Equity markets extended their winning streak this week, quietly recalibrating the market’s appetite for risk with the sort of confidence that doesn’t need to announce itself. What began as a cautious advance is starting to resemble a more deliberate stride. Through it all, Sowell’s gauges have remained steady—fully invested and, much like the commander of Artemis II, disciplined, forward-looking, and unfazed by the vastness of the journey ahead.
The financial markets for the week ending April 17, 2026, provided a masterclass in psychological resilience, transforming intense geopolitical trepidation into one of the year's most robust rallies. Following weeks of apprehension, the market’s behavior this week suggests that investors have not only recalibrated their risk tolerance but have aggressively leaned back into a "risk-on" posture, driven by thawing geopolitical tensions and encouraging economic data.
The performance metrics were broad and decisive. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite gained 4.6% and 6.8%, respectively, with the S&P 500 breaching historical resistance levels to establish fresh all-time highs. This optimism extended globally, as the MSCI Emerging Markets index rallied by 3.2%. The catalyst was clear: the tentative intent to pursue a cease-fire and growing optimism about a de-escalation between the U.S. and Iran. This geopolitical relief was perfectly reflected in the energy sector, where WTI Oil closed lower at $85.5 per barrel—a cooling of prices that acts as a classic tailwind for broader equity valuations.
Sector-specific performance was equally telling. The Financials sector gained 3.3%, bolstered by strong earnings season kick-offs from major players such as JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup (NYSE: C), and BlackRock (NYSE: BLK), all of which beat expectations on both the top and bottom lines. Meanwhile, Technology stocks surged 8.2%, driven by momentum in NVIDIA. Notably, NVIDIA’s valuation is now on the cusp of reaching a staggering $5 trillion, underscoring the market's continued appetite for high-growth tech leaders.
Economic data provided the necessary fundamental support for this bullish sentiment. Inflationary pressures appeared to soften, with March U.S. producer prices (PPI) coming in much lower than anticipated; headline PPI grew by only 0.5% month-over-month, well below the 1.2% forecast. However, the data was not uniformly exuberant. Industrial production contracted by 0.5%, missing the 0.2% estimate, and capacity utilization stood at 75.7%, trailing the 76.5% expectation. Yet, the labor market remained an island of strength: initial jobless claims decreased by 11,000 to 207,000, coming in well below the 212,000 that economists had expected.
Despite the surge in risk assets, market participants remain watchful. The CBOE VIX, a key measure of expected market volatility, remained steady at 20, suggesting that while the market is comfortable, it is not yet complacent. Furthermore, safe-haven demand remains present, with Gold closing slightly higher at $4,850 per ounce, acting as a hedge against lingering uncertainty.
Looking toward the week ahead, the focus shifts squarely from macro-narratives to the hard evidence of company-specific earnings. With the market sitting at elevated levels, the coming sessions will test the sustainability of this rally as a heavy slate of bellwether companies reports their first-quarter results. Investors will be keeping a close eye on the technology sector, with high-profile releases from Tesla (TSLA), Lam Research (LRCX), IBM (IBM), and Intel (INTC) expected to provide critical signals on semiconductor demand, enterprise spending, and AI infrastructure growth. Simultaneously, the airline industry will take center stage, with United Airlines (UAL) and Southwest Airlines (LUV) providing a barometer of travel demand and cost management in the current environment. Additionally, American Express (AXP) will offer further insight into consumer credit health, rounding out a week that will likely dictate the market's trajectory through the remainder of April.
“Let me stipulate that I believe economic forecasting is hard even in normal circumstances. I am tempted to say it is a bit like batting averages in baseball, where an excellent result is failing two-thirds of the time, but that wouldn't be fair to baseball—we forecasters have an even lower rate of success.”
– Fed Governor Christopher Waller, Speech at Auburn University, April 17, 2026
US Oil Exports and What Americans Pay at the Pump
Author: Phil Wool
“The United States — we produce more oil than we can consume. We’re a net oil exporter.”
—Chris Wright, US Energy Secretary, interviewed by Fox News on March 12th
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics released US inflation statistics for March a couple of weeks back, the CPI showed a 0.9% month-over-month increase: a reading hotter than the 0.3% rise in February and one that puts US prices 3.3% higher year-over-year. Driving the action, unsurprisingly, was a 10.9% monthly rise in energy prices, including a 21.2% increase in gasoline prices in March. In light of claims that US “energy dominance” would insulate America’s economy from a shock to Gulf oil prices—exemplified in US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s quote above—it’s worth unpacking how disruptions to other countries’ oil supply feed back to prices US households pay at the pump.
One of the first potential misconceptions is that there’s a single definition of “energy”—or even “oil”—that America might export and import or produce and consume. When politicians and pundits talk about America’s “net exporter” status, they’re likely referring to a broad category of “crude oil and petroleum products,” and the US did become a net exporter, on that definition, back in 2020. But if we restrict to just the “crude oil” bit, suddenly the US flips to a net importer, bringing in over 6 million barrels per day and shipping out just under 4 million. So, even though the US sits atop the rankings as the greatest producer of crude oil, it still buys plenty from other producers, including those stuck behind an inconvenient blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.
Of course, this distinction raises another question: If the US needs more of the oil it’s drilling, why not just hold onto those barrels as opposed to shipping them abroad? The answer to that question goes back, in large part, to the time before America became such a powerhouse of production. In those days, the US was importing loads of Middle East oil, which happens to be heavy and “sour”—a concise way of saying it has higher sulfur content—versus the less viscous and more highly prized “light sweet” crude characteristic of most US production. As such, most US refineries are built to process foreign oil, not the oil American wells are producing, necessitating all that import–export activity we see in trade statistics for these different grades of crude.
Finally, even if America did incur the massive costs required to overhaul its refineries for processing domestic oil into gasoline, there are two further challenges to really capitalizing on the idea of “energy dominance.” For one thing, while US oil and gas companies do produce more crude oil than any other nation on earth, US businesses and households also consume more oil than anyone else on the planet. For another, regardless of where oil is produced or who’s buying and selling it, the price of that oil is set in the global market, and that is impacted by shocks like the one experienced by Gulf oil suppliers in March. That’s why, when shipping through the Strait of Hormuz ground to a halt a month ago, prices at gas pumps a world away in the US rocketed up, as seen below.
According to reporting by Axios, the 2026 Iran War represents, by at least one measure, the greatest global oil supply disruption on record, with 16% of global supply taken off the market, compared to losses of just 8% share in the case of both Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait back in 1990 and the 1973 oil embargo. Many experts believe we’re only beginning to see the impact of that price hit, and that the effects could be with us for quite some time. The implications of a prolonged shock to energy costs could be severe, affecting not just inflation but also US consumer confidence. In the chart above, we’ve plotted household sentiment tracked by the University of Michigan, which fell in April to the lowest point in the survey’s 74-year history, mirroring the rise in gas prices. Given that consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of US GDP, and with midterm elections just months away, observers on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue will no doubt hope for a quick end to the Middle East conflict that might soon bring prices and sentiment back to a happier place.
Disclosure: This material is for informational purposes only and represents the views of Rayliant Investment Research as of the date of publication, which are subject to change without notice. This material should not be considered investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. Statistical data and other information contained herein have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, Rayliant does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information. An investor should consult with their financial professional before making any investment decisions.
Advisory services offered through Sowell Management, a Registered Investment Advisor. The views expressed represent the opinion of Sowell Management. The views are subject to change and are not intended as a forecast or guarantee of future results. This material is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice and is not intended as an endorsement of any specific investment. Stated information is derived from proprietary and non-proprietary sources that have not been independently verified for accuracy or completeness. While Sowell Management believes the information to be accurate and reliable, we do not claim or have responsibility for its completeness, accuracy, or reliability. Statements of future expectations, estimates, projections, and other forward-looking statements are based on available information and Sowell Management’s view as of the time of these statements. Accordingly, such statements are inherently speculative as they are based on assumptions that may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual results, performance or events may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Investing in securities involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. While equities may offer the potential for greater long-term growth than most debt securities, they generally have higher volatility. International investments may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles, or from economic or political instability in other nations. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
You should receive a confirmation email shortly. Don’t forget to reserve your room through the unique Sowell hotel reservation page. You can extend your stay at the Sowell Summit reduced room rate.
WEEK AHEAD
April 20-24, 2026
Intention Raises All Boats
The financial markets for the week ending April 17, 2026, provided a masterclass in psychological resilience, transforming intense geopolitical trepidation into one of the year's most robust rallies. Following weeks of apprehension, the market’s behavior this week suggests that investors have not only recalibrated their risk tolerance but have aggressively leaned back into a "risk-on" posture, driven by thawing geopolitical tensions and encouraging economic data.
The performance metrics were broad and decisive. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite gained 4.6% and 6.8%, respectively, with the S&P 500 breaching historical resistance levels to establish fresh all-time highs. This optimism extended globally, as the MSCI Emerging Markets index rallied by 3.2%. The catalyst was clear: the tentative intent to pursue a cease-fire and growing optimism about a de-escalation between the U.S. and Iran. This geopolitical relief was perfectly reflected in the energy sector, where WTI Oil closed lower at $85.5 per barrel—a cooling of prices that acts as a classic tailwind for broader equity valuations.
Sector-specific performance was equally telling. The Financials sector gained 3.3%, bolstered by strong earnings season kick-offs from major players such as JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup (NYSE: C), and BlackRock (NYSE: BLK), all of which beat expectations on both the top and bottom lines. Meanwhile, Technology stocks surged 8.2%, driven by momentum in NVIDIA. Notably, NVIDIA’s valuation is now on the cusp of reaching a staggering $5 trillion, underscoring the market's continued appetite for high-growth tech leaders.
Economic data provided the necessary fundamental support for this bullish sentiment. Inflationary pressures appeared to soften, with March U.S. producer prices (PPI) coming in much lower than anticipated; headline PPI grew by only 0.5% month-over-month, well below the 1.2% forecast. However, the data was not uniformly exuberant. Industrial production contracted by 0.5%, missing the 0.2% estimate, and capacity utilization stood at 75.7%, trailing the 76.5% expectation. Yet, the labor market remained an island of strength: initial jobless claims decreased by 11,000 to 207,000, coming in well below the 212,000 that economists had expected.
Despite the surge in risk assets, market participants remain watchful. The CBOE VIX, a key measure of expected market volatility, remained steady at 20, suggesting that while the market is comfortable, it is not yet complacent. Furthermore, safe-haven demand remains present, with Gold closing slightly higher at $4,850 per ounce, acting as a hedge against lingering uncertainty.
Looking toward the week ahead, the focus shifts squarely from macro-narratives to the hard evidence of company-specific earnings. With the market sitting at elevated levels, the coming sessions will test the sustainability of this rally as a heavy slate of bellwether companies reports their first-quarter results. Investors will be keeping a close eye on the technology sector, with high-profile releases from Tesla (TSLA), Lam Research (LRCX), IBM (IBM), and Intel (INTC) expected to provide critical signals on semiconductor demand, enterprise spending, and AI infrastructure growth. Simultaneously, the airline industry will take center stage, with United Airlines (UAL) and Southwest Airlines (LUV) providing a barometer of travel demand and cost management in the current environment. Additionally, American Express (AXP) will offer further insight into consumer credit health, rounding out a week that will likely dictate the market's trajectory through the remainder of April.
US Oil Exports and What Americans Pay at the Pump
Author: Phil Wool
“The United States — we produce more oil than we can consume. We’re a net oil exporter.”
—Chris Wright, US Energy Secretary, interviewed by Fox News on March 12th
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics released US inflation statistics for March a couple of weeks back, the CPI showed a 0.9% month-over-month increase: a reading hotter than the 0.3% rise in February and one that puts US prices 3.3% higher year-over-year. Driving the action, unsurprisingly, was a 10.9% monthly rise in energy prices, including a 21.2% increase in gasoline prices in March. In light of claims that US “energy dominance” would insulate America’s economy from a shock to Gulf oil prices—exemplified in US Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s quote above—it’s worth unpacking how disruptions to other countries’ oil supply feed back to prices US households pay at the pump.
One of the first potential misconceptions is that there’s a single definition of “energy”—or even “oil”—that America might export and import or produce and consume. When politicians and pundits talk about America’s “net exporter” status, they’re likely referring to a broad category of “crude oil and petroleum products,” and the US did become a net exporter, on that definition, back in 2020. But if we restrict to just the “crude oil” bit, suddenly the US flips to a net importer, bringing in over 6 million barrels per day and shipping out just under 4 million. So, even though the US sits atop the rankings as the greatest producer of crude oil, it still buys plenty from other producers, including those stuck behind an inconvenient blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.
Of course, this distinction raises another question: If the US needs more of the oil it’s drilling, why not just hold onto those barrels as opposed to shipping them abroad? The answer to that question goes back, in large part, to the time before America became such a powerhouse of production. In those days, the US was importing loads of Middle East oil, which happens to be heavy and “sour”—a concise way of saying it has higher sulfur content—versus the less viscous and more highly prized “light sweet” crude characteristic of most US production. As such, most US refineries are built to process foreign oil, not the oil American wells are producing, necessitating all that import–export activity we see in trade statistics for these different grades of crude.
Finally, even if America did incur the massive costs required to overhaul its refineries for processing domestic oil into gasoline, there are two further challenges to really capitalizing on the idea of “energy dominance.” For one thing, while US oil and gas companies do produce more crude oil than any other nation on earth, US businesses and households also consume more oil than anyone else on the planet. For another, regardless of where oil is produced or who’s buying and selling it, the price of that oil is set in the global market, and that is impacted by shocks like the one experienced by Gulf oil suppliers in March. That’s why, when shipping through the Strait of Hormuz ground to a halt a month ago, prices at gas pumps a world away in the US rocketed up, as seen below.
According to reporting by Axios, the 2026 Iran War represents, by at least one measure, the greatest global oil supply disruption on record, with 16% of global supply taken off the market, compared to losses of just 8% share in the case of both Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait back in 1990 and the 1973 oil embargo. Many experts believe we’re only beginning to see the impact of that price hit, and that the effects could be with us for quite some time. The implications of a prolonged shock to energy costs could be severe, affecting not just inflation but also US consumer confidence. In the chart above, we’ve plotted household sentiment tracked by the University of Michigan, which fell in April to the lowest point in the survey’s 74-year history, mirroring the rise in gas prices. Given that consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of US GDP, and with midterm elections just months away, observers on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue will no doubt hope for a quick end to the Middle East conflict that might soon bring prices and sentiment back to a happier place.
Disclosure: This material is for informational purposes only and represents the views of Rayliant Investment Research as of the date of publication, which are subject to change without notice. This material should not be considered investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or asset class. Statistical data and other information contained herein have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, Rayliant does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information. An investor should consult with their financial professional before making any investment decisions.
Advisory services offered through Sowell Management, a Registered Investment Advisor. The views expressed represent the opinion of Sowell Management. The views are subject to change and are not intended as a forecast or guarantee of future results. This material is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice and is not intended as an endorsement of any specific investment. Stated information is derived from proprietary and non-proprietary sources that have not been independently verified for accuracy or completeness. While Sowell Management believes the information to be accurate and reliable, we do not claim or have responsibility for its completeness, accuracy, or reliability. Statements of future expectations, estimates, projections, and other forward-looking statements are based on available information and Sowell Management’s view as of the time of these statements. Accordingly, such statements are inherently speculative as they are based on assumptions that may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. Actual results, performance or events may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Investing in securities involves risks, including the potential loss of principal. While equities may offer the potential for greater long-term growth than most debt securities, they generally have higher volatility. International investments may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles, or from economic or political instability in other nations. Past performance is not indicative of future results.