange-rate channel. The SNB explicitly stated that its willingness to intervene in FX markets had increased in order to counter a rapid and excessive appreciation of the Swiss franc. It also raised its near-term inflation forecast because of higher energy prices, while noting that medium-term inflation pressure remained largely unchanged. Inflation stood at 0.1% in February, and the SNB’s forecast assumes average annual inflation of 0.5% in 2026, 0.5% in 2027, and 0.6% in 2028.

The short-term implication is that Switzerland remains the cleanest example of a central bank prioritizing currency management over further rate normalization. For real assets, that is a stabilizing mix. Swiss property and high-quality infrastructure-like exposures continue to benefit from very low nominal policy rates, while a cap on excessive franc appreciation offers some protection to exporters. In a broader portfolio context, this makes Swiss assets less of an outright inflation trade and more of a defensive-quality allocation.

Over the medium term, the SNB remains a global outlier. If the franc remains strong and inflation subdued, Switzerland can continue to operate with unusually low nominal rates relative to peers. That is supportive for domestic duration-sensitive real assets, but it also means Swiss assets may behave more as volatility dampeners than return leaders in a reflationary global environment.

Bank Of England

The Bank of England unanimously kept Bank Rate at 3.75% on 19 March, but the language was clearly cautious. The MPC said the conflict in the Middle East had significantly increased global energy and commodity prices, that U.K. CPI inflation would be higher in the near term as a result, and that it was alert to the risk of second-round effects through wages and prices. It also stressed that higher energy costs would likely weaken activity, underscoring the classic stagflationary dilemma facing the U.K. economy.

This is especially important when read against the yield charts. U.K. 10-year borrowing costs remain among the highest in the peer group, and nominal spreads versus Germany, Japan, and China remain wide. That means the U.K. is carrying one of the heaviest market-imposed risk premiums in the developed world. In the short run, that is not a friendly backdrop for domestic real estate, small caps, or other balance-sheet-sensitive segments. However, it is relatively constructive for energy producers, miners, and internationally diversified cash-flow businesses that benefit from nominal revenue resilience.

In the medium term, the U.K. could eventually become one of the stronger catch-up trades if second-round inflation effects fail to materialize and the MPC regains confidence to ease. But it is not there yet. Until wage dynamics cool more convincingly, U.K. assets are likely to keep trading with a higher inflation and credibility premium than continental Europe.

European Central Bank

The ECB also held rates unchanged on 19 March, and its message was arguably the clearest articulation of the current global macro dilemma. The Governing Council said the war in the Middle East had made the outlook significantly more uncertain, creating upside risks to inflation and downside risks to growth. The March staff projections now see euro-area headline inflation at 2.6% in 2026, 2.0% in 2027, and 2.1% in 2028, while GDP growth is projected at 0.9% in 2026, 1.3% in 2027, and 1.4% in 2028. The ECB stressed that it would remain data-dependent and would not pre-commit to a rate path.

The market implication is that the ECB has effectively moved into a conditional pause: not because inflation has been fully defeated, but because the inflation problem is increasingly imported through energy while the growth backdrop is softening. That has two effects on real assets. In the short term, it supports selective exposure to gold, energy-linked equities, utilities with regulatory pass-through, and fiscal beneficiaries such as defense and infrastructure. But it is less supportive for broad European cyclicals that rely on a rapid fall in discount rates.

In the medium term, Europe is more interesting than it looks. The ECB itself noted that low unemployment, solid private-sector balance sheets, and public spending on defense and infrastructure should continue to underpin growth. That means Europe may not offer the strongest broad equity beta, but it does offer an increasingly attractive hunting ground for real assets tied to fiscal impulse, strategic industrial policy, and scarce-input pricing power.

The Takeaway

The core message from this week’s central-bank meetings is that the world is entering a phase of policy divergence under an energy shock. Australia has turned more hawkish. Japan remains on a normalization path. The Fed is on hold but still inflation-conscious. Canada is balancing weak growth against a temporary inflation lift. The ECB and BOE are stuck in varying degrees of stagflation management. The SNB is managing the currency rather than the cycle.

For real assets, the short-term playbook remains biased toward pricing power, commodity linkage, and inflation resilience. That favors gold, energy, select materials, cash-flowing infrastructure, and equity segments able to pass through cost inflation. It is less favorable for leveraged real estate, long-duration equities, and any trade that relies on an imminent collapse in real yields. Over the medium term, the picture becomes more conditional. If the energy shock fades and growth slows more visibly, Canada, Europe, and eventually even the U.K. can regain easing optionality, which would reopen upside for duration-sensitive real assets. If the shock persists, however, the winning exposures remain those tied to scarcity, fiscal spending, and nominal cash-flow durability.

In our view, the charts above capture the strategic point: global rates are no longer moving as one block, and long-end spreads are becoming a macro signal in their own right. The countries where markets are repricing for stickier nominal pressure will continue to reward real assets over financial-duration assets. The countries where growth weakens faster than inflation persists will eventually provide the next leg of support for rate-sensitive sectors.

Subscribe now

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.

Welcome to our Market Overview section. Each week, we break down the major risk assets to assess what is changing across global markets, what is driving those moves, and why it matters. Our aim is to deliver a clear and practical view of the underlying macro and market forces that shape price action and, over time, define longer-term trends.

Subscribe now

Fixed Income

Sovereign fixed income continues to signal caution, but not systemic stress. The relative performance of 10-year bonds shows that the market has not yet entered a classic “flight to duration” phase, despite the recent geopolitical deterioration. In the United States, Treasuries continue to reflect an uncomfortable combination of still-resilient growth and more persistent short-term inflation, while in Europe and Switzerland the relative trend has been more constructive. The underlying message is clear: the dominant shock is not purely recessionary, but rather inflationary driven by energy costs, which limits central banks’ ability to pivot quickly toward a more dovish stance. The Federal Reserve kept rates unchanged this week and raised its inflation forecast for 2026, reinforcing precisely that interpretation.

World Indexes

The overall picture for equities remains consistent with an environment of operational risk, but one that is clearly more fragmented. We are not facing a homogeneous market or a widespread “risk-on” sentiment, but rather a phase of increasing divergence in which market leadership depends much more on each region’s sensitivity to energy, the industrial cycle, sector composition, and monetary policy.

The recent oil price rally has visibly disrupted the global macroeconomic balance. Not only does it drive up energy costs and put pressure on inflation expectations, but it also indirectly tightens financial conditions by reducing central banks’ room to maneuver. The result is a less linear global market, in which pockets of strength still exist, but with a higher implied cost of capital and lower tolerance for demanding multiples.

Asia & Middle East

Asia continues to send mixed signals, with clearly defined pockets of strength. South Korea and Taiwan continue to stand out in relative terms, suggesting that the region’s technology and industrial sectors maintain reasonably solid momentum. This performance aligns with global demand that has not deteriorated abruptly and with an Asian manufacturing cycle that, while more volatile, has not yet entered a phase of severe contraction.

China, by contrast, continues to fail to act as a true global cyclical engine. The official growth target set by Beijing for 2026 confirms a focus on stabilization, not aggressive stimulus. This implies that Asia may continue to selectively contribute to growth and stock market leadership, but not yet provide synchronized momentum to the rest of the world.

In the Middle East, the picture is more binary. On the one hand, rising oil prices improve the backdrop for energy exporters. On the other, geopolitical tensions themselves introduce volatility, uncertainty, and second-round risks regarding global inflation. Saudi Arabia is managing to redirect part of its exports thanks to its logistics infrastructure, which gives it a tactical advantage within a much more sensitive regional environment.

America

The outlook in the Americas remains reasonably positive, though with clear divergence among subregions. Latin America continues to show relatively solid momentum in several markets, consistent with its exposure to commodities, less demanding valuations, and a profile more closely linked to reflation than to earnings compression.

The United States, by contrast, presents a more mature and less expansive picture. Major indices continue to maintain a positive bias over the long term, but recent performance confirms that the U.S. market is moving beyond the phase of uniform growth. The implied tightening stemming from oil prices, coupled with a Fed that continues to prioritize anti-inflationary credibility, favors a rotation toward segments more closely tied to energy, value, and earnings resilience, while penalizing those areas more sensitive to real interest rates and high valuations. Following the Fed meeting, the market’s initial reaction reflected precisely this more selective bias.

Europe

Europe’s underlying structure remains positive across most of its indices, but the macroeconomic environment has clearly become less favorable. Many European markets entered this phase with favorable medium-term momentum, but the deterioration in the energy sector reintroduces a vulnerability that the continent cannot ignore.

The region remains one of the most exposed to a shock from imported energy inflation. The rebound in Brent crude and the resurgence of geopolitical risk directly affect costs, margins, business confidence, and growth expectations. This week, the ZEW sentiment index in Germany deteriorated significantly, and the European market began to reflect that unease more clearly. Furthermore, the ECB recently warned that markets may be underestimating geopolitical risks, reinforcing the view that Europe remains investable, but with a narrower macroeconomic cushion.

Commodities

Commodities are once again, by far, the cleanest sector from a macro perspective. The strength of energy, gold, silver, and various industrial metals reflects a market that has once again priced in the geopolitical premium, relative supply shortages, and the strategic value of real assets.

In particular, oil has once again become the key macro transmission variable. The rally in Brent and WTI is not just a sector-specific story; it is the mechanism through which geopolitical conflict is tightening global financial conditions. Every additional upward move in crude oil complicates the disinflationary process, puts pressure on central banks, and reduces the scope for early monetary easing. Therefore, the dominance of commodities in performance rankings should not be interpreted solely as momentum, but as an expression of a real shift in the short-term macroeconomic balance.

Digital Assets

The crypto market continues to exhibit a more fragile structure than other risk-sensitive segments. Although some assets have seen tactical rebounds in recent weeks, the overall picture remains one of relative weakness compared to commodities and certain segments of the international equity market.

Bitcoin and, to a lesser extent, Ethereum, maintain greater comparative resilience than many altcoins, but the digital universe as a whole is not yet acting as a leader in global liquidity. This aligns with an environment in which the market is once again demanding greater macroeconomic discipline: when oil prices rebound, short-term inflation expectations heat up, and the Fed reaffirms a cautious stance, assets with longer durations and greater dependence on monetary expansion tend to lose relative momentum.

Macro Status

The overall picture of the macroeconomic environment remains, in essence, one of fragile and less comfortable expansion. Factors related to growth and liquidity continue to provide support, which explains why the overall picture has not shifted toward a recessionary outlook. However, this support now coexists with a visible deterioration in volatility and a clear resurgence of inflationary risk.

This combination is particularly relevant because it defines the current phase of the cycle very well: we are not facing a collapse in growth, but rather an environment of late-cycle stress in which the economy is still holding up, but the cost of sustaining that resilience is rising. Oil is once again acting as a macro catalyst, the Fed is losing tactical flexibility, and Europe is feeling the energy shock more acutely. This balance explains why the overall trend remains positive, albeit with less momentum and a much more demanding asset hierarchy than a few weeks ago.

Bottom Line

The main takeaway from the week is that the market is not pricing in a break in the cycle, but rather a clear rise in the macro cost of risk. Fixed income does not yet offer a safe haven; equities continue to rise, albeit in a more fragmented manner; commodities are acting as the main driver of the market; and long-duration assets or those more dependent on liquidity are losing relative momentum.

In terms of market conditions, we remain in a phase compatible with risk exposure, but no longer in an environment of easy beta. The new landscape demands more selection, greater attention to inflation sensitivity, and a more precise reading of macro transmission channels. As long as growth and liquidity do not deteriorate abruptly, the baseline scenario is not recessionary. With oil back at the center of the stage, the threshold for risk assets to continue advancing has clearly risen.

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.

This position constitutes a real attack on the dollar as an invoicing currency and on the entire ecosystem that sustains its centrality (the petrodollar system, cross-border payments, and the dollar’s role as the global reserve store of value). In China, several analysts have reacted cautious.

Share

The Petrodollar System

The petrodollar system is an international monetary and financial architecture that turned the energy market into one of the great mechanisms for reproducing global demand for dollars across the world. Its historical origin lies in the period following the collapse of Bretton Woods and the oil shocks of the 1970s, when oil trade became increasingly consolidated within a logic dominated by the dollar, while the surpluses generated by exporters were recycled back into the Western financial system. Brookings literature describes this process precisely as “petrodollar recycling,” emphasizing that it was channeled through U.S. banks and supported by the broader economic and financial policy environment of the United States.

How It Works

This system works because the dollar operates on four levels at the same time. First, it acts as a unit of account: crude oil and many energy products are internationally priced in dollars. Second, it functions as a payment and settlement currency: importers, traders, refiners, shipping companies, and banks structure a large part of their energy operations in dollars. Third, it operates as a reserve and savings asset: exporting countries that receive energy revenues in dollars tend to hold a significant portion of those revenues in dollar-denominated assets. And fourth, it serves as the backbone of surplus recycling: oil surpluses ultimately feed back into bond markets, deposits, wholesale funding, and sovereign portfolios within the dollar universe. That is why the petrodollar is not only about trade; it is also about balance of payments, reserve allocation, and financial depth.

The key point is that this architecture creates a kind of self-reinforcing circle. Importers need dollars to buy energy. Exporters receive those dollars and reinvest them, to a large extent, within the broader dollar ecosystem. That reinvestment sustains demand for U.S. assets and for dollar-denominated financial instruments. In turn, the enormous depth and liquidity of those markets makes it more efficient to continue operating in dollars. It is a system with network effects: the more the dollar is used in energy, financing, hedging, and reserves, the more costly it becomes to move away from it. The ECB continues to emphasize that the dollar retains a dominant role in the invoicing of energy and commodity imports, and its more recent work on global invoicing patterns shows that the dollar continues to carry a weight far greater than what would correspond to the United States’ share of world trade alone.

This explains why the petrodollar does not depend solely on a Saudi, Iranian, or Chinese political decision. Above all, it depends on the dollar’s accumulated systemic advantage. As of today, that advantage remains enormous. The IMF placed the dollar’s share of allocated official reserves at 56.92% in the third quarter of 2025, far above any alternative. The BIS, meanwhile, indicated that the dollar was present in 89% of global foreign-exchange transactions in April 2025. That means the dollar does not only dominate energy: it also dominates the market where currency risk is hedged, positions are financed, and global liquidity is obtained. As long as that market layer remains intact, replacing the dollar in the oil trade will remain extremely difficult.

That is why, when we say that “the petrodollar system is under attack,” the correct interpretation is not that the world is going to stop using dollars overnight. The correct interpretation is that it is being challenged at the margins of the system. If a major producer manages to get part of its crude oil invoiced, paid, and recycled in another currency, it does not automatically destroy the petrodollar, but it does erode one of its reproduction mechanisms. The real threat is not an instant collapse, but a gradual transition toward a more fragmented system, in which certain routes, certain buyers, and certain bilateral agreements begin to operate outside the traditional dollar orbit. That is why the Iranian proposal matters so much: not because it already replaces the petrodollar, but because it is trying to open a functional crack within it.

The Iranian Proposal

The Iranian proposal should be understood as a regime of selective access to a strategic key point. What is truly new is not only the reference to the yuan, but the idea that transit through Hormuz ceases to be a binary issue (open or closed) and instead becomes an instrument of geoeconomic discrimination: some ships pass, others do not; some cargoes find an outlet, others remain blocked; some bilateral relationships receive exemptions, while others bear the full cost of coercion. That is no longer simply energy geopolitics; it is monetary coercion supported by maritime control. Reuters has already documented exceptions for vessels linked to India and ad hoc negotiations to guarantee safe passage, which suggests that Iran is operating with a selective logic rather than with a uniform closure of the strait.

From a strategic point of view, the Iranian logic is quite clear. The Strait of Hormuz moved around 20 million barrels per day in 2024, approximately one-fifth of global liquids consumption, and the EIA estimates that 84% of the crude and condensates and 83% of the LNG that crossed the strait were destined for Asia. In addition, China, India, Japan, and South Korea accounted for 69% of the Asian crude and condensate flows linked to Hormuz. That means the Iranian lever is not designed primarily to pressure the United States, but rather to pressure import-dependent Asia as a result of the American-Israeli bombings.

That is where China comes in. If Tehran succeeds in getting part of the crude linked to Hormuz invoiced or settled in yuan, even if only partially, it will not have destroyed the petrodollar, but it will have created an exception corridor in which energy no longer circulates exclusively through the dollar’s monetary pipeline. That has a certain geopolitical value even if the initial volume is modest. The problem for Iran is that forcing the invoicing of some cargoes is one thing, but building a systemic alternative is something very different. China does have pieces of infrastructure moving in that direction, but its alternative is still very far from matching the scale and liquidity of the dollar ecosystem.

It is also important to introduce a very important clarification here so that the analysis does not fall into simplifications. Invoicing in yuan does not automatically mean exiting the dollar system. Maritime transport, cargo financing, letters of credit, insurance, price hedging, and foreign-exchange risk management remain, to a large extent, dominated by infrastructures and markets whose depth is far greater in dollars. Swift showed that in January 2026 the RMB accounted for 3.13% of global payments by value, while the dollar remained overwhelmingly dominant in official reserves, at 56.92% in 2025Q3 according to the IMF. Therefore, the leap Iran is proposing is not a replacement of the system, but rather a friction introduced within the system.

Key Risks of the Iranian Proposal

The first risk of this proposal is execution-related. Iran may threaten and grant exemptions to China, but maintaining a stable regime of conditional passage requires naval coordination, surveillance capacity, political discipline, and a clear signal to insurers, traders, and shipping firms. The EIA itself points out that, even if the strait is not physically blocked, fear of attacks and the cancellation of insurance coverage have already been enough to divert traffic and shut down production, which shows that effective control does not depend only on geography, but also on the financial conditions of navigation.

The second risk is China’s absorption capacity. Beijing may benefit symbolically from more crude being linked to the RMB, but it also assumes costs if it appears as the open sponsor of a coercive mechanism in Hormuz. The South China Morning Post itself notes that analysts in China view the idea with some caution because of its operational limits, security risks, and the potential deterioration of relations with the United States. In other words, China may want greater international use of the yuan, but it does not necessarily want that internationalization to emerge from an escalation that forces it to choose sides explicitly.

The third risk is strategic backlash. The more aggressive Iran becomes in using Hormuz as a monetary weapon, the greater the probability of compensatory responses: additional releases from strategic reserves, stronger diplomatic pressure on third countries, an accelerated search for alternative routes, and, in the extreme, a multilateral naval response. Reuters has already reported that the IEA is preparing a record reserve release, and the EIA contemplates a base-case scenario in which the risk premium persists in 2Q26 but then fades as flows normalize and inventories build. If Iran pushes too hard, it may end up incentivizing the construction of resilience against its own lever.

The Consequences: Winners & Losers

The first consequence is that this shock does not affect different geographies symmetrically. One has to distinguish between those who gain on the political level, those who gain on the monetary level, and those who gain or lose on the market level. Iran wins if it turns a military crisis into a capacity for selective negotiation over energy flows. China wins if part of that flow starts validating the yuan, CIPS, or the Shanghai oil-financial complex. But those two strategic winners are not necessarily the main market winners in the short term, because the crisis also introduces volatility and pressure on Asian growth.

Iran is the most obvious geopolitical winner if it succeeds in getting the market to accept that passage through Hormuz no longer depends solely on physical security, but also on the political relationship with Tehran. That would give it two assets at once: punitive capacity and arbitrage capacity. It can reward “neutral” or useful countries, as the case of India illustrates, and punish rivals or U.S. allies. That discrimination increases its negotiating value even if the total volume of crude it manages to redirect monetarily remains small.

China would be the potential monetary winner, but in a much more gradual way. Every barrel settled or referenced in RMB not only broadens the use of its currency; it also legitimizes its payment infrastructure and its domestic energy benchmark. However, it is important to be very technical here: the benefit for China would be more marginal and incremental than transformational. With the RMB still at 3.13% of global payments and the dollar still at 56.92% of official reserves, the yuan is advancing, yes, but from a base that is still small compared to the global centrality of the dollar.

The major losers are the Asian importers dependent on the Gulf. Physical exposure is heavily concentrated in Asia, and Reuters has already shown the extent to which India depends on the safe passage of LPG and crude through that route. That means potential deterioration in terms of trade, imported inflationary pressure, the need to negotiate exemptions, higher logistical costs, and greater domestic political vulnerability if the energy shock is prolonged. In such a scenario, not all importers suffer equally: India, Korea, and Japan are especially sensitive because of their energy mix, import dependence, and industrial exposure; China also suffers, but its larger size, reserves, and diplomatic room for maneuver give it somewhat more cushioning.

The United States is not the major immediate physical loser. The EIA estimates that in 2024 it imported only 0.5 million barrels per day of crude and condensates from Gulf countries via Hormuz, equivalent to 7% of its imports and barely 2% of its liquids consumption. But it can still be a strategic and monetary loser at the margin if episodes like this begin to normalize partially de-dollarized energy corridors. Still, there is an important paradox here: in the acute phase of the shock, the dollar can even strengthen as a safe haven, although over the longer term the precedent erodes part of its functional centrality. In other words, the impact on the United States is not linear; it is different in the short term and in the long term.

There are also market winners that are not countries. The first is crude oil, because the EIA itself acknowledges that the threat over Hormuz has introduced a meaningful risk premium and that a prolonged operational closure of the strait would be the main bullish factor for the price. The second winner in this environment is gold, not so much because of oil itself, but because it combines geopolitical hedging, a refuge against monetary fragmentation, and protection against the risk that the energy shock feeds through into inflation.

The Trade Lab

A global macro fund would not read this crisis merely as a geopolitical episode, but as a shock capable of propagating simultaneously through three channels: energy, currencies, and inflation. The key is not only that Iran is threatening Hormuz, but that it is introducing a selective access criterion to one of the most important chokepoints in the global energy system. That alters the oil risk premium, worsens the terms of trade of major Asian importers, and reopens the debate over monetary fragmentation and the security of supply chains.

A first plausible expression would be a trade: long Brent / short a basket of Asian importer currencies, for example INR and KRW against the dollar. The thesis would be that a selective monetization of Hormuz would raise the oil risk premium and, at the same time, hit economies highly dependent on the Gulf through deterioration in the external balance, imported inflationary pressure, and greater currency vulnerability. The main risk of this trade would be a rapid de-escalation, strategic reserve releases, or a broader reopening of the strait that would deflate the energy risk premium. A scenario that, for the moment, is not taking place.

A second logical trade would be to open a long in gold and another long in U.S. inflation break-evens. This structure would capture not only the energy shock, but also the possibility of a more persistent geopolitical premium and stronger demand for safe-haven assets amid monetary fragmentation. It does not require believing in the collapse of the dollar; it is enough to think that the market may begin assigning a higher probability to a regime of more persistent energy inflation and a stronger preference for hedging assets. The risk here would be that the conflict cools quickly and that the market once again prioritizes global slowdown over inflation.

Iran is not destroying the petrodollar system, but it is trying to fragment it by corridors. That completely changes the macro reading. The risk, as I was saying, is no longer a frontal and immediate replacement of the dollar, but a gradual transition toward a more fragmented map, where access to energy depends increasingly on geography, political alignments, and the settlement currency accepted by each actor.

Subscribe now

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.

Welcome to our Market Overview section. Each week, we break down the major risk assets to assess what is changing across global markets, what is driving those moves, and why it matters. Our aim is to deliver a clear and practical view of the underlying macro and market forces that shape price action and, over time, define longer-term trends.

Subscribe now

Core view: markets are no longer trading a clean disinflationary soft-landing narrative. They are trading an energy and logistics shock on top of a macro backdrop that has weakened at the margin but has not yet rolled into a full macro breakdown.

In the U.S., February nonfarm payrolls fell by 92,000,unemployment held at 4.4%, and headline CPI stayed at 2.4% YoY, with energy prices rising 0.6% MoM. At the same time, the IEA announced today the largest coordinated oil stock release in its history, at 400 million barrels, underscoring how seriously policymakers are treating the supply shock linked to the Iran conflict and the disruption around Hormuz.

Fixed Income

Fixed income is no longer behaving like a clean recession hedge. The market is now balancing softer labor data against a renewed inflation impulse from oil and refined products ahead of the March 17–18 FOMC meeting. In Europe, the ECB’s key rates remain unchanged at 2.00% for the deposit facility, 2.15% for main refinancing, and 2.40% for marginal lending, but Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel said today that the ECB would act “quickly and decisively” if higher fuel costs began feeding durably into euro area inflation. In other words, duration still has a role, but in the near term it looks more tactical than strategic—especially in the U.S., where growth is softening but inflation risk has re-entered the tape.

World Indexes

Asia & Middle East

Our heatmaps still show Korea, Taiwan, and Japan as medium-term leadership markets, but the short-term tape is now being driven by energy sensitivity and logistics risk rather than pure growth beta. Reuters reported last week that Asian equities sold off sharply as investors cut chipmakers on fears that an oil shock would delay rate cuts. That said, today Taiwan’s Pegatron and GlobalWafers said they see no immediate operational disruption from the conflict, which suggests the current pressure is more about macro multiples and energy pass-through than an immediate semiconductor supply-chain breakdown. In the Gulf, market behavior is becoming more idiosyncratic: Dubai fell 2.4% today after drone incidents near the airport, while Saudi Arabia stayed relatively stable, helped by Aramco and continued export flows through the Red Sea.

America

In the Americas, the message is not outright macro failure; it is a compression in confidence around the U.S. growth-inflation mix. Wall Street sold off on March 6 as oil jumped and the labor data disappointed, then rebounded on March 9 when hopes of a shorter conflict resurfaced. Today, U.S. equities were mixed after CPI and the IEA reserve release: the Dow was lower intraday, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq were modestly positive, with energy outperforming and crude-sensitive travel names under pressure. That fits our board well: Latin America still looks structurally stronger on trailing returns, while U.S. benchmarks have clearly lost some short-horizon momentum.

Europe

Europe remains the region most visibly trapped in the inflation-versus-growth trade-off. Yesterday the STOXX 600 posted its strongest daily jump in months on hopes of de-escalation, but today it was back down about 1%, with the DAX off 1.7%, as investors refocused on higher oil, disrupted Hormuz shipping, and the possibility that the ECB may have to remain tighter for longer than previously expected. That lines up with our cross-section: Europe is not uniformly weak, but dispersion is rising fast, and leadership is increasingly concentrated in selected peripheral and Eastern European markets rather than in the traditional core.

Commodities

Commodities remain the cleanest expression of the current regime. Officially, the IEA has now approved a 400 million barrel release from emergency reserves, the largest collective action in its history, while the U.S. EIA still forecasts Brent above $95/b for the next two months under its conflict assumptions. But the more important signal is probably not crude alone; it is the refined-products complex. Reuters reports that 10% to 20% of global seaborne diesel flows move through Hormuz, with estimated diesel supply losses of 3 to 4 million barrels per day, and U.S. diesel futures rising by more than $28 per barrel since February 27. That helps explain why your commodity heatmap continues to reward precious metals and energy-linked exposures more than broad cyclicals.

Macro Status

The Node macro dashboard still reads as split, not broken. Growth Impulse, Liquidity Impulse, and Real Yield Support remain positive, which argues against calling a full recession regime today. But Volatility Block is deeply negative and Policy Uncertainty Relief remains negative, which is exactly what one would expect when markets are being forced to price war risk, shipping disruption, and an inflation tail simultaneously. The latest U.S. macro prints reinforce that interpretation rather than overturn it: core CPI slowed to 0.2% MoM, but headline inflation remained at 2.4% YoY, while payrolls contracted and unemployment stayed elevated relative to last year’s lows.

Bottom Line

The investment implication is straightforward. Stay selective, keep a premium on pricing power, balance-sheet quality, and real-asset sensitivity, and treat duration as a tactical diversifier rather than an automatic hedge until the energy complex stabilizes. In research terms, the market is still in a “slow macro positive” regime. Unless oil, diesel, and Gulf logistics normalize more decisively, cross-asset volatility is likely to remain elevated even if the underlying growth backdrop has not yet fully rolled over.

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice

Subscribe now

Welcome to Digital Assets. This is the section where we monitor our cryptocurrency investment portfolios and report on the status of the most relevant assets in the market using a quantitative, data-driven approach.

Since the October highs, Bitcoin has pulled back by more than 50%. At present, the current structure suggests that a bottom formation is consolidating in the $60K–$75K range. The question we are all asking is whether the accumulation in the current area will consolidate as support on which to build the next bullish leg, or whether, on the contrary, there are still new capitulation events ahead that could take price levels even lower. To assess this, in today’s edition we will analyze Bitcoin’s supply using on-chain data.

In the next section, we will use Bitcoin’s on-chain data:

• UO_BTC_HeatMap

• CoinDaysDestroyed_excl_churn

• Supply_LTH_STH_Ratio

Using these metrics, we will proceed to analyze supply and demand movements from the perspective of time, that is, the movements of the different cohorts of Bitcoin holders.

Onchain Analysis

The heatmap of the upper metric represents, at each point in Bitcoin’s price and over time, the amount of coins that were last moved (not in USD value, but in number of BTC). The warmer the color, the greater the transaction volume, and vice versa. In this way, the red-colored areas represent clusters where those coins were last exchanged.

The chart provides us with information on how many coins have been spent, at what point in time, at what price level, or at what cost basis they were absorbed, and finally, as the color intensity fades over time, at which price levels that cluster is capitulating or taking profits.

An example of profit-taking can be seen during the 2024 bull trend, as the clusters that were created in the $70K–$60K range during the March–September corrective period gradually faded away (notice how, in many of the clusters, the colors become cooler) as time passed and Bitcoin appreciated, which suggested profit-taking by participants while new groups emerged at higher levels.

Looking at the most recent events, at the all-time high formed in October, a zone was created in which a large amount of coins were moved, creating new clusters, with the largest being the one formed at $112K.

From there, the downward move toward the $84K–$85K low in November shows how a large part of the supply that had formed in the upper zones gradually capitulated, except for the $112K group. The behavior of that cluster is very interesting, because it withstood Bitcoin’s entire decline and was one of the main sources of selling pressure that abruptly halted the recovery: it is from the rebound to $96K that they begin to distribute 40% of the total cluster in a single week. A textbook example of how supply in an underwater position capitulates strategically when under stress, and how that upper-band supply puts pressure on moves in lower zones.

In that decline, another important event was the heavy accumulation that took place at the low of the move and how, to this day, that cluster remains intact despite the recent drop (note that the blue “square” represents an area with incomplete data until the week ends).

This brings us to the present moment, in which, from the rebound high, Bitcoin came to depreciate by nearly 40% approximately. The $84K band remains intact, but it represents a significant amount of supply with unrealized losses of roughly 24%–25%. The positive side is that, in the current range, Bitcoin volume has been moderate, which may imply that supply is losing strength.

However, observing coin rotation is important and gives us a view of support and resistance zones, as well as the price areas where significant movements are taking place. However, we don’t know with precision whether distribution or accumulation is occurring, although at times we may infer it: for example, if the trend is bullish and a lower cluster begins to disappear at the same time that an upper one is formed, the implication is a profit-taking event. That is why, to complement our view, we must use other data and perspectives that help us form a more complete picture.

In the following chart, we have a ratio that represents the 7-day average of the sum of the product of the amount of bitcoins transacted by the number of days those coins had gone without moving. In this way, high ratio readings are associated with a quantity of coins sold that had remained unmoved for a long time, while low readings imply that the market is being driven mostly by new participants. With this data, we can categorize what type of investor is behind certain moves.

The following image is the same chart, but instead of the average, a z-score has been applied so that we have a better reference for significant events relative to historical values.

As we have previously described, each upward deviation implies a transfer of coins from the long-term investor cohort into the market. In the marked circle, a selling event by that cohort takes place, and that event coincides with the heatmap cluster at $84K. If we combine both data points, we can classify the event as a strong capitulation by the long-term investor cohort, which is usually not a good sign, and an indication of this is how, after two months, the price fell again aggressively to current levels.

The positive side is that, since then, Bitcoin transfers have been dominated by the capitulation of the short-term cohort, which is more sensitive to price fluctuations. On the same metric, applying a 30-day period and expanding the historical view, taking into account the context that we are coming from all-time highs and two very aggressive corrections, the indicator currently confirms that those capitulating now are investors within the short-term cohort, which are more sensitive to volatility and price changes.

When the deviation is at these levels relative to the average, and taking the context into account, the reading suggests that we are at the beginning of a bottom formation.

Supply from the long-term investor cohort usually marks trends. As a general rule, after a period of distribution, this group tends to accumulate in the intermediate or final stages of bear markets, and during corrections within bullish trends they tend to be a good indicator of support zones where price rebounds.

To observe the current behavior of supply from this cohort, in the upper chart we have the relationship between the amount of bitcoins held by both segments, with the long-term cohort representing the amount of coins that have remained unmoved for more than 155 days, and the short-term cohort representing the amount of coins that have remained unmoved for less than 155 days. A reversal in the ratio suggest that demand has once again been coming mainly from “smart money” or “strong hands”.

Since the beginning of 2024, there have been three recurring distribution events by this group and two coin accumulation events. At present, the third accumulation move within this bullish cycle by this group is beginning to turn up.

Given that the maturity threshold is 155 days, at the present moment all the coins up to the last ATH that have not moved again have already entered the long-term cohort. This is a positive data point because all the coins that were acquired at higher levels and are now included in the ratio are in the hands of investors who have greater conviction in the asset’s value and are therefore less sensitive to price fluctuations. In other words, the “worst” is already included in the ratio, and from this point on, with each passing day, the level of unrealized losses is lower for every coin that moves into the long-term cohort.

Final Thoughts

There are many positive on-chain factors suggesting that we are in a bottom formation and facing an interesting entry point. However, there is still a considerable amount of supply with unrealized losses in the upper heatmap bands. For a proper bottom formation, we see that part of this supply still needs to be absorbed in the current range, which may still take some time and could trigger further declines if demand is not sufficient at current levels.

However, seeing this transfer of coins would be positive for consolidation and for regaining momentum. The negative side comes from the $80K band, where a large amount of “underwater” coins is currently located, representing supply that is vulnerable to capitulating and adding to downside pressure if events don’t cooperate. That said, the best news would be to see a recovery of the $85K level that consolidates that “heatmap” band of coins and confirms an important support level on which the next bullish leg can be built.

Finally, the fact that the Supply_LTH_STH_Ratio has begun an upward trend is positive, and in addition to that, from this point forward the coins being added to the long-term cohort are increasingly at lower “underwater” levels. From this point of view, the passage of time lowers the probabilities of liquid supply and reduces the chances of new capitulation events as time moves forward.

In any case, Bitcoin has had an extraordinary level of adoption in recent years, increasing both the number and the profile of investors, which shows that the cycles we had become accustomed to are also unlikely to repeat in the same way. Moreover, as we will discuss in future editions, Bitcoin is an asset that is sensitive to global liquidity and not immune to macroeconomic and geopolitical events. That is why it is important not only to pay attention to on-chain data, but also to bear in mind that, given the current geopolitical situation, any negative event or news could worsen the current corrective move.

Regards,

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice

As we mentioned in our report earlier this week, according to open sources and media reports, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz, blocking the passage of ships transporting oil and natural gas through the strait. In addition, we have seen Iran attack strategic energy targets in neighboring countries in recent days.

The image below shows the most significant attacks and activities carried out by the IRGC: an attack on the Saudi Aramco oil refinery in Ras Tanura (Saudi Arabia), bombings in the industrial city of Ras Laffan (Qatar), a key liquefied gas production point, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and various attacks on the port of Jebel Ali and the MKD VYOM ship in the Gulf of Oman. All this is in addition to various bombings on Israeli soil, American infrastructure in several of these countries, and last weekend’s attack on the United Arab Emirates (Dubai).

Share Node Analytica

The main takeaway from these developments is that Iran has no intention of negotiating or de-escalating at this stage—if anything, the opposite. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time in decades that a de facto shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz has been reported with this level of intensity, alongside an escalation of this magnitude against the Gulf’s energy infrastructure.

Consider that Iran is the country with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world, after Russia. This situation does not benefit Iran because it blocks the export of all that gas, but the country prefers to harm itself if it harms the Israel-US bloc to a greater extent. Based on what we are seeing, we believe that the Iranian government’s main strategy is to wage a long-term war of attrition, with the primary objective of destroying and dismantling the strategic energy infrastructure of the entire region, as this would harm the American bloc and its main allies, such as the European Union.

As we discussed in our last note, if this conflict drags on longer than expected, the implications for risk assets won’t be constructive. We would likely see a return to more persistent inflation, driven by higher consumer prices as oil and gas filter through the real economy. With that backdrop, it makes sense to revisit the historical record in this region—how risk assets have behaved during comparable episodes—because that perspective can help us position correctly in a market that is anything but straightforward.

The takeaway for now is that, as the market tries to price in an uncertain duration for the conflict, risk assets have broadly slipped by around 2%—at least when we look at the major U.S. indices. Our concerns around Korea have also been validated: the KOSPI is now down roughly 19% since we flagged it in our previous publication. Meanwhile, the DXY, oil, and especially some natural gas futures contracts have moved higher to varying degrees over the last three trading sessions.

A Lookback At History

To understand where we stand today with regard to Iran, it is worth looking at the history of conflicts in the Persian Gulf. In the following three tables, we present the evolution of returns on different risk assets during the three major conflicts that have taken place in the Middle East: the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Gulf War in 1990, and the start of the Iraq War in 2003, analyzed over various time frames (1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month returns).

As can be seen in the image, over a 12-month period, the S&P 500 almost always performs above expectations and generates profits (except during the Yom Kippur War, which coincided with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and stagflation). The Nasdaq and Dow Jones also appreciate over the period studied. We can therefore say that, looking ahead one year, we should not worry about this index when building a normal portfolio.

Now, in the short term, the data does tell a different story. Oil is appreciating in almost all its forms (except in the Iraq war, where this was already factored into short-term oil prices). The dollar appreciated in the short term during the Kuwait war, and the Russian stock market did the same across all time frames when the Iraq war began. This is important to bear in mind because, as we saw earlier, Russia has the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

If the conflict with Iran drags on, the European Union may have no choice but to turn to Russia as a supplier of the liquefied gas it needs. We believe that this potential situation could have a positive impact on the price of MOEX and Gazprom, generating an upward trend in both assets.

While it is true that this is not easy and that Europe is determined to end its dependence on Russian gas, we believe that it is the cheapest alternative if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for a long time. Europe currently has 30% of its gas reserves, due to the harsh winter that has affected several countries, and these reserves will need to be increased sooner rather than later. We will see where European gas demand is channeled in the future.

The Trade Lab

The images above show the evolution since last Monday of natural gas, Brent, WTI, and gasoline futures, as well as the variation in the South Korean KOSPI index. As can be seen in the panels presented, all assets except the KOSPI have appreciated by double digits, as we mentioned in our last installment. We believe that if the conflict continues in its current state or escalates further, these same assets will continue to appreciate, so it may be interesting to include them in a portfolio as a tactical move.

The exact variations in prices up to their local highs have been as follows:

1. Dutch TTF Natural Gas Futures (first panel) a 99.29% increase in the price of the instrument.

2. Brent Crude Futures, with an increase of 16.37%.

3. WTI Oil Futures (CLJ26), with an increase of 17.14%.

4. RBOB Gasoline Futures, up 11.15%.

5. KOSPI Index, down 19.84%

For an institutional portfolio, it may be interesting to combine these options, holding dollars in the portfolio and using leverage to boost gains on the aforementioned instruments. It may also be interesting to sell the Korean won against the dollar, thereby gaining from the appreciation of the dollar as a safe-haven currency and maximizing the transaction by selling the Korean won due to its depreciation against the dollar.

For retail investors, gold and long-term US indices are good assets to have in their portfolios at the moment. It is feasible to consider some stock picking-type transactions involving oil, but without reinventing the wheel.

Subscribe now

Regards,

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice

Following weekend bombings by Israel and the US on targets in Iran, and Iran’s response, tensions in the Middle East have escalated, causing a significant increase in oil prices. At the opening, both Brent and WTI futures rebounded by around 7% (with high intraday volatility), also pushing up the dollar against other currencies (DXY), in a typical “risk-off” move with an energy component.

The following image shows the direct consequence of this escalation. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has caused severe disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, drastically reducing traffic and effectively blocking a significant number of cargo ships carrying oil and natural gas. In addition, damage has been reported to several oil tankers linked to UK and US interests.

The structural problem is well known: approximately 20% of the world’s oil (in terms of maritime flow) passes through this strait, and according to estimates by the EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), around 84% of the crude oil/condensate and 83% of the LNG that passes through Hormuz is destined for Asia.

As the US administration and Trump himself have stated, this conflict could last for the next 4-5 weeks. This time variable is key: the duration of the episode will determine the persistence of the energy shock and, by extension, the pressure on costs, margins, and inflation expectations.

Key Datapoints (Why this matters)

• 20% of global petroleum liquids flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

• 84% of Hormuz crude/condensate and ~83% of Hormuz LNG is estimated to be destined for Asia.

• “Duration risk”: conflict potentially 4 weeks (per reported remarks)—the key driver of how persistent the shock becomes.

Subscribe now

Potential Risks

From our point of view, and assuming that the situation does not worsen significantly, the main short-term risk is a global inflationary spike via energy, with the potential for transmission from costs (PPI) to consumer prices (CPI) with a certain lag. This is precisely the type of shock that could put central banks in a bind if inflation rises at a time when the market was expecting disinflation or normalization.

That said, we believe it is prudent for investors with high exposure to Asia to review their positioning, incorporating this new geopolitical situation and its potential impact on energy, exchange rates, and corporate margins. (This is not a recommendation, but rather a call for a reassessment of scenarios).

If the price per barrel stabilizes or climbs toward the $100–120 range, the impact could be direct on energy-intensive sectors: airlines, logistics, transportation, and, in general, manufacturing companies with low capacity to pass on costs to the final price. In these cases, the energy shock is usually quickly reflected in short-term margins and can put downward pressure on earnings expectations for the next quarter.

This rise may also affect (and is already affecting) the basket of Asian currencies against the dollar. When oil and energy prices rise, international demand for USD increases for invoicing, hedging, and trade financing purposes, which may cause friction in currencies such as the yen or the yuan in the short term.

On a personal level, I’m particularly concerned about the Korean stock market (KOSPI), given its weighting in technology and semiconductors (Samsung, SK Hynix), which are highly cyclical sectors. If the cycle becomes more complicated (higher costs + weaker global demand), these companies are often susceptible to revising their growth expectations, especially if they are trading at peak levels or with demanding valuations.

If the conflict becomes prolonged (think “months”, not “weeks”), the shock can shift from a pure price move to a supply chain / routing problem. Re-routing cargoes, higher war-risk premia, and longer voyages can amplify costs and lead times. In that world, second-round effects may emerge in industries where timing and input availability are critical (autos in China, semiconductors and electronics in South Korea).

In future editions, we will monitor the evolution of the conflict and, above all, its impact on inflation, interest rates, the dollar, and credit risk.

Our Asset Target

Given the current setup, we think the assets that typically benefit (or act as hedges) in an energy-driven geopolitical shock include oil, gold, silver, natural gas, and gasoline.

These can be proxied through the following listed instruments:

• CRUD and BRNT: crude oil exposure (WTI and Brent, respectively). For WTI futures view (CLJ26) contract.

• IGLN and SSLN: physical gold and physical silver exposure (product structure dependent).

• NGAS and UGAS: natural gas and gasoline exposure.

Important implementation note: oil/gas/gasoline products are commonly futures-based ETC/ETNs, so realized performance can diverge from spot due to roll yield (contango/backwardation) and rolling costs—especially if elevated volatility persists.

On the downside, the most exposed “losers” typically include airlines, travel & leisure, and energy-intensive cyclicals where higher input costs compress margins. ETFs such as JETS (airlines), CRAK (refiners—direction depends on crack spreads vs crude), or INDY (macro sensitivity via oil import dependence) can come under pressure if the energy shock lasts long enough to impair growth expectations or re-price inflation risk premia.

Regards,

The Node Analytica Team

Disclaimer

This research is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any security or financial instrument. The views expressed reflect the author’s opinions as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.

Se trata de una sección más de nuestros servicios de investigación en la que analizamos, de manera dinámica y continuada, el top 50 de activos criptográficos por capitalización de mercado (excluyendo stablecoins) desde un punto de vista fundamental y acción de precio. Con el objetivo de construir carteras de inversión en base a diferentes criterios de mercado.

Como algunos lectores sabrán, los activos digitales se están incorporando de manera paulatina a las carteras de inversión tradicionales, por lo que proporcionamos ese conocimiento necesario para dicha transición.

Suscríbete ahora

Delta Neutral

Esta semana traemos una publicación un poco distinta a las anteriores. Hemos analizado la rentabilidad de Bitcoin desde 2014, considerando una inversión única con una estrategia de buy & hold mantenida hasta la fecha. ¿Nuestro objetivo? Evaluar el comportamiento del activo y sus métricas financieras para desarrollar una estrategia que supere el buy & hold, la táctica más común entre los inversores.

Y sí, ¡lo hemos logrado! A continuación, analizaremos los ratios de ambas estrategias y mostraremos cómo, usando información de mercado, se pueden tomar decisiones más acertadas para maximizar la rentabilidad de una inversión en este tipo de mercados.

Análisis comparativo:

Como mostramos en la imagen anterior, se compara el desempeño de ambas estrategias. Observamos una diferencia significativa en el valor actual de la cartera: una inversión inicial de $1,000 en enero de 2014 habría crecido a $93,478 con buy & hold, frente a $371,791 con la estrategia desarrollada, obteniendo un alfa de aproximadamente 28,000% respecto a Bitcoin como benchmark.

Destacamos también las diferencias en los ratios de Sharpe, Sortino y Calmar. En el tercer gráfico se comparan visualmente los rendimientos acumulados de ambas estrategias.

El objetivo de este análisis es demostrar que, con buena información y análisis adecuados, es posible superar al benchmark (Bitcoin) simplemente invirtiendo en Bitcoin y superando claramente el buy & hold. Si deseas conocer más sobre esta estrategia, no dudes en contactarnos.

¿Es usted un inversor serio? ¿Conoce los activos digitales? ¿Desea tener una visión de conjunto para incorporar estos activos u optimizar su cartera de inversión? Entonces haga clic en el botón de abajo.

Seguimos,

J&M // Node Analytica

Se trata de una sección más de nuestros servicios de investigación en la que analizamos, de manera dinámica y continuada, el top 50 de activos criptográficos por capitalización de mercado (excluyendo stablecoins) desde un punto de vista fundamental y acción de precio. Con el objetivo de construir carteras de inversión en base a diferentes criterios de mercado.

Como algunos lectores sabrán, los activos digitales se están incorporando de manera paulatina a las carteras de inversión tradicionales, por lo que proporcionamos ese conocimiento necesario para dicha transición.

A partir de esta semana y en las sucesivas, informaremos a nuestros lectores de la rentabilidad histórica y actual que han obtenido las carteras construidas por Node Analytica en la sección de Delta Neutral. Además complementaremos dicha información con un análisis básico de cada cartera, explicando brevemente algunos conceptos de rentabilidad y riesgo.

Suscríbete ahora

Delta Neutral

Nuestro equipo construye y da seguimiento cuatro carteras de inversión en base a diferentes criterios, que a continuación exponemos:

• Alfa: como su propio nombre indica busca activos con mucho alfa (rentabilidad) sin tener en cuenta medidas de riesgo como volatilidad histórica o implícita.

• Flat: prioriza activos con buenas rentabilidades y menos riesgosos que la cartera anterior. Nos basamos en la relación de Sharpe y los ratios de Treynor, Sortino o Alpha de Jensen.

• Beta: busca los activos menos riesgosos del mercado. Su objetivo es maximizar los rendimientos de la cartera controlando al máximo su volatilidad.

• Benchmark: representa la cartera de un inversor promedio en este tipos de activos. Se compone de en un 70% de Bitcoin y un 30% de Ethereum en términos de asignación de activos, siguiendo la estrategia Buy & Hold. La mayoria de fondos de inversión crypto, tienen la misma asignación de activos en cuanto a estos dos activos.

Cada cartera esta compuesta por cinco activos diferentes, con los mismos pesos (20%), lo que nos ayuda a controlar el drawdown máximo que podemos soportar en las mismas.

Hasta el viernes pasado, y desde el inicio del año 2023, las cuatro carteras propuestas se han comportado de la siguiente manera:

Observamos los correspondientes ratios a cada cartera que son:

• ROI semanal, ya que se produce un rebalanceo de cada cartera en esa temporalidad.

• ROI acumulada y Anualizada: rentabilidad media anual y rentabilidad acumulada desde enero de 2023.

• Volatilidad Anualizada: medida de dispersión de los rendimientos de cada cartera expresada en temporalidad anual.

• Ratio de Sharpe: medida del exceso de rendimiento por cada unidad de riesgo que asume el inversor.

• Max Drawdown: expresado en (%) mide la caída máxima de cada cartera a lo largo del tiempo.

** Todos los rendimientos se calculan en formato logarítmico.

A continuación se muestra la evolución histórica del rendimiento acumulado de cada cartera. A fecha de 07/10/2024 son:

• Alfa - 1085,06%

• Flat - 784,17%

• Beta - 114,32%

• Benchmark - 85,10%

Desde Node Analytica tratamos de mitigar el riesgo de nuestras posiciones, mediante la utilización de derivados financieros como futuros y opciones. En este caso y yendo a favor de la tendencia de mercado buscamos combinaciones de estos derivados para reducir el delta global de nuestras posiciones, de una forma dinámica.

Esto significa que si para el mismo activo, realizamos una combinación de posiciones a favor del mercado en spot y en contra del mismo mercado, en derivados, lograremos para un momento t una mitigación del delta de la posición de entre 1% - 100%.

Nuestro objetivo es ir construyendo un sistema de cobertura dinámico que se autoajuste en función de las condiciones de mercado, para mitigar el riesgo y mejorar la rentabilidad de nuestras carteras, dadas las condiciones particulares de este mercado tan volátil.

Veremos un ejemplo sencillo en la siguiente entrega.

¿Es usted un inversor serio? ¿Conoce los activos digitales? ¿Desea tener una visión de conjunto para incorporar estos activos u optimizar su cartera de inversión? Entonces haga clic en el botón de abajo.

Suscríbete ahora

Seguimos,

J&M // Node Analytica

Se trata de una sección más de nuestros servicios de investigación en la que analizamos, de manera dinámica y continuada, el top 50 de activos criptográficos por capitalización de mercado (excluyendo stablecoins) desde un punto de vista fundamental y acción de precio. Con el objetivo de construir carteras de inversión en base a diferentes criterios de mercado.

Como algunos lectores sabrán, los activos digitales se están incorporando de manera paulatina a las carteras de inversión tradicionales, por lo que proporcionamos ese conocimiento necesario para dicha transición.

A partir de esta semana y en las sucesivas, informaremos a nuestros lectores de la rentabilidad histórica y actual que han obtenido las carteras construidas por Node Analytica en la sección de Delta Neutral. Además complementaremos dicha información con un análisis básico de cada cartera, explicando brevemente algunos conceptos de rentabilidad y riesgo.

Suscríbete ahora

Delta Neutral

Nuestro equipo construye y da seguimiento cuatro carteras de inversión en base a diferentes criterios, que a continuación exponemos:

• Alfa: como su propio nombre indica busca activos con mucho alfa (rentabilidad) sin tener en cuenta medidas de riesgo como volatilidad histórica o implícita.

• Flat: prioriza activos con buenas rentabilidades y menos riesgosos que la cartera anterior. Nos basamos en la relación de Sharpe y los ratios de Treynor, Sortino o Alpha de Jensen.

• Beta: busca los activos menos riesgosos del mercado. Su objetivo es maximizar los rendimientos de la cartera controlando al máximo su volatilidad.

• Benchmark: representa la cartera de un inversor promedio en este tipos de activos. Se compone de en un 70% de Bitcoin y un 30% de Ethereum en términos de asignación de activos, siguiendo la estrategia Buy & Hold. La mayoria de fondos de inversión crypto, tienen la misma asignación de activos en cuanto a estos dos activos.

Cada cartera esta compuesta por cinco activos diferentes, con los mismos pesos (20%), lo que nos ayuda a controlar el drawdown máximo que podemos soportar en las mismas.

Hasta el viernes pasado, y desde el inicio del año 2023, las cuatro carteras propuestas se han comportado de la siguiente manera:

Observamos los correspondientes ratios a cada cartera que son:

• ROI semanal, ya que se produce un rebalanceo de cada cartera en esa temporalidad.

• ROI acumulada y Anualizada: rentabilidad media anual y rentabilidad acumulada desde enero de 2023.

• Volatilidad Anualizada: medida de dispersión de los rendimientos de cada cartera expresada en temporalidad anual.

• Ratio de Sharpe: medida del exceso de rendimiento por cada unidad de riesgo que asume el inversor.

• Max Drawdown: expresado en (%) mide la caída máxima de cada cartera a lo largo del tiempo.

** Todos los rendimientos se calculan en formato logarítmico.

A continuación se muestra la evolución histórica del rendimiento acumulado de cada cartera. A fecha de 22/09/2024 son:

• Alfa - 1146,35%

• Flat - 834,94%

• Beta - 116,95%

• Benchmark - 85,25%

En las próximas entregas iremos desglosando la composición histórica de cada cartera y algunas claves que nos ayudaran a controlar el riesgo como inversores, implementando operaciones de cobertura SIN APALANCAMIENTO con derivados vainilla.

¿Es usted un inversor serio? ¿Conoce los activos digitales? ¿Desea tener una visión de conjunto para incorporar estos activos u optimizar su cartera de inversión? Entonces haga clic en el botón de abajo.

Suscríbete ahora

Seguimos,

J&M // Node Analytica

Bitcoin Series, es una sección que forma parte de nuestros servicios de investigación con la que pretendemos actualizar mensualmente las novedades sobre el principal activo criptográfico.

** Access the lite English version PDF here. Scroll to the bottom to access the full English version PDF

Introducción

BTC Asset Performance

Esta semana, Bitcoin volvió a testear la resistencia de los $70K sin éxito.

En nuestra anterior edición de Bitcoin ya comentamos los movimientos dentro del canal lateral. Por el momento, no se dan excesivas novedades y Bitcoin sigue rechazando tanto en resistencia como en soporte, eso sí, cabe destacar que cómo a nivel técnico, cada vez se están registrando altos más bajos y bajos más bajos. Las buenas noticias son, que parece estar formándose una bandera alcista: estas aparecen generalmente tras un movimiento pronunciado y representan una breve pausa en la tendencia.

Today’s Bitcoin Insight

Miner Price

El precio minero de bitcoin representa la ganancia neta que recibe un minero por la minería de un solo bitcoin. Se calcula sumándole al precio spot el resultado del cociente entre los fees generados en un determinado bloque y el número de monedas generadas en ese mismo bloque. Con ello lo que conseguimos es la obtención de una ponderación del total de fees por bitcoin en ese bloque en concreto.

Podemos apreciar en el gráfico, que en los últimos tiempos ha habido una disminución de la diferencia entre el precio spot y el precio minero, provocada por una reducción de los fees abonados a la red. Una de las causas principales de este descenso de fees, puede ser el estancamiento momentáneo que ha sufrido el protocolo “Runes” que ha contribuido significativamente a estos fees en las semanas siguientes al último halving.

HashPrice in PH/s

La métrica Network HashPrice medido en PH/s indica el nivel de ingreso que genera un minero normal por la generación de 1 PH por segundo. Es realmente interesante el estudio de esta métrica porque es una forma alternativa para estudiar la rentabilidad real de la actividad minera.

Apreciamos un descenso claro de la métrica a finales de abril de este año, debido a la reducción a la mitad (halving)  programada, que se produjo en la red en esa fecha. A partir de ahí, podemos ver una consolidación clara de la misma en los últimos meses, con un leve aumento en el mes de julio, provocado probablemente por una mejora en los equipos de minería que se traduce en una mayor eficiencia energética.

Miner Profitability Oscillator

El indicador Miner Profitability Oscillator nos muestra de una manera muy clara la rentabilidad de la minería en un momento concreto. Se calcula comparando el precio minero de bitcoin, con el coste de producción del mismo (más adelante explicaremos su composición). En el gráfico propuesto, apreciamos las zonas naranjas (rentables) y las zonas verdes (no rentables).

En el periodo analizado podemos ver un predominio claro de las zonas rentables, Pondremos el foco en tratar de explicar las zonas no rentables, especialmente las de los últimos tiempos. La línea blanca del gráfico, representa el coste de producción de 1 Bitcoin. Como comentamos anteriormente, el día 19 de abril de 2024 se produjo la reducción a la mitad de la recompensa por bloque, por eso el coste de producción sube a partir de esa fecha, porque el ingreso percibido por el minero se reduce a la mitad. Como eso ocurre en cada reducción a la mitad, hasta que los mineros no logren encontrar una mayor eficiencia energética, bien vía configuración de los equipos de minería existentes o invirtiendo en nuevos equipos más rentables, la rentabilidad del minero desde el punto de vista del coste no cambiará.

Pero puede cambiar desde el punto de vista del ingreso, ya que si el precio spot aumenta, también aumentaría el valor en USD de los fees y en consecuencia los ingresos de los mineros. Por ello, podemos afirmar con seguridad, que las zonas no rentables del gráfico se producen por la reducción a la mitad y sus consecuencias anteriormente comentadas. Destacar, que el pico rentable de esta última época se debe a un comportamiento anormal de la red por parte de un protocolo denominado “Runes” que abonó una cantidad de fees a la red muy significativa y en consecuencia el ingreso minero también aumentó de forma espectacular momentáneamente.

HashRibbons

El hash ribbons es una métrica desarrollada por el gestor Charles Edwards del fondo de bitcoin Capriole Investments. Lo que se pretende con el estudio de este indicador es ver en qué momento los mineros capitulan, venden y cuando finaliza este ciclo de venta. La métrica tiene un cálculo muy sencillo: se obtiene el hashrate de la red y se le aplica al mismo una media móvil simple de 30 y 60 días respectivamente.

La clave de este cálculo está en el cruce de estas medias móviles calculadas. Cuando la media móvil de 30D cruza por encima de la media móvil de 60D consideramos que el periodo de venta de la minería ha terminado y comienza un periodo de “compra”, esto es así porque históricamente los cruces de estas medias en dicha posición coinciden con la finalización de esos periodos de venta. Recientemente se ha producido un cruce entre ambas medias (30D por encima de 60D), que combinado con la métrica anterior, nos dice que los mineros han terminado su periodo de liquidación (no rentables) y puede comenzar una etapa de repunte haciéndoles así salir de esa zona de pérdidas.

Read more