US Inflation Remains Stubbornly High. The Fed’s December Debate Is Shifting From Whether to Hike to How Much. The latest US inflation report reinforces my concern that inflation is becoming increasingly persistent rather than returning convincingly toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, with October headline CPI increasing 0.4% MoM against 0.3% expected, while core CPI increased 0.3% against 0.2% expected, marking another disappointing reading despite some moderation from September’s 0.6% headline increase. What concerns me is not simply that inflation exceeded expectations, but that underlying price pressures remain sufficiently broad to challenge the argument that the earlier inflation shock was primarily temporary, particularly when core inflation has now increased approximately 0.3% for three consecutive months, implying an annualized pace of roughly 3.7% if sustained. That is still materially above the Fed’s target, while the combination of resilient economic activity, relatively stable employment and persistent services inflation means policymakers have considerably less justification for tolerating additional inflation surprises. One particularly important detail is that shelter accounted for more than 30% of October’s headline CPI increase, highlighting the continued importance of housing-related inflation in the broader price environment. Shelter is inherently slow-moving because official rental inflation measures respond with a lag to changes in market rents, meaning that elevated readings today do not necessarily imply that future housing inflation will continue accelerating, but they nevertheless demonstrate how difficult it has become to achieve sustained disinflation across the broader consumption basket. More importantly, the remaining inflation contribution shows that price pressures are not confined exclusively to housing, particularly when businesses continue facing elevated costs across transportation, energy, technology equipment and other inputs. I think this is precisely why the Fed is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the inflation trajectory, because the problem is no longer simply an isolated commodity-price shock, but the possibility that elevated input costs are being transmitted through the economy and becoming embedded in broader consumer prices. Christopher Waller’s remarks in London this morning are particularly significant because they represent one of the clearest signals yet that the Fed’s policy discussion is shifting from whether to tighten in December toward the appropriate magnitude of the tightening. Waller explicitly indicated that he would lean toward a 25-basis-point increase even if October inflation improved, but that core CPI of approximately 0.3% or higher could justify considering a 50-basis-point increase, particularly because failing to respond convincingly to persistent inflation risks undermining the central bank’s credibility. And that is precisely what today’s data delivered, with core CPI printing at 0.3%, satisfying the threshold Waller identified for considering a larger move. However, I would distinguish his position from the broader FOMC’s decision because one governor’s willingness to consider a 50-basis-point hike does not mean the Committee has already reached that conclusion, particularly when policymakers must weigh inflation persistence against the risks of unnecessarily aggressive tightening. Markets are beginning to reflect this debate, with money-market pricing implying approximately 28 basis points of tightening at the December meeting, effectively incorporating a full quarter-point increase alongside some additional premium for a larger move. Under a simplified framework in which the only outcomes are 25 or 50 basis points, that pricing corresponds to roughly a 12% probability-weighted premium for a half-point hike, although actual market-implied distributions are more complicated and should not be interpreted as precise forecasts. What I find particularly interesting is how quickly the monetary-policy narrative has changed, because earlier market expectations centered on eventual easing as inflation moderated, whereas investors are now being forced to reassess whether the Fed needs to maintain restrictive policy for longer and potentially accelerate tightening. Higher policy rates are one problem for equity valuations, but an unexpected increase in the expected terminal rate is considerably more important because it affects the entire discount-rate structure used to value future corporate earnings. There is, however, an important countervailing development that should not be ignored, which is the sharp decline in crude oil prices following indications that the US administration may be moving toward de-escalation with Iran. Brent has fallen toward US$90 per barrel from approximately US$118 in late October, representing a decline of more than 20%, which should eventually provide meaningful relief to headline inflation through gasoline, transportation and certain energy-intensive goods. I think this is important because inflation is not necessarily destined to accelerate indefinitely, particularly if the geopolitical risk premium continues declining and global energy supply conditions normalize. Lower oil prices can improve household purchasing power, reduce transportation costs and relieve some pressure on corporate margins, potentially allowing headline inflation to moderate over the coming months without requiring the Fed to engineer a substantial deterioration in economic activity. Nevertheless, falling crude oil prices should not be confused with an immediate normalization of the entire inflation environment, particularly when refinery margins, diesel prices, shipping costs and insurance premiums may remain elevated even as benchmark crude declines. Waller specifically warned that the recent energy shock could have more persistent effects on underlying inflation than central bankers traditionally assume, while also highlighting emerging price pressures associated with the extraordinary AI infrastructure investment cycle. I find this increasingly relevant because the enormous demand for semiconductors, memory, electricity, power equipment and data-center infrastructure is creating genuine supply constraints across several industries, and those constraints can increase costs for businesses outside the AI ecosystem even when broader commodity prices are falling. In other words, the same AI investment cycle supporting exceptional growth among technology infrastructure companies may simultaneously be contributing to inflationary pressures elsewhere in the economy, complicating the Fed’s task of restoring price stability without undermining investment and economic growth. From an investment perspective, I would expect continued upward pressure on short-duration Treasury yields if markets increasingly price a more aggressive Fed, while the direction of longer-term yields will depend on whether investors focus primarily on persistent inflation and elevated term premiums or begin anticipating slower economic growth as monetary conditions tighten. This distinction matters enormously for equities because higher real yields mechanically reduce the present value of future earnings, particularly for long-duration growth companies whose valuations depend heavily on profits expected several years into the future. I remain structurally bullish on artificial intelligence, but I would distinguish companies generating exceptional current earnings and free cash flow from businesses whose valuations require many years of uninterrupted growth to justify today’s prices, particularly when the market is already reassessing enormous AI capital commitments and increasingly demanding tangible economic returns. I would also remain cautious toward emerging-market assets because a more hawkish Fed can strengthen the dollar, increase the relative attractiveness of US fixed income and reduce the willingness of international investors to allocate capital to markets offering weaker liquidity, less predictable earnings and greater currency risk. At the same time, the decline in oil prices is potentially supportive for energy-importing economies such as Indonesia by reducing pressure on import costs, fuel subsidies and external balances, although those benefits could be partly offset if higher US yields increase domestic financing costs and encourage additional capital outflows. This is why I believe the interaction between US inflation, Treasury yields, the dollar and crude oil prices will remain particularly important for emerging-market performance over the coming months. My conclusion is that today’s CPI report strengthens the case for additional monetary tightening, with a 25-basis-point December hike increasingly embedded in market expectations while a 50-basis-point increase has become a credible policy discussion rather than a remote theoretical possibility. However, the recent collapse in crude oil prices introduces an important potential disinflationary offset, meaning that the Fed should be careful about responding too aggressively to inflation pressures that may begin moderating as the earlier energy shock fades. The next inflation readings, labor-market developments and evidence of whether higher producer costs are being passed through to consumers will therefore be critical in determining whether December ultimately requires a conventional quarter-point increase or something larger. I continue to believe that inflation will prove more persistent than the market previously anticipated, and the biggest risk for financial assets is not necessarily another 25-basis-point hike, but the possibility that the entire expected path of interest rates needs to be revised higher. The AI structural bull market can survive higher interest rates, but elevated valuations will become increasingly difficult to defend unless earnings growth continues delivering.

Brent crude is now trading close to US$90/bbl, providing some much-needed relief for Indonesia’s fiscal outlook and potentially helping explain the recent rebound in Indonesian equities. As a net oil importer, Indonesia is particularly vulnerable to elevated energy prices, which increase the fiscal burden of fuel subsidies, put additional pressure on the rupiah and raise the risk of higher domestic inflation. A sustained decline in oil prices would therefore ease some of these pressures, improve investor sentiment and reduce the immediate risk of further fiscal deterioration. But will this relief last? Ultimately, much depends on Trump. There is growing speculation that Trump may be losing the political appetite to sustain a prolonged confrontation with Iran, particularly as the economic consequences of elevated oil prices become increasingly difficult to ignore. However, speculation about his intentions should not be confused with a confirmed change in US policy, and the trajectory of the conflict remains highly uncertain. For Indonesia, the distinction between a temporary correction in crude prices and a sustained normalization of global energy markets is critical. A short-lived decline in Brent may provide some breathing room for the government and financial markets, but it would do little to resolve the underlying fiscal and external vulnerabilities if geopolitical tensions escalate again. For now, we will continue monitoring developments closely, particularly Trump’s next moves, before drawing any conclusions about whether the rebound in Indonesian equities is sustainable.

WTICLWTI Crude OilNeutralWTI Crude OilJCIJohnson Controls IntlBearishJohnson Controls Intl

10/12/2026 on

$JCI plunged 2.6% today, and we remain firmly bearish on Indonesian equities, as the combination of rising US Treasury yields, a stronger dollar, elevated oil prices, a weakening rupiah, potential monetary tightening and unresolved MSCI investability concerns continues to create an increasingly hostile environment for both corporate earnings and equity valuations. I know many Indonesian stocks look cheap on paper, but cheap valuations are not catalysts, particularly when foreign investors continue reducing exposure, earnings expectations face downside risks and the country’s equity risk premium is rising. At this stage, I struggle to identify any meaningful near-term positive catalyst capable of reversing these pressures, while the downside risks remain substantial, especially if global financial conditions tighten further and Bank Indonesia is eventually forced to raise interest rates to defend the rupiah. Our recommendation remains unchanged: avoid Indonesian equities for now, preserve capital and focus on AI, where we see stronger long-term growth potential and more attractive opportunities. There will eventually be a time to become bullish on Indonesia again, just as we did selectively earlier this year, but I do not believe that time has arrived. Remember, a market can look cheap and still become considerably cheaper.

NeutralWTICLWTI Crude OilWTI Crude OilIEMGCore MSCI Emerging MarketsCore MSCI Emerging Markets

10/3/2026 on

Indonesia Finance Chief Avoids Prabowo Turf Wars https://t.co/CN5UJeKx4R via @YouTube I watched Finance Minister Suahasil Nazara’s interview with Bloomberg, and I came away more concerned than reassured, because although there is something admirable about a Finance Minister saying that he will “stay in his lane,” respect Bank Indonesia’s independence, avoid turf wars with Danantara and keep the fiscal deficit below the statutory 3% ceiling, particularly after a period in which the boundaries between fiscal policy, monetary policy and state investment policy have occasionally appeared increasingly blurred, there is also a meaningful difference between institutional discipline and excessive accommodation, and throughout the interview Suahasil seemed remarkably reluctant to challenge the assumptions, priorities or risks surrounding the government’s broader economic agenda, with Bloomberg itself characterizing his approach as one of avoiding turf wars with President Prabowo’s wider economic machinery. That may produce political harmony, and it may even make the government’s internal coordination appear smoother, but I am far less convinced that it produces the kind of macroeconomic credibility Indonesia needs when external conditions are becoming more hostile and when investors are increasingly focused not only on the headline deficit, but also on the quality of fiscal management, the credibility of policy assumptions and the government’s willingness to confront uncomfortable trade-offs before markets force the issue. A Finance Minister is not merely the government’s chief accountant, responsible for ensuring that the numbers are recorded and that the formal limits are respected; he is supposed to be one of the principal guardians of fiscal sustainability, which occasionally means being the person inside government willing to say that the numbers no longer work, that the assumptions have become outdated or that a politically convenient policy is creating risks that cannot be ignored simply because they do not immediately appear in the headline deficit. My biggest concern, however, was his treatment of oil, because Indonesia is a net oil importer, the 2026 budget was constructed around an Indonesian crude oil price assumption of roughly US$70 per barrel, and the government’s own fiscal documents earlier this year showed realized oil prices already above that assumption. That is not a rounding error for Indonesia, because higher oil prices affect the country through several channels simultaneously: the energy subsidy and compensation bill rises, Pertamina’s import requirements increase, the trade and current-account position deteriorates, demand for US dollars increases, the rupiah comes under additional pressure, imported inflation rises, household purchasing power weakens and Bank Indonesia eventually faces a more difficult trade-off between supporting growth and defending macroeconomic stability. And because the government has committed to shielding consumers from much of the increase in subsidized fuel prices, the shock does not disappear merely because it is not immediately passed through to households at the pump; instead, it moves onto the sovereign balance sheet, where it appears through higher subsidies, larger compensation payments, greater pressure on state-owned enterprises and a narrower margin for responding to future shocks. Earlier government calculations suggested that the budget could absorb roughly US$100 oil while keeping the deficit around 2.9% of GDP, with the government pointing to its fiscal buffers. But US$100 is not US$120 or US$130, and even a temporary spike matters if geopolitical disruption persists, refining margins remain elevated, the rupiah weakens at the same time and domestic fuel prices remain administratively suppressed, because the fiscal impact depends not only on the average oil price but also on the duration of the shock, the exchange rate, the structure of domestic fuel pricing and the government’s willingness to allow any of the burden to reach consumers. The relevant question therefore should not simply be, “Can Indonesia survive higher oil?” because of course it can, and Indonesia has both policy tools and institutional experience that would allow it to manage a period of elevated prices, but the more important question is: At what fiscal and macroeconomic cost? That distinction matters enormously, because a country can survive a shock while still suffering weaker growth, higher borrowing costs, a more vulnerable currency, reduced fiscal space and a deterioration in investor confidence, all of which may not be visible in the first round of official statements but can become increasingly difficult to reverse once they begin reinforcing one another. The same problem appears in his discussion of bond yields, because although Suahasil understandably wants government borrowing costs to decline, Indonesia does not determine its sovereign borrowing cost in isolation, and the global risk-free rate is repricing violently as investors reassess inflation, fiscal sustainability, monetary policy and the supply of government debt across major economies. The US 10-year Treasury yield has moved above 5%, with the global government-bond selloff recently pushing Treasury yields to levels not seen in roughly two decades. Indonesia cannot simply shrug this off, because foreign investors compare Indonesian government bonds against US Treasuries rather than against some theoretical domestic fair value, and when investors can earn more than 5% in dollars from the US government, a rupiah-denominated Indonesian bond yielding around 7% suddenly offers a remarkably small nominal pickup once currency risk, liquidity risk and emerging-market risk are taken into account. And we are already seeing the transmission, because on September 29 Indonesia’s benchmark 10-year government yield jumped roughly 6.5 basis points to around 7.2%, while foreign investors recorded net selling in the domestic bond market as rising Treasury yields and expectations of additional Federal Reserve tightening forced investors to reprice Indonesian duration. Bloomberg has separately reported that the surge in Treasury yields has pushed yield differentials between US bonds and several Asian markets toward historical extremes, increasing the risk of capital outflows. Even Bank Indonesia is explicitly acknowledging the problem, with its September monetary policy review stating that rising Treasury yields, expectations of further Fed tightening and persistent global uncertainty are suppressing portfolio flows into emerging markets and strengthening the dollar, thereby requiring stronger policy responses to maintain Indonesia’s external resilience. So when the central bank itself recognizes the transmission mechanism, I find it difficult to understand why the Finance Minister should sound relaxed about it, because the issue is not whether Indonesia can control US Treasury yields, which it obviously cannot, but whether the government is adequately preparing for the consequences of a global environment in which Indonesian assets must compete for capital against increasingly attractive dollar-denominated alternatives. The mathematics are straightforward: US Treasury yield ↑ → relative attractiveness of Indonesian bonds ↓ → foreign capital becomes harder to retain → Indonesian yields face upward pressure → rupiah faces additional pressure → government interest expense eventually rises → fiscal space becomes smaller. And when that is combined with oil, the result is Oil ↑ + US Treasury yields ↑ = a particularly uncomfortable combination for Indonesia, because oil pressures the current account, inflation, subsidies and the currency, while Treasury yields pressure capital flows, the currency and sovereign borrowing costs, leaving the rupiah directly in the middle of both transmission mechanisms and making it the point at which external pressure can quickly become domestic fiscal pressure. This is precisely why Indonesia currently has much less room for policy complacency than the headline deficit suggests, because keeping the deficit below 3% is important and Suahasil is correct to defend that anchor, but 3% is a legal ceiling, not a magic number that makes every fiscal risk disappear, and two countries can both run a 2.9% deficit while having completely different fiscal risk profiles depending on their interest burden, currency exposure, contingent liabilities, subsidy commitments, revenue quality, refinancing environment and the credibility of their medium-term fiscal plans. The market will price all of those things, and it will also price liabilities and commitments that do not necessarily appear cleanly inside the headline central-government deficit, including the increasingly important role of state-owned enterprises and Danantara, particularly if investors begin to believe that the sovereign will ultimately be expected to support projects, entities or policy commitments that are formally outside the central budget but politically too important to fail. This is why I would actually prefer Indonesia’s Finance Minister to sound slightly worried right now, not panicked and certainly not alarmist, but worried, because there is a difference between creating unnecessary fear and demonstrating that the government understands the risks it is facing and has already considered what it will do if those risks materialize. Markets do not require policymakers to pretend that everything is fine, and in many cases credibility increases when policymakers openly acknowledge uncomfortable trade-offs, publish realistic stress scenarios and explain exactly what they will do if those scenarios materialize, because investors are generally more comfortable with difficult numbers when they believe the government is confronting them honestly than with reassuring statements that appear to avoid the central questions. Show us the fiscal deficit at US$100, US$120 and US$150 oil, show us what happens if the rupiah weakens another 5% or 10%, show us the subsidy and compensation sensitivity, show us what happens to annual interest expenditure if Indonesia’s average refinancing cost increases by 100 basis points, show us where spending gets cut if revenue disappoints and show us which government priorities are genuinely non-negotiable if the external environment deteriorates. That would reassure me far more than simply saying that the deficit will remain below 3%, because the real issue is not whether the government can preserve a formal threshold under a narrow set of assumptions, but whether it can preserve fiscal credibility when several adverse variables move at the same time. Indonesia does not need a Finance Minister whose primary objective is avoiding political turf wars, because while coordination and institutional respect are valuable, they cannot become substitutes for scrutiny, and they cannot mean that the Finance Ministry remains silent when the country’s fiscal assumptions are being tested by higher oil prices, rising global yields, capital-flow volatility and a weaker currency. It needs a Finance Minister willing to defend the country’s balance sheet when the global macroeconomic environment becomes hostile, even when doing so occasionally means delivering uncomfortable messages inside the government, challenging politically popular commitments or explaining that some priorities may need to be delayed, redesigned or funded more transparently. Because oil above US$100, US Treasury yields above 5%, a vulnerable rupiah and an ambitious domestic spending agenda are not four separate issues, and they should not be discussed as though each can be managed independently without affecting the others. They are one interconnected macro trade, and markets are already trading it that way.

The G7 decision to release as much as 100 million barrels of emergency crude and diesel stocks over the next four months will obviously put near-term downward pressure on oil and refined-product prices, and we are already seeing that reaction in the market, because any unexpected injection of government-controlled barrels matters when prompt balances are this tight, particularly in diesel, where inventories are depleted and refining margins have become extreme, but I think investors need to place the headline number in the correct context before concluding that the energy crisis has suddenly been solved. One hundred million barrels sounds enormous until you divide it across four months, at which point the scale becomes much less overwhelming. Assuming the barrels are released relatively evenly over roughly 120 to 122 days, we are talking about approximately 820,000 barrels per day, or roughly 25 million barrels per month, which is meaningful at the margin but still represents less than 1% of a global oil market producing and consuming around 100 million barrels per day. More importantly, the latest IEA data show that global observed inventories have already fallen by approximately 507 million barrels since the beginning of the Iran war, equivalent to an average draw of roughly 2.8 million barrels per day, while August alone saw inventories decline by 95 million barrels, or roughly 3.1 million barrels per day, as more than 10 million barrels per day of Gulf production remained shut in and Middle Eastern exports continued running far below pre-war levels. That puts the G7 release into perspective, because if the underlying system continues losing inventories at approximately 2.8 million barrels per day, injecting 820,000 barrels per day from strategic reserves offsets only around 29% of the current inventory draw, which means the system would theoretically still be losing close to 2 million barrels per day even after the emergency release. Over four months, that would still translate into roughly another 240 million barrels of inventory depletion, meaning that the emergency release would slow the draw without actually reversing it. In another way of looking at it, the entire 100 million barrels being announced is equivalent to only around 36 days of the inventory draw rate the world has experienced since the war began, while, against the more than 10 million barrels per day of Gulf production that remained shut in during August, the entire 100 million-barrel stockpile is equivalent to only about 10 days of lost production. That is why I view this primarily as a bridge, not a solution, because governments releasing strategic reserves do not create new oil; they simply move oil that was produced in the past from government tanks into the commercial market today, leaving the physical supply problem underneath the market exactly where it was. Hormuz remains impaired, Gulf production remains disrupted, Saudi infrastructure has been attacked, Russian refining has been damaged and the Bab el-Mandeb remains strategically vulnerable, while China has now suspended most fuel exports beyond Hong Kong and Macau, further tightening Asian product markets, with gasoline cracks in Asia moving above US$50 per barrel and middle-distillate markets remaining exceptionally tight. So what governments are effectively doing is using inventories to buy time for diplomacy or supply normalization to arrive, and if the war ends during those four months and Middle Eastern exports normalize, then this can work very well because emergency stocks fill the temporary gap until physical supply returns, allowing commercial inventories to begin rebuilding while geopolitical risk premiums collapse and the market experiences a much more durable correction. But if the war is still going four months from now, then the problem simply returns, potentially with fewer strategic reserves available to deal with it, which is where I think the market may once again underestimate the asymmetry. The IEA already coordinated a record 400 million-barrel emergency release earlier this year, of which roughly two-thirds has already been deployed, yet despite that extraordinary intervention, global observed inventories still declined by more than 500 million barrels after the war began. That is perhaps the most important data point in the entire discussion, because governments have already thrown hundreds of millions of barrels at this market and inventories still went down, which tells us that the underlying physical disruption has been larger than the emergency response. Now another 100 million barrels are being considered because the previous intervention did not solve the structural imbalance, although that does not mean the release is irrelevant, because the composition matters enormously, particularly if roughly half comes in the form of diesel and other immediately usable refined products rather than crude. Diesel is arguably the real pressure point in the current energy crisis because crude sitting in a tank cannot immediately replace missing diesel if refineries themselves are constrained, damaged or geographically disconnected from demand, which is why a direct release of around 50 million barrels of diesel can have a disproportionately large short-term effect on cracks and retail fuel prices. Spread over four months, 50 million barrels of diesel equates to roughly 410,000 barrels per day, and with diesel and gasoil representing around 30% of global oil consumption, that is equivalent to roughly 1% to 1.5% of global middle-distillate demand, which is substantial enough to move pricing in a market where the marginal barrel has become extremely expensive. This explains why European diesel prices immediately reacted sharply lower when the proposal emerged, although the release still does not represent sustainable supply, because it is simply stored diesel being consumed, and once the barrels are gone, governments are left with smaller emergency buffers at exactly the moment geopolitical uncertainty remains unusually high. Europe itself is already discussing releasing around 17% of its emergency diesel stocks, while the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve has fallen below roughly 284 million barrels, the lowest level since 1982, after repeated releases related to both the current Iran conflict and earlier energy shocks. There is therefore a second-order effect that the market frequently ignores, because strategic reserve releases today create replenishment demand tomorrow. The barrels do not disappear permanently from government requirements, and if policymakers believe the SPR and European emergency reserves exist for national security, eventually those stocks have to be rebuilt, with every barrel purchased for replenishment becoming additional future demand competing with commercial buyers. In other words, strategic releases can suppress the spot market by borrowing supply from the future, but they do not eliminate the underlying requirement for those barrels; they simply shift the timing. This is why the effectiveness of emergency inventories is fundamentally constrained by duration, because if you have a three-week disruption, strategic reserves are extremely powerful, whereas if you have a six-month disruption, they help enormously but become progressively less effective, and if you have a multi-year geopolitical restructuring of Middle Eastern energy flows, strategic reserves cannot substitute indefinitely for actual production. Eventually the market has to clear through some combination of higher production, reduced consumption and higher prices, which is why my longer-term oil thesis remains intact. The market continues treating many of these interventions as though governments can simply manufacture barrels whenever prices become politically uncomfortable, but the reality is that strategic stocks represent a finite buffer, and every intervention reduces the size of the buffer available for the next disruption. This becomes particularly important because the current crisis is not occurring in isolation, as years of capital discipline and underinvestment have limited the amount of rapidly deployable non-OPEC supply, U.S. shale remains important but no longer responds to price with the same explosive production growth seen during the previous decade, large conventional developments require years, Russian supply is constrained by war and attacks on refining infrastructure, and Middle Eastern spare capacity becomes much less useful when the problem is not whether a producer can pump oil but whether the oil can physically leave the region safely. The logistics surrounding oil increasingly matter just as much as the geology, because a barrel sitting inside the Gulf that cannot move through Hormuz is economically very different from an immediately available barrel on the Atlantic Coast. The September IEA report estimates that total Gulf oil exports were running around 13 million barrels per day in August, nearly half their pre-war level, while crude exports remained almost 45% lower and refined-product and LPG exports roughly 60% below February levels. Those are enormous numbers compared with 820,000 barrels per day of temporary reserve supply, which is why I think the immediate oil-price selloff following the announcement is completely rational while the longer-term bearish interpretation is much harder to justify. The release changes the near-term balance, but it does not change the source of the imbalance, and if the war ends, that distinction becomes irrelevant because physical production normalizes and the emergency barrels have successfully bridged the gap. But as long as the war continues, every barrel released from strategic inventories is simply replacing one barrel that should have arrived from normal commercial supply but did not, and at some point the strategic barrel runs out while the missing commercial barrel remains missing, which is when price discovery resumes. This is also why prolonged conflict can create increasingly nonlinear outcomes, because inventory depletion does not matter much until suddenly it matters enormously. A market with 500 million barrels of excess inventory can tolerate disruption calmly, and a market with comfortable strategic reserves can tolerate a few months of missing supply, but when commercial stocks have already been drawn by more than 500 million barrels, governments have already released hundreds of millions of strategic barrels, diesel inventories are historically tight and the physical system continues operating below normal capacity, the marginal value of every remaining barrel begins rising much faster. Oil markets rarely go parabolic simply because economists calculate a small daily deficit; they go parabolic when physical buyers suddenly realize that availability itself has become uncertain. That is the right-tail scenario I continue to watch, because refiners stop asking whether crude is US$95 or US$105 and start asking whether they can secure the cargo, governments stop optimizing purchase prices and begin prioritizing energy security, airlines start worrying about jet-fuel availability, farmers need diesel regardless of price, utilities and industrial companies begin rebuilding precautionary inventories, and commodity traders stop running lean inventories because optionality becomes more valuable than working-capital efficiency. That behavioral transition from price-sensitive demand to availability-sensitive demand is where commodity markets can become nonlinear very quickly, and although the G7 release delays that moment, it does not eliminate it. Ironically, the more emergency inventory governments consume today, the less ammunition they possess if the conflict deteriorates later, which is why I would frame the current intervention as bearish for oil over the next few weeks and potentially much less bearish over the next several months, because the fundamental question remains exactly the same as before the announcement: Does the war end before the emergency barrels do? If yes, the G7 intervention could mark the beginning of a meaningful normalization in energy prices, but if no, I think the negative impact on crude and diesel prices will prove temporary because the market eventually has to confront the same structural shortage with smaller inventories and fewer policy buffers. The arithmetic is straightforward: 100 million barrels over four months = roughly 0.82 million barrels per day, while the world has recently been drawing inventories at approximately 2.8 million barrels per day, meaning that this release covers less than one-third of the current implied deficit and leaves the remaining two-thirds to come from somewhere else. If that remaining supply does not come from restored Middle Eastern production, additional non-OPEC supply or significant demand destruction, then eventually it comes from higher prices. So for now, I remain LONG oil, although I would expect considerable volatility around reserve releases and diplomatic headlines, because strategic inventories can absolutely suppress prices temporarily but cannot indefinitely substitute for millions of barrels per day of disrupted physical production. You can release oil from storage for four months, but you cannot release the same barrel twice, and as long as the war does not end, I think the market will eventually rediscover that distinction.