Blog

Printer Friendly Version

LPL Research examines Warsh’s evolving Fed approach, infrastructure-led growth, and the impact of China demand on oil prices.

A hawkish debut. At his first Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, Chair Kevin Warsh paired a hawkish, minimalist tone — tersely emphasizing price stability — with the launch of five task forces to review key aspects of Federal Reserve (Fed) policy. Many Fed governors want to follow the Bank of Japan’s lead and hike rates in the near term.

Uncertainty in projections. While officials’ projections show a split on future rate hikes and a higher path for rates, alongside elevated inflation forecasts, uncertainty remains high, underscored by Warsh’s decision not to submit projections. Importantly, with inflation seen as partly supply-driven, the Fed could turn less hawkish if geopolitical tensions ease.

Constructive ambiguity and growth. Overall, the Fed appears to be shifting back toward “constructive ambiguity,” with the outlook hinging on Middle East developments and a steady, near-trend growth backdrop supported by investment and productivity gains. We believe the ongoing infrastructure buildout is supporting growth, while weaker demand from China is weighing on oil prices.

To understand the drivers underneath the outlook, reference the newly-released Economic Navigator.

Did He Just Provide the Forward Guidance He Doesn’t Like?

Kevin Warsh, the new chairman of the FOMC, has long been critical of forward guidance, which is the Fed’s practice of explicitly signaling the future path of interest rates (e.g., “rates will stay low for an extended period” or publishing a projected path for policy rates). His concern is that the guidance could give the impression that policymakers might have a high degree of confidence about the future path of the economy and rates. Warsh tends to view this as misleading since macroeconomic conditions, especially inflation shocks, are inherently uncertain, so locking in a path risks being wrong.

If the Fed preps investors for a particular path and conditions change, backing away can damage credibility. Warsh prefers keeping his options open without “pre-committing” to a trajectory.

Heavy forward guidance encourages markets to anchor too tightly to Fed signals instead of underlying data, which can distort financial conditions and create volatility when guidance shifts.

Even though Warsh favors minimalist, “constructive ambiguity”-style communication, releasing a dot plot within the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) still functions as forward guidance. As of now, the updated dots show a higher median rate (and a split committee) that tells investors rates may need to rise from here or stay higher for longer. Markets interpreted this as directional guidance, which explains the negative reaction in both the equity and bond markets after the meeting.

Moving Toward a More Implicit Guidance

So, to answer the initial question, Warsh may have given us the version of forward guidance he prefers. Warsh rejects strong, explicit forward guidance, but he is still using a lighter, more conditional version via projections. The shift is toward guidance with less verbal commitment, more data-dependency, and built-in ambiguity.

The Shake-Up: Five New Task Forces

Chair Kevin Warsh announced five task forces aimed at modernizing key pillars of Fed policymaking — covering data collection and usage, AI and productivity, communications (including a potential overhaul of the Summary of Economic Projections), the inflation framework, and balance sheet strategy — reflecting a broad effort to address both structural and credibility challenges facing the institution. These task forces are expected to be composed of a mix of Federal Reserve Board staff, regional Fed bank economists, and outside experts from academia, technology, and financial markets, signaling a more open, cross-disciplinary approach to policy design. This could yield very good fruit. By combining internal institutional knowledge with external perspectives, Warsh appears to be seeking both technical improvements (e.g., better measurement of productivity and inflation dynamics) and a retooling of how the Fed communicates and implements policy.

Despite initially creating some unwelcome volatility, we think these five committees may introduce some real improvements. Some of the methodologies on both data collection and analysis could be improved with the help of modern technologies, and the shake-up may nudge the Fed, our country’s third attempt at central banking, into a more credible and helpful institution.

Central Bank Rates Are Slowly Converging

Last week’s attention was mostly on the Fed and its upwardly revised dot plot, but other central banks deserve some attention. The Bank of Japan’s (BOJ) recent decision to hike rates reflects a notable shift after years of ultra‑easy policy, driven by stronger domestic inflation dynamics and rising wage growth, which signal that Japan is finally moving away from persistent deflation. Policymakers are increasingly worried that inflation is becoming more persistent, particularly as firms pass through higher costs and wages begin to support demand, warranting the hike. We expect global central bank policy rates will begin to converge, as the Middle East conflict is creating a shared, supply-driven inflation shock — primarily through higher energy and shipping costs — that is affecting both advanced and emerging economies.

Unlike prior cycles where inflation pressures diverged across regions, this shock is more synchronized, pushing central banks — even those at very different starting points like the BOJ and the Fed — toward a closer policy stance. As long as geopolitical tensions keep global cost pressures elevated, the dispersion in policy rates is likely to narrow, reinforcing the theme of convergence in global monetary policy.

Bank of Japan is Playing Catchup

 

Source: LPL Research, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, Federal Reserve Board 06/22/26 Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

What Happens After the Iran War Ends?

After geopolitical tensions ease, we expect the Fed to examine the underlying drivers of growth more closely, with a particular focus on whether business investment — especially in AI-related infrastructure — is generating sustained momentum rather than a temporary cycle boost. Capital spending tied to data centers, semiconductors, and digital infrastructure has emerged as a key support for productivity and potential output, suggesting growth could remain near trend even amid tighter financial conditions. If these investments translate into measurable productivity gains, the Fed may view this expansion as more durable and less inflationary, shaping a more balanced policy response over time. We know from earlier speeches that Chair Warsh believed AI would boost productivity and help relieve inflation pressures.

There’s More Room To Go With Infrastructure Buildout

 

Source: LPL Research, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 06/22/26
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Will Oil Prices Return to Pre-War Levels? It Depends on China’s Economic Growth

One of the key questions for investment professionals is whether oil prices will return to pre-war levels once the Middle East crisis is resolved. At the same time, many are asking why oil prices are not higher, especially since the latest U.S.–Iran deal recently pushed crude to its lowest level since the initial attack. More than 100 days after the war in Iran disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices remain surprisingly contained, and one such reason could be China’s sharp pullback from the crude market. According to Vortexa data, Chinese crude imports by tanker fell to 6.7 million barrels a day last month, nearly 40% below the 2025 average. 1 That reduction — roughly 4 million barrels a day — is enormous, equal to the combined oil consumption of Germany and France. This could be the central factor keeping prices below $100 a barrel, as Beijing has somehow slashed imports without obvious economic damage other than a slowdown in year-over-year gross domestic product (GDP) from 5% in Q1 to 4.6% in Q2.

China Imported Surprisingly Less Oil Last Month

 

Source: LPL Research, China General Administration of Customs 06/22/26
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Chinese retrenchment has helped offset what would normally be a major supply shock. Even with the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, oil has continued to leave the Gulf through Saudi and UAE pipelines and tanker shuttle operations. At the same time, the market entered the conflict with a sizable surplus, strategic reserves are being released at a record pace, and global refinery runs have fallen as demand weakens, especially in petrochemicals.

China is the key variable. Some price-suppressing forces, such as emergency stock releases and inventory drawdowns, are temporary. The central question is how long Beijing can continue importing so little crude. If Chinese buying returns before supply risks ease, oil’s next move could look very different.

Other factors have also dampened the oil price response. Refineries are more flexible than in past crises, allowing them to adjust crude slates and product output. Production growth in the Americas, including Brazil, Guyana, the U.S., and China, has added to supply. Meanwhile, traders have increasingly hedged geopolitical risk through options rather than physical oil purchases, and better satellite imagery and tanker tracking have reduced the fog of war.

But Do We Really Understand Tanker Activity?

It depends on how accurately we can track vessels.

The familiar model of maritime monitoring, the Automatic Identification System (AIS) signal, breaks down when geopolitics enter the picture. In places such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, vessel movements help us assess crude flows and potential market disruptions. But that evidence can be incomplete, delayed, spoofed, or deliberately obscured.

The stakes are especially high in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints. A tanker tracked through the strait may appear to be a simple line on a map, but in a crisis it becomes a market-sensitive claim about whether oil is moving, whether a cargo is stalled, whether a sanctioned ship transited, or whether traders should price in disruption.

Several categories of maritime risk now shape the operating environment. “Dark vessels” could disappear from normal visibility to conceal port calls, route changes, or ship-to-ship transfers. “Spoofing” involves false position signals that can make a vessel appear somewhere it is not. “Shadow fleets” describe opaque networks of vessels that move sanctioned commodities.

In contested waters, the vessel track is only valuable if it is to be trusted. For energy markets, false signals can quickly become false narratives about supply, disruption, or sanctions risk.

Concluding Thoughts

Ultimately, whether oil prices return to pre-war levels depends on both the formal resolution of the Middle East crisis and the durability of China’s demand slowdown. China’s unusually steep reduction in crude imports, as shown in the “China Imported Surprisingly Less Oil Last Month” chart, has absorbed a large share of the supply shock, but that cushion may prove temporary if economic activity reaccelerates, inventories are rebuilt, or Beijing resumes normal buying patterns. At the same time, today’s oil market is pricing not only barrels, but also information quality. Tanker flows, shadow-fleet activity, spoofed signals, and dark vessels can all distort the narrative around supply risk. For now, surplus inventories, strategic reserve releases, flexible refineries, hopeful political deals, and weaker Chinese demand have kept crude prices contained. But if China’s growth strengthens before geopolitical risks fully fade, and if vessel-tracking data becomes harder to trust, the market could quickly shift from complacency back toward scarcity pricing.

Asset Allocation Insights

The LPL Research Strategic and Tactical Asset Allocation Committee (STAAC) maintains its recommendation for a tactical equity overweight and fixed income underweight. While maintaining our equity and U.S. equity overweights, the Committee favors neutral style exposure because of stretched market positioning and technical indicators following the recent growth-led rally. As such, this view is expressed via a defensive factor tilt given our expectation for bouts of volatility until the macro backdrop begins to improve as the situation in the Strait of Hormuz eventually plays out to a resolution, allowing markets to refocus on a broadly healthy fundamental landscape.

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors or will yield positive outcomes. Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. Any economic forecasts set forth may not develop as predicted and are subject to change.

References to markets, asset classes, and sectors are generally regarding the corresponding market index. Indexes are unmanaged statistical composites and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and do not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services. LPL Financial doesn’t provide research on individual equities.

All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

All investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

US Treasuries may be considered “safe haven” investments but do carry some degree of risk including interest rate, credit, and market risk. Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity. Bond values will decline as interest rates rise and bonds are subject to availability and change in price.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P500) is a capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks designed to measure performance of the broad domestic economy through changes in the aggregate market value of 500 stocks representing all major industries.

The PE ratio (price-to-earnings ratio) is a measure of the price paid for a share relative to the annual net income or profit earned by the firm per share. It is a financial ratio used for valuation: a higher PE ratio means that investors are paying more for each unit of net income, so the stock is more expensive compared to one with lower PE ratio.

Earnings per share (EPS) is the portion of a company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock. EPS serves as an indicator of a company’s profitability. Earnings per share is generally considered to be the single most important variable in determining a share’s price. It is also a major component used to calculate the price-to-earnings valuation ratio.

All index data from FactSet or Bloomberg. All index data from FactSet or Bloomberg.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations| May Lose Value

For public use.
Member FINRA/SIPC.
RES-0007122-0526 Tracking #1127346 | #1127347 (Exp. 06/27)

LPL Research
Last Updated: June 18, 2026

LPL Research provides its Weekly Market Performance for the week of June 15, 2026. U.S. stocks printed modest gains over the holiday-shortened week with easing geopolitical tensions and central bank signals driving sentiment. Equities were supported by progress toward a U.S.–Iran agreement that lowered oil prices and boosted risk appetite, though gains were tempered midweek by hawkish Federal Reserve takeaways. International markets also benefited from lower energy prices amid local central bank decisions. In fixed income, bonds rose despite Fed-driven volatility, while the U.S. dollar strengthened.

Stock Index Performance

Index	Week-Ending	One Month	Year to Date
S&P 500	0.81%	1.20%	9.44%
Dow Jones Industrial	0.85%	3.93%	7.44%
Nasdaq Composite	2.14%	1.35%	13.77%
Russell 2000	0.73%	6.86%	19.48%
MSCI EAFE	-0.59%	1.70%	8.72%
MSCI EM	4.24%	8.91%	29.34%

S&P 500 Index Sectors

Sector	Week-Ending	One Month	Year to Date
Materials	-0.15%	2.97%	12.99%
Utilities	0.31%	1.47%	4.05%
Industrials	2.65%	5.83%	16.36%
Consumer Staples	-2.74%	-4.77%	7.31%
Real Estate	-3.29%	-0.05%	8.83%
Health Care	-2.76%	2.59%	-3.66%
Financials	0.56%	3.58%	-2.33%
Consumer Discretionary	0.48%	-1.58%	-1.39%
Information Technology	2.89%	4.29%	20.86%
Communication Services	1.09%	-6.72%	3.89%
Energy	-6.57%	-11.75%	18.61%

Fixed Income and Commodities

Indexes and Commodities	Week-Ending	One Month	Year to Date
Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate	-0.09%	0.98%	0.26%
Bloomberg Credit	-0.07%	1.17%	0.55%
Bloomberg Munis	0.27%	1.37%	1.90%
Bloomberg High Yield	0.06%	0.93%	1.77%
Oil	-9.71%	-29.47%	33.47%
Natural Gas	3.59%	6.88%	-12.32%
Gold	0.05%	-7.56%	-2.27%
Silver	-3.08%	-15.17%	-8.00%

Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 6/18/26 @ 2:55 p.m. ET
Disclosures: Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly.

U.S. and International Equities

U.S. Equities: Major U.S. equity averages posted moderate gains over the holiday-shortened week after facing a couple of major drivers — in both directions — over the last four trading sessions. The S&P 500 picked up right where it left off late last week, printing a strong Monday session following reports that Washington and Tehran were set for an interim agreement to end the conflict in Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, to be signed on Friday. The news sparked a plunge in crude futures, which dampened investor concerns around economic impacts of the war and buoyed risk appetite. However, market participants took a breather leading up to Wednesday’s Federal Reserve (Fed) rate decision, refraining from outsized bets ahead of Chairman Kevin Warsh’s inaugural meeting, while analyzing implementation of the U.S.-Iran truce.

Equity benchmarks wiped out week-to-date gains Wednesday as the mood across Wall Street turned risk-off on hawkish-leaning takeaways from the Fed’s rate hold, with roughly half of policymakers penciling in at least one rate hike this year. Nonetheless, a Thursday bounce put stocks back in positive territory after the White House inked its preliminary agreement with Iran a day earlier than expected, spurring optimism of easing inflation risks with the Strait of Hormuz expected to reopen. Chipmaker strength also aided gains on news of a chip design partnership between Apple (AAPL) and Intel (INTC).

International Equities: The European benchmark STOXX 600 Index was modestly higher on the week at Thursday’s close after scoring its first record high since the start of the Iran conflict earlier in the week. Tumbling oil prices were flagged as a tailwind for the region, sending energy companies lower as investors turned to economically sensitive corners of the market on easing inflation and economic growth concerns. Attention also landed on central bank policy, as hawkish takeaways from Wednesday’s Fed decision took some wind out of the risk-on sails, while U.K. shares underperformed after dropping on two dissents for rate hikes in the Bank of England’s Thursday decision to leave rates unchanged.

Asian equities paced a mostly higher week through Thursday trading with sentiment broadly lifted by hopes that the U.S.-Iran deal will meaningfully alleviate supply chain pressure across the region. AI-related names continued to outperform amid the stronger risk appetite, with South Korea charging higher on the back of chipmaker SK Hynix. But the biggest story of the week was the Bank of Japan delivering on expectations of a rate hike, which supported banking shares, while sliding oil prices lifted hopes of reduced pressure on corporate margins. Greater China remained under pressure, as Hong Kong tech shares continued to dent benchmarks. A contraction in Chinese consumer spending for the first time since the pandemic and property stocks dropping to near pre-2024 stimulus levels dampened the macro backdrop.

Fixed Income, Currency, and Commodity Markets

Fixed Income: Core bonds, as measured by the Bloomberg Aggregate Index, traded higher over the last four days after reversing post-Fed meeting losses. Wednesday’s monetary policy meeting was decidedly hawkish, with nine of the 18 Fed officials suggesting at least one rate hike was likely in 2026 with six officials suggesting two hikes could be necessary. As a result of the hawkish shift, front end Treasury yields sold off in concert with the expectation of additional rate hikes, while the back end was largely flat to barely higher. As such, the yield curve (proxied by the difference in 2-year and 10-year yields) collapsed to its flattest level since early 2025. That trend continued Thursday morning with the 2Y/10Y curve at 25 basis points. Also, market-implied inflation expectations (per Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) breakevens) have fallen to levels to suggest that the Fed will get back to its 2% inflation target sometime over the next two years.

Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting as chair was unexpectedly hawkish but provided additional credibility that the central bank was serious about getting inflation under control. And further flattening of the curve reinforces our view that there is very little additional compensation to own longer-maturity Treasury yields at this point. The back up in front-end yields, though, provides additional income for income-oriented investors as the 1–5-year parts of the Treasury curve have become even more attractive. Finally, given the collapse in TIPS breakevens, the bar to invest in TIPS has fallen as well.

Commodities and Currencies: The broader commodity complex traded lower on the week, weighed down by double-digit losses in crude oil. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures sank near their lowest levels since the early days of the U.S.-Iran conflict, stringing together consecutive losses as traders awaited the expected interim peace deal. Prices extended declines Thursday as markets reacted to the memorandum of understanding entering effect and energy transport traffic beginning to trickle through the Strait of Hormuz. However, given inventory levels remaining tight, volatility is likely to continue. Elsewhere, gold prices were on track for a slight gain, paring its week-to-date advance after Wednesday’s hawkish Fed meeting boosted market pricing for a 2026 rate hike, which would raise opportunity costs for the non-yielding bullion. In currencies, the dollar took the spotlight after nearing one-year highs on the Fed’s hawkish tilt, sending the U.S. dollar/Japanese yen cross rate to its critical level of 160 and sparking intervention chatter for the Japanese currency.

Economic Weekly Roundup

New Fed Chair Plans to Shake Things Up

• At the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) press conference, Kevin Warsh announced five task forces, drawing on both internal and external expertise, to reassess key pillars of Fed policy: data collection and usage, AI and productivity, communications (including a revamp of the Summary of Economic Projections), the inflation framework, and the balance sheet.
• For his first meeting, Chair Warsh opted to keep things at a minimum, including the length of that last sentence. “The Committee will deliver price stability.” Given the parting sentence about the Committee’s commitment, we see this as hawkish delivery.
• But since current inflation is supply-driven, we should expect a less hawkish view on policy once the Middle East conflict ends. (A bit of forward guidance here.)
• Rate projections show officials split over whether to raise interest rates by the end of 2026, with nine of 18 officials penciling in a rate hike and the median rate forecast drifting up to 3.75% from 3.4% in March. The median has rates falling to 3.6% in 2027.
• Chairman Warsh did not submit any projections, and a second official withheld a rate forecast for 2028, illustrating the challenging times we are facing.
• Fed officials see core inflation at 3.3% by the end of 2026, up from the 2.7% forecasted in March; and GDP growth of 2.2%, compared with 2.4% previously. We think inflation could surprise us to the downside if geopolitics improves sooner rather than later.

Bottom Line: We are going back to the days of Alan Greenspan when FOMC statements were deliberately minimalist and opaque (“constructive ambiguity”). The dominant uncertainty stems from the Middle East conflict; as it fades, the focus will turn to the resilience of capital investment, and the productivity gains it is generating — both of which indicate economic growth is tracking near trend.

The Week Ahead

The following economic data is slated for the week ahead:

• Monday: No economic releases scheduled
• Tuesday: ADP Weekly Employment Change (Jun 6), Philadelphia Fed Non-Manufacturing Activity (Jun), S&P Global U.S. Manufacturing, Services, and Composite PMI (Jun preliminary), Richmond Fed Manufacturing Index and Business Conditions (Jun)
• Wednesday: MBA Mortgage Applications (Jun 19), Current Account Balance (1Q), New Home Sales (May), Building Permits (May final)
• Thursday: Personal Income and Spending (May), Chicago Fed National Activity Index (May), Headline and Core PCE Price Index (May), Durable Goods Orders (May preliminary), Initial Jobless Claims (Jun 20), Capital Goods Orders and Shipments (May preliminary), Continuing Claims (Jun 13), GDP (1Q third reading), Personal Consumption (1Q third reading), Core PCE Price Index (1Q third reading), Kansas City Fed Manufacturing Activity (Jun)
• Friday: Advance Goods Trade Balance (May), Retail Inventories (May), Wholesale Inventories (May preliminary), University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Report (Jun final), Kansas City Fed Services Activity (Jun)

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors. To determine which investment(s) may be appropriate for you, please consult your financial professional prior to investing.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. No investment strategy or risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk.

Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and does not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

This material was prepared by LPL Financial, LLC. All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

Unless otherwise stated LPL Financial and the third party persons and firms mentioned are not affiliates of each other and make no representation with respect to each other. Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services.

Asset Class Disclosures –

International investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and political instability and may not be suitable for all investors. These risks are often heightened for investments in emerging markets.

Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity.

Municipal bonds are subject and market and interest rate risk and potentially capital gains tax if sold prior to maturity. Interest income may be subject to the alternative minimum tax. Municipal bonds are federally tax-free but other state and local taxes may apply.

Preferred stock dividends are paid at the discretion of the issuing company. Preferred stocks are subject to interest rate and credit risk. They may be subject to a call features.

Alternative investments may not be suitable for all investors and involve special risks such as leveraging the investment, potential adverse market forces, regulatory changes and potentially illiquidity. The strategies employed in the management of alternative investments may accelerate the velocity of potential losses.

Mortgage backed securities are subject to credit, default, prepayment, extension, market and interest rate risk.

High yield/junk bonds (grade BB or below) are below investment grade securities, and are subject to higher interest rate, credit, and liquidity risks than those graded BBB and above. They generally should be part of a diversified portfolio for sophisticated investors.

Precious metal investing involves greater fluctuation and potential for losses.

The fast price swings of commodities will result in significant volatility in an investor’s holdings.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | May Lose Value

For Public Use – Tracking: #1127991

Printer Friendly Version

The U.S. initial public offering (IPO) market appears to be entering one of its most consequential periods in years. After a long drought following the 2021 issuance boom, a healthier macro backdrop, improved risk appetite, and a long queue of mature private companies have reopened the new-issue window. The potential 2026 class is unusual not only because of the number of companies considering public listings, but because several would be large enough to matter for major equity indexes, passive fund flows, and the broader market narrative around artificial intelligence (AI).

An important piece of framing we’d like to re-iterate upfront is that we are not making any judgment (or recommendations) about specific IPOs, or even IPOs broadly. That said, we remind readers of what the IPO process is designed to do: raise capital and create liquidity for the issuer and existing shareholders. Historically, new issues have produced a wide range of outcomes. Some of the market’s great companies became public companies through IPOs, but the first year after listing has often been volatile, and median performance has historically tended to trail the simple average because a relatively small number of large winners can skew the data.

Here, we explain the mechanics of the IPO process, review several high-profile candidates that may be planning to come to market, discuss why the 2026 issuance wave could matter for market structure, place the current environment in historical context, and provide an analytical framework for thinking about new issues. We are not making a recommendation on any individual company. Instead, we aim to provide a general framework for understanding IPO dynamics and considerations as companies transition from private to public markets.

IPOs 101: What Investors Are Actually Buying

An initial public offering, or IPO, is the process by which a private company sells shares to public investors and lists those shares on an exchange. The mechanics can sound straightforward: the company files a registration statement, hires investment banks to underwrite the offering, markets the story to investors during a roadshow, prices the deal, and begins trading. In practice, the process is a negotiation among management, existing shareholders, underwriters, institutional investors, index providers, and eventually retail buyers in the secondary market.

The distinction between the offering price and the first public trading price is especially important. The IPO price is the price at which shares are allocated by the underwriting banks, usually largely to institutional investors. Many ordinary investors do not receive meaningful access to that price. They buy after the stock starts trading, sometimes after a first day “pop.” A company can be an excellent business and still be a disappointing IPO investment if the first public price already discounts years of optimistic growth.

Investors should also understand lockups. In many IPOs, insiders and early private investors agree not to sell for a period, often around 180 days. When that lockup expires, additional supply can enter the market. That supply does not guarantee a decline, but it can create an overhang, especially when early investors have large unrealized gains and public-market investors are still debating valuations.

The Potential 2026 Class: Familiar Names, Unfamiliar Scale

Several companies, across sectors including technology and AI infrastructure, are in advanced stages of going public. These companies would arrive on public markets with brand recognition and private-market valuations that are far larger than the typical IPO. SpaceX is the most visible example, particularly after its public S-1 filing. LPL Research recently published a blog digging into SpaceX’s S-1 filing, “Counting Down to the SpaceX Launch”. Its business combines launch services, Starlink satellite broadband, defense and government work, and ambitious longer-term opportunities in space infrastructure and AI.

So-called “AI labs”, or “frontier AI model companies”, are another focal point. Certain AI-focused companies such as OpenAI have gained significant visibility due to rapid consumer adoption of large language model technologies. In terms of fund-raising and a potential public offering, on March 31, 2026, OpenAI announced a record $122 billion funding round at a post-money valuation of $852 billion, and on June 8 announced that it has confidentially submitted a draft S-1 filing with the SEC, which is among the first steps a private company must take prior to issuing and offering shares to the public.

Anthropic PBC is a San Francisco-based AI safety and research company with a focus on the enterprise AI market. Its Claude models are distributed directly and through partners such as Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Snowflake, Databricks, and Microsoft-related developer channels. On May 28, Anthropic announced a $65 billion fund raise, at a post-money valuation of $965 billion, and on June 1 announced that it has confidentially submitted a draft S-1 filing, paving the way for its own IPO.

The contrast between the two companies is useful for investors. OpenAI’s core advantage is distribution, with ChatGPT spanning consumer, developer, and enterprise use cases. Alternatively, Anthropic focuses primarily on business/enterprise customers, particularly coding and knowledge work productivity and automation, via Claude Code and Claude Cowork product lines, respectively.

At private market valuations of hundreds of billions of dollars, the market is underwriting not only a promising software product, but a long-duration bet on AI becoming a core layer of the economy, on model providers retaining pricing power despite intense competition, and on infrastructure spending ultimately translating into attractive margins. For both OpenAI and Anthropic, the public-market debate is likely to center on whether rapid revenue growth, consumer and enterprise adoption, and agentic workflows can offset high inference costs, training expenses, talent competition, litigation risk, and potential model commoditization.

Other recent and pending IPOs help frame the environment in which mega-deals may arrive. Cerebras, CoreWeave, Figma, Medline, and other recent listings have shown that investors are willing to fund differentiated growth stories, but performance has been uneven. Strong first-day demand has not necessarily translated into sustained outperformance. That is a useful reminder for investors preparing for larger and louder offerings.

Why This Matters for Markets

A normal IPO can matter a great deal for the issuing company and its shareholders, but it is usually too small to affect the S&P 500 or Nasdaq-100. The 2026 setup is likely to be different. A recent estimate from Goldman Sachs called for roughly $160 billion of U.S. IPO gross proceeds in 2026, which would be among the largest annual totals on record if realized, particularly when excluding the Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC)-heavy distortions of 2021. The reasons 2026 could play out differently than prior large IPO years are the combination of large deals, low public floats, heavy passive ownership across markets, and faster potential index inclusion.

New issuance must be absorbed. Investors who buy a new IPO may fund that purchase by deploying cash, but they may also sell existing holdings. If several very large transactions arrive close together, that “making room” process may add to volatility. The risk is most relevant when market liquidity is thin, positioning is crowded, or the new issues overlap with themes investors already own heavily, such as mega cap technology and AI infrastructure.

Index rules are an increasingly important part of the discussion. Nasdaq recently implemented changes to the Nasdaq-100 Index designed to allow faster inclusion of large newly public companies, as well as changes in weighting methodologies related to float-adjusted market capitalization. Previously, newly listed companies often had to wait until an annual index reconstitution before joining the index. The updated rules now allow Nasdaq-listed companies to be evaluated for “fast entry” if their market capitalization ranks within the top 40 of the current constituents’ market cap, providing a path to joining the index in as little as 15 days. In terms of eligible market cap and float requirements, the new rules will include unlisted shares that are not publicly traded (such as those held by founders/insiders) in market cap calculations, and the 10% minimum float requirement has been removed. Regarding the “low-float” rule changes: while minimum float requirements have been removed, the index will now leverage a “modified market cap” calculation that caps the total shares outstanding at three times the free-floating shares.

On May 27, Russell FTSE indexes announced similar changes to “fast track” large IPOs as well. The Dow Jones S&P Index committee had been the “elephant in the room” in terms of deciding whether to change their own index inclusion rules, but on June 4 announced that it will not be making any changes as it relates to the treatment of socalled “MegaCap Companies” expected to IPO. This decision was seen as a surprise by many as it deviated from peers, and while there are surely some who disagree, we read the consensus feedback as positive. For what it’s worth, we agree with their decision and also viewed it positively.

Faster index inclusion matters because passive funds tracking an index will need to buy a stock soon after it joins the benchmark. Active managers may also face pressure to own it because omitting a large benchmark constituent can create active risk. In plain English, investors who own broad-market index funds could become shareholders of newly public companies much sooner than they would have in prior cycles.

These factors combined all suggest that the current environment has unique features not present in recent large IPO calendar years: higher index concentration, larger passive assets, faster index inclusion, the possibility of very low float for massive companies, and an AI trade already central to market leadership.

What History Says About IPO Performance

Our prior analysis (“How To Think About IPOs in 2026”) of roughly 1,500 IPOs over the last 30 years found that IPO performance has been a mixed bag, and returns have been quite volatile. Measuring from the close of the first trading day, the average one-year return was positive, but the median return was negative. The results of our analysis were, for the most part, in-line with what any Statistics 101 student should expect in a distribution of asymmetric data with a long right tail of outcomes that has theoretically unlimited upside but capped downside, as the most negative potential data point would be -100% (the most an unleveraged investor can lose is 100% of their capital). Such a right-skewed distribution will show a larger mean (average), which for our sample of returns was 10.4%, than median, which was -4.7%. A few outsized performers can pull up the average even when the median IPO performance is less impressive. The distribution of performance is detailed in “Distribution of One-Year Returns (From Closing Price of First Day of Public Trading)”.

Furthermore, the path of price performance has often been uncomfortable regardless of the endpoint. The average maximum drawdown in the first year after an IPO was 48.9%, and the median drawdown was similar at 48.0%. That means even most positive outcomes typically experienced steep declines in their first year of trading in public markets. Relative performance was also challenging — only 40.6% of the sample outperformed the S&P 500 during the first year after listing. Additional highlights from our analysis are presented in “Summary Statistics From IPO Research”, and performance and drawdown metrics from a subset of new issues from our dataset are presented in “Performance and Drawdown Statistics From IPO Research: Sampling of Observations”.

 

AI IPOs and the Narrative of the AI Trade

The AI trade has been supported by a relatively simple bull-market narrative: the companies spending the most on AI infrastructure (large cloud platforms and hyperscalers) are profitable, cash-generative businesses, while many of the most visible beneficiaries are established semiconductor, networking, power, and data-center companies. That has led many in the market to suggest that this cycle is different from the late-1990s dot-com internet bubble, when many public companies had limited revenue, no profits, and business models that were still largely theoretical. However, a wave of AI model company IPOs could complicate that narrative, as the market will soon be asked to underwrite a different part of the AI ecosystem.

Said differently, we may be entering a new part of the cycle, where public market participants will receive quarterly financials for not only the beneficiaries of the AI capital expenditure boom (infrastructure providers, a.k.a. the “picks and shovels”) but also for the application and model layers where adoption and user growth is high but long-term profitability remains an open question. The fundamentals of most large public AI infrastructure providers have perhaps raised some concerns around capital spending, but much of the spending up to this point has been supported by operating cash flow from existing business lines. If the market begins to question the economics, the narrative could shift from “AI capex is funded by profits” to “AI growth requires continuous capital.” Further, the valuation math for the AI model companies embeds expectations not only of continued near-term adoption trends, but also confidence that they will become durable, profitable businesses in the AI economy.

Separating the Business From the Stock

As formerly private companies debut on public markets, analysts should look to answer three questions that are often blended together. First, is the company strategically important? Second, is the business model likely to produce attractive long-term economics? Third, is the valuation attractive enough to compensate investors for the risks? The answer to the first question can be yes, while the answer to the third is no. Note, that any analysis done around valuation must also must be cognizant of the fact that ordinary investors won’t have access to whatever IPO price that may be reported in the press; once a new issue begins trading, the price is dictated by the market, not bankers or institutional investors or founders. So, valuation analysis must be nimble, and analysts should not lose discipline in the face of FOMO (fear of missing out). See our historical analysis again as a reminder of potential volatility. Patience is a virtue.

Any practical company evaluation framework should start with revenue quality. Recurring revenue, a diversified customer base, strong retention, and pricing power generally deserve more credit than one-time project revenue or revenue concentrated in a few customers. Next up, the path to profitability and free cash flow should be evaluated. Many high-growth companies can justify near-term losses if those losses are funding durable customer acquisition or infrastructure that later scales. But losses caused by structurally high variable costs, intense price competition, or perpetual capital intensity are harder to make up in the future.

Valuation discipline is equally important. Price-to-sales multiples can be useful for fast-growing companies, but they are not a substitute for unit economics. A company trading at a high sales multiple must eventually convert revenue into earnings and cash flow. If the stock prices in near-perfect execution, even strong operating performance may not be enough. Conversely, some IPOs become attractive after the initial excitement fades, lockups expire, or the market gains more confidence in reported results. Again, we remind readers that patience is a virtue.

Finally, analyze the structure of the public offering. Float, voting control, lockup schedules, use of proceeds, relatedparty transactions, and index eligibility can all influence near-term trading. A low float can support a stock early by limiting supply, but it can also increase volatility and set up future selling pressure when additional shares become eligible for sale. Governance also matters. Super-voting shares, founder control, and complex benefit-corporation structures may be appropriate for some companies, but analysts should understand what rights they do and do not have.

Conclusion

The potential 2026 IPO wave deserves attention. It stands to provide public market participants access to many highly visible private companies in exciting, fast-growing industries, reshaping index composition faster than prior IPO cycles. It could also introduce a large amount of new equity supply into a market already defined by high concentration, heavy passive ownership, and elevated expectations for AI-related growth.

Our message is balanced. New public equity opportunities can be the starting point for extraordinary long-term investments, but the first public price is not automatically attractive just because the company is innovative. Historically, first-year IPO performance has been choppy, the median outcome has been negative in our sample, and drawdowns have been severe. The coming class may end up including one or multiple truly exceptional businesses. That still does not mean every new issue will be a good investment on day one.

For market participants, the framework should be disciplined: understand the business, assess the valuation, evaluate the path to profitability, consider the float and lockup structure, and be honest about position sizing. Public markets are very good at converting stories into prices. The hard part is determining whether the price leaves enough room for the story to unfold.

Asset Allocation Insights

The LPL Research Strategic and Tactical Asset Allocation Committee (STAAC) maintains its recommendation for a tactical equity overweight and fixed income underweight. While maintaining our equity and U.S. equity overweights, the Committee favors neutral style exposure as a result of stretched market positioning and technical indicators following the recent growth-led rally. As such, this view is expressed via a defensive factor tilt given our expectation for bouts of volatility until the macro backdrop begins to improve as the situation in the Strait of Hormuz eventually plays out to a resolution, allowing markets to refocus on a broadly healthy fundamental landscape.

Within equity sectors, we hold an overweight stance toward the energy sector due to logistical challenges surrounding normalizing global oil flows. The STAAC believes oil prices may stay higher for longer than markets currently anticipate and places value on this hedge against potential additional Mideast flare ups. We also remain overweight industrials, supported by strong earnings momentum, favorable technicals, and continued tailwinds from fiscal spending and AI investment.

LPL Financial does not offer access to or purchase of initial public offerings (IPOs).
This material is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment research, a research report, or a recommendation regarding any specific security or issuer.

 

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors or will yield positive outcomes. Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. Any economic forecasts set forth may not develop as predicted and are subject to change.

References to markets, asset classes, and sectors are generally regarding the corresponding market index. Indexes are unmanaged statistical composites and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and do not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services. LPL Financial doesn’t provide research on individual equities.

All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

All investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

US Treasuries may be considered “safe haven” investments but do carry some degree of risk including interest rate, credit, and market risk. Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity. Bond values will decline as interest rates rise and bonds are subject to availability and change in price.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P500) is a capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks designed to measure performance of the broad domestic economy through changes in the aggregate market value of 500 stocks representing all major industries.

The PE ratio (price-to-earnings ratio) is a measure of the price paid for a share relative to the annual net income or profit earned by the firm per share. It is a financial ratio used for valuation: a higher PE ratio means that investors are paying more for each unit of net income, so the stock is more expensive compared to one with lower PE ratio.

Earnings per share (EPS) is the portion of a company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock. EPS serves as an indicator of a company’s profitability. Earnings per share is generally considered to be the single most important variable in determining a share’s price. It is also a major component used to calculate the price-to-earnings valuation ratio.

All index data from FactSet or Bloomberg. All index data from FactSet or Bloomberg.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations| May Lose Value

For public use.
Member FINRA/SIPC.
RES-0007122-0526 Tracking #1120632 | #1120634 (Exp. 06/27)

Printer Friendly Version

Market adjustments and yields: Fixed income markets have absorbed significant geopolitical and economic developments in recent months, particularly since the escalation of the Iran conflict. Treasury yields have risen sharply, reflecting a combination of higher growth expectations, elevated term premia, and a notable repricing of monetary policy.

Inflation and economic resilience: Yet this adjustment has occurred without a breakout in long-term inflation expectations or a collapse in economic data. This dynamic suggests that a substantial portion of potential bad news — higher-for-longer rates, persistent but contained inflation pressures, and geopolitical risk — may already be embedded in current pricing.

Fed policy and duration outlook: Investors appear to have recalibrated their views on the terminal rate for this cycle and the neutral fed funds rate, moving closer to more hawkish Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) members’ perspectives. At the same time, stable inflation expectations give the Federal Reserve (Fed) the flexibility to remain on hold rather than react preemptively. This environment supports a cautious — but not outright bearish — outlook for duration, with yields likely past peak levels.

Recent Yield Movements Amid Geopolitical Tensions

Since the onset of the Iran conflict (through last Friday’s close), the U.S. Treasury curve has experienced a meaningful bear flattening with front end yields rising more than back-end yields. The 10-year Treasury yield has increased by approximately 60 basis points (bps), while the 2-year yield has risen by 77 bps. These moves represent a swift repricing that incorporates several factors: rising inflation expectations tied to energy price volatility, an increase in compensation demanded for uncertainty (known as term premia); and a fundamental reassessment of the path for short-term policy rates.

That the increase in yields is not solely a function of inflation fears is important (as discussed later). Market participants have also layered in expectations for stronger real growth in the near term, possibly supported by ongoing investment in the artificial intelligence buildout. Simultaneously, geopolitical risks and fiscal concerns have contributed to higher term premia, reminding investors that rate volatility could remain elevated.

Importantly, these yield increases have been orderly. Despite the geopolitical catalyst, liquidity in core fixed income markets has held up, with no evidence of acute stress in funding markets or forced selling. This resilience underscores that the market is processing information in a measured and efficient way.

To Hike, or Not to Hike, That is the Question

One of the most striking developments has been the rapid shift in expectations for Fed policy. After last Friday’s stronger than expected jobs report, markets are now pricing in roughly a 100% probability of a rate hike sometime this year, with a 67% chance of two hikes by June 2027. This marks a sharp reversal from earlier in 2026, when investors were expecting multiple rate cuts.

The implied neutral fed funds rate has been revised higher to around 4%, bringing market pricing closer in line with more hawkish FOMC member views than with the previous median expectation. Even Fed Governor Chris Waller, often viewed as a relative dove, has publicly acknowledged that a rate hike may be warranted under certain conditions. This signals that the Fed’s policy optionality is flexible: policymakers retain the ability to hike if data warrant it, but it is not compelled to do so unless the inflation outlook deteriorates.

Markets Have Priced in a Full Fed Rate Hike by December 2026

 

_{Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 06/05/26
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.}

This repricing reflects a maturation of market thinking. Rather than assuming the post-pandemic cycle would mirror previous easing cycles with a low neutral rate, investors now appear to accept a structurally higher rate environment. Resilient labor markets, sticky services inflation, and recognition that productivity gains or demographic shifts may have modestly increased the long-term equilibrium real rate support this view. That said, we’re still of the view that the Fed can potentially cut rates once this year (likely December), but this certainly depends on the depth and duration of the Iran conflict/oil prices, which remain the biggest challenge to cuts. We don’t agree with market pricing suggesting a hike is likely this year as the bar for a hike is much higher than a Fed on hold for an extended period of time. So, with Fed officials generally more hawkish, the question becomes have they increased their hawkish rhetoric to help tighten financial conditions (aimed at staving off a hike) or is there a real chance the next move could be a rate hike? Time will tell, but the Fed arguably isn’t behind the curve, as in 2022.

The Fed Can Be Patient…For Now

Despite the front-end repricing and near-term inflation risks from energy markets, long-run inflation expectations remain well anchored. This is a critical distinction: near-term inflation pressures from geopolitical events are being viewed as transitory, while structural price stability expectations remain firm.

This anchoring is a key reason why the Fed can remain patient. Unlike the 2022 experience, when the central bank was clearly behind the curve and inflation expectations were rising alongside actual inflation, markets today appear prepared to “look through” temporary price spikes. For example, breakevens have moved modestly higher but remain consistent with modest overshoots of the Fed’s 2% target rather than a sustained shift higher. Forward inflation swaps and longer-dated breakevens reinforce this view.

The Fed’s credibility, rebuilt through its aggressive tightening in 2022–2023 and subsequent data-dependent approach, provides a buffer. As long as expectations stay anchored, the bar for an actual rate hike remains relatively high, even if markets are pricing in some probability of one — reducing worst-case-scenario risks and supporting the case that much of the bad news on inflation is likely already priced in (absent a reacceleration in oil prices).

Unlike in 2022, Inflation Expectations Remain Well Anchored

_{Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 06/01/26
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.}

Higher Yields: A Mix of Inflation and Real Growth Expectations

Nominal Treasury yields can be decomposed into components reflecting real growth expectations and inflation compensation. Analyzing the move in the 10-year yield since the start of the Iran conflict shows that the majority of the increase (approximately 35 bps) stems from rising growth expectations, with a smaller portion (only about 14 bps) tied to higher inflation expectations.

This is an important distinction. The growth-driven component suggests markets are pricing in a “soft landing plus” scenario or at least continued economic resilience rather than outright stagflation. Higher real rates reflect confidence in growth, likely supported by productivity or fiscal stimulus effects.

Consequently, even if oil prices decline after geopolitical uncertainty eases, any meaningful drop in the 10-year yield may be limited unless economic data warrants a deeper than expected rate-cutting cycle. Yields have risen on the back of better-than-feared growth, not runaway inflation — a distinction that matters for the trajectory of rate volatility going forward.

10-Year Nominal Yield Broken Out by Inflation and Growth Drivers

_{Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 06/05/26
Disclosures: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.}

Resilient Data, Steady Demand

Recent macroeconomic data and Treasury auctions reinforce the view that markets have absorbed bad news well. Incoming data has generally surprised to the upside (per the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index), demonstrating economic momentum that has exceeded consensus expectations in several areas, helping keep the broader narrative of resilience intact.

Economic Data Has Been Better Than Expected Recently

_{Source: LPL Research, Bloomberg 06/01/26
Disclosures: All indexes are unmanaged and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.}

Also, recent auctions of 2-year, 5-year, and 7-year Treasuries, totaling $183 billion, were met with adequate demand. While not exceptionally strong, they were far from weak. Foreign participation and domestic investor interest proved sufficient to absorb supply without pushing yields significantly higher intra-auction. This suggests that investors are reasonably comfortable with prevailing yield levels. In combination, both factors underpin the case that current yields reflect a balanced assessment of risks rather than panic pricing. This week’s $119 billion (total) in Treasury auctions of 3-year, 10-year, and 30-year Treasury securities will provide another real time test to determine if yields are sufficient to attract necessary demand.

Conclusion

The Treasury market has priced in a potential rate hike, reset the neutral rate higher, and built in a meaningful term premium — all while long-run inflation expectations remain anchored and macroeconomic data have held up. A substantial amount of bad news appears to already be reflected in prices. Absent a resurgence in oil prices or a sharp acceleration in growth, the recent surge in yields is likely behind us, although longer-maturity Treasury yields should remain elevated near current levels in the near term, in our view.

In summary, fixed income markets have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in incorporating geopolitical shocks and policy repricing. With much of the adjustment likely already behind us, the risk-reward profile for core Treasuries appears more balanced than headline yield moves might suggest.

Asset Allocation Insights

LPL’s Strategic and Tactical Asset Allocation Committee (STAAC) maintains a neutral stance on duration relative to benchmarks. Our proprietary duration models show mixed signals, pointing toward neutral positioning, which strikes the appropriate balance. We would reconsider and potentially add duration if the 10-year yield were to push into the 4.75–5.00% range or if the curve steepened materially from current levels, which would represent an attractive entry point given the anchored expectations backdrop.

The STAAC maintains its recommendation for a tactical equity overweight and fixed income underweight. This reflects an expectation of further easing of geopolitical and commodity supply concerns as a result of the U.S.-Iran conflict, alongside a more cautious outlook for select areas of core fixed income. Overall, our tactical views emphasize a modest equity overweight expressed via a defensive factor tilt, a continued focus on quality bond sectors, caution in rate‑sensitive fixed income sectors, and an ongoing allocation to diversifying strategies and alternatives. Within fixed income sectors, we remain underweight investment grade corporates and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) as spreads remain tight relative to historical standards, diminishing the risk/reward profile of the sectors.

 

Important Disclosures

This material is for general information only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. There is no assurance that the views or strategies discussed are suitable for all investors or will yield positive outcomes. Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal. Any economic forecasts set forth may not develop as predicted and are subject to change.

References to markets, asset classes, and sectors are generally regarding the corresponding market index. Indexes are unmanaged statistical composites and cannot be invested into directly. Index performance is not indicative of the performance of any investment and do not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

Any company names noted herein are for educational purposes only and not an indication of trading intent or a solicitation of their products or services. LPL Financial doesn’t provide research on individual equities.

All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, LPL Financial makes no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

All investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

US Treasuries may be considered “safe haven” investments but do carry some degree of risk including interest rate, credit, and market risk. Bonds are subject to market and interest rate risk if sold prior to maturity. Bond values will decline as interest rates rise and bonds are subject to availability and change in price.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P500) is a capitalization-weighted index of 500 stocks designed to measure performance of the broad domestic economy through changes in the aggregate market value of 500 stocks representing all major industries.

The PE ratio (price-to-earnings ratio) is a measure of the price paid for a share relative to the annual net income or profit earned by the firm per share. It is a financial ratio used for valuation: a higher PE ratio means that investors are paying more for each unit of net income, so the stock is more expensive compared to one with lower PE ratio.

Earnings per share (EPS) is the portion of a company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock. EPS serves as an indicator of a company’s profitability. Earnings per share is generally considered to be the single most important variable in determining a share’s price. It is also a major component used to calculate the price-to-earnings valuation ratio.

All index data from FactSet or Bloomberg. All index data from FactSet or Bloomberg.

This research material has been prepared by LPL Financial LLC.

Not Insured by FDIC/NCUA or Any Other Government Agency | Not Bank/Credit Union Guaranteed | Not Bank/Credit Union Deposits or Obligations| May Lose Value

For public use.
Member FINRA/SIPC.
RES-0007122-0526 Tracking #1120258 | #1120259 (Exp. 06/2027)