Markets Focus on Fundamentals as War Fails to Derail Rally

Lead paragraph

Global markets have continued to exhibit resilience despite headline geopolitical tensions, with strategists reiterating that fundamentals — earnings, liquidity and monetary policy — will determine returns over the next 12–24 months (MarketWatch, Mar 26, 2026). Equity indices showed a positive trajectory into late March 2026, with broad-market benchmarks up in the high single digits year-to-date while energy prices also climbed, pushing Brent crude roughly 14% higher in Q1 2026 (IEA, March 2026). Prior episodes of geopolitical shock followed by relatively rapid market recoveries suggest investors who focus on cash flows and valuations tend to fare better than those chasing headlines. This article dissects the data underpinning that view, examines sector-level winners and losers, evaluates tail risks and concludes with a contrarian Fazen Capital perspective on positioning. For additional macro and sector analysis see our insights hub insights.

Context

Financial markets in early 2026 have been operating under a dual narrative: elevated geopolitical risk and a resumption of underlying economic momentum. The MarketWatch piece published on March 26, 2026 captured a recurring theme from several sell-side strategists — the short-term volatility driven by conflict and energy-supply worries is important but insufficient to overturn multi-quarter trends in corporate profits, household balance sheets and central-bank posture. Historically, equity markets have recovered from geopolitical shocks within months when corporate earnings and liquidity conditions remained intact; by contrast, sustained recessions tend to follow financial dislocations or monetary-policy shocks, not exclusively geopolitical events.

Quantitatively, the current macro backdrop is mixed but not uniformly weak. US headline consumer price inflation sat near 3.2% year-on-year in February 2026 and core inflation has eased versus mid-2024 peaks (BLS, Feb 2026). The labor market, while cooling, has not entered outright contraction: national unemployment remained near 4.1% in February 2026, still below historical peaks seen in prior recessions (BLS). Those datapoints suggest central banks retain optionality: policy may be restrictive relative to 2021–22 but is not on a clearly disinflationary glide path that guarantees rate cuts in 2026.

Investors should also consider liquidity metrics and flows. Mutual fund and ETF flows into equities were positive during the first quarter of 2026, while fixed-income inflows fluctuated with rate expectations; repo and interbank spreads have not signaled acute stress as of late March 2026 (Federal Reserve, March 2026). That combination — ongoing earnings revisions, steady liquidity and a not-yet-dislocated credit market — is the empirical foundation for the argument that fundamentals will ultimately dominate price discovery, even when headlines create episodic repricing.

Data Deep Dive

Earnings revisions and profit margins remain the most direct link between macro developments and equity valuations. As of late March 2026, consensus 12-month forward earnings-per-share (EPS) estimates for the S&P 500 had been revised modestly upward over the previous quarter, with the trailing twelve-month corporate earnings growth rate near mid-single digits (Refinitiv IBES, Mar 2026). These revisions are heterogeneous by sector: materials and energy saw upward EPS revisions tied to higher commodity prices, while some consumer discretionary and industrial subsectors experienced downward revisions where input-cost pressure and order-book softness emerged.

On inflation and rates, term-structure signals have implications for equity multiple expansion or contraction. The 2s10s Treasury spread moved through periods of flattening in Q1 2026; on March 24, 2026 the curve was approximately 10–20 basis points flatter than at the start of the year (Federal Reserve data). Short-term rate expectations embedded in Fed funds futures implied a lower probability of aggressive tightening compared with the peak hawkishness of 2023–24, but pricing still reflected a premium for persistence of inflation above 2%.

Commodity flows and energy balances are another measurable channel. The IEA's March 2026 monthly report noted that Brent averaged roughly $86–88/bbl in Q1 2026, up about 14% versus Q4 2025, driven by supply-side disruptions and inventory draws in OECD nations (IEA, Mar 2026). Higher energy prices have a two-fold effect: they support cash flows for upstream producers (positive earnings revisions) while posing margin risks for energy-intensive manufacturers and transport sectors. The net macro effect depends on the consumer's ability to absorb fuel-cost increases without materially curbing spending.

Sector Implications

Energy and materials were the most direct beneficiaries of the early-2026 energy price shock. Integrated oil majors and select E&Ps reported margin improvements that translated into upward revisions to free cash flow forecasts; capital return programs in that cohort increased, with several companies announcing higher dividends or buyback tranches in Q1 2026 (company filings, Q1 2026). By contrast, consumer staples and utilities — traditional defensive sectors — outperformed on a risk-adjusted basis in volatile stretches, but their forward earnings growth remains notably lower than cyclicals on a year-over-year basis.

Financials present a mixed picture: net interest margins expanded modestly through Q1 2026 as deposit repricing lagged loan-rate increases, but credit-impairment provisions ticked higher in specific subsegments such as commercial real estate and leveraged lending. Banks with diversified fee businesses and robust capital ratios outperformed regional peers that have concentrated exposures, a dynamic visible in relative returns versus the KBW Regional Banking Index (Q1 2026 performance data).

Technology and growth names continue to trade on a bifurcation of revenue growth and margin leverage. Large-cap software and cloud providers showing steady ARR growth and strong retention metrics outpaced high-multiple loss-making growth companies where customer acquisition costs are rising. This highlights a broader investor preference for earnings quality and free-cash-flow generation over top-line growth at any price — consistent with the broader thesis that fundamentals trump headlines over multi-quarter horizons.

Risk Assessment

Geopolitical escalation remains the principal risk that could translate headlines into a sustained economic shock. A prolonged disruption to energy supply chains, further sanctions, or the broadening of conflict could materially alter commodity-price trajectories and introduce real-economy second-round effects. In a stress scenario where oil sustained $100+/bbl for several quarters, consumer real disposable income could contract meaningfully, with attendant hits to discretionary spending and corporate margins.

Monetary policy error is a second-order risk. If central banks were to tighten further in response to persistent inflation impulses while growth simultaneously weakens, the combination could produce a sharper-than-expected slowdown in corporate profits and asset-price repricing. Yield-curve inversion or a material widening in corporate spreads would be the early market signals of such an outcome. Conversely, premature easing in the face of sticky inflation could undermine real returns for fixed-income investors and spur asset-price volatility.

Liquidity shocks and credit dislocations remain less probable today but are non-trivial tail risks. Market microstructure — such as concentrated ETF flows, lower dealer inventories, or a sudden unwind of levered positions — can amplify a headline-driven move into a broader market correction. Historical precedents (e.g., 2008, March 2020) illustrate how quickly sentiment can shift when funding conditions deteriorate; monitoring repo rates, margin-debt levels and corporate CDS spreads provides actionable early-warning signals.

Fazen Capital Perspective

Our read is contrarian to the binary narrative that markets are either entirely driven by geopolitics or entirely immune to it. We argue the data supports a layered approach: treat headline risk as a volatility input, not an investment thesis, while tilting portfolios to companies with durable cash flows, repeatable margins and balance-sheet flexibility. Specifically, we would highlight companies with >50% recurring revenue, net cash balance sheets and return-on-capital metrics above industry medians as more likely to withstand headline shocks and capture the recovery when fundamentals reassert themselves.

We also view multiple compression risk as underappreciated in certain speculative pockets of the market. Where forward EPS growth does not justify current multiples, headline volatility can be the catalyst for a re-rating. Conversely, sectors where earnings have risen and valuations remain within historical norms — energy producers on normalized cycle-adjusted cash flow metrics, for example — may provide opportunities to harvest cash flow while maintaining exposure to a potential rebound. For additional thematic perspectives and model output, see our research insights.

Finally, the probability-weighted approach matters: allocate for the most likely macro outcomes (soft-landing or mild slowdown) while using option-like positions (e.g., liquid hedges, staggered duration) to protect against low-probability but high-impact scenarios. That trade-off between protection and opportunity is the practical application of the thesis that fundamentals win in the long game, even when short-term volatility spikes.

FAQs

Q: If geopolitical risk spikes again, how quickly can earnings revisions reverse? A: Earnings revisions historically respond within 1–3 quarters to sustained macro shifts. Short-lived spikes in commodity prices or risk premia often produce sector-specific revisions (energy up, transportation down) while broad-based downward revisions typically require demand-side deterioration or credit tightening that persists beyond a single quarter.

Q: Are valuations currently supportive relative to historical norms? A: As of late March 2026, aggregate market valuations (forward P/E) for the S&P 500 remained roughly in the mid-to-high teens, below the peak multiples seen in 2021–22 but above long-run troughs from recessionary periods. Valuation dispersion is wide: select large-cap defensives trade at premium multiples while some cyclical and energy names trade at discounts to historical averages.

Q: What practical steps can institutional investors take to convert the fundamentals view into positioning? A: Institutions should prioritize earnings quality and balance-sheet resilience, use duration and credit hedges to manage macro risk, and maintain tactical liquidity to deploy into drawdowns. Consider cross-asset hedges that reflect correlated risk (e.g., FX and commodity exposure for multinational revenue streams) and stress-test portfolios across multiple geopolitical and macro scenarios.

Bottom Line

Headline shocks will continue to cause episodic volatility, but current macro data — earnings trends, liquidity metrics and labor-market strength — support a fundamentals-first investment framework for the medium term. Allocate to earnings quality and balance-sheet resilience while maintaining tactical protections for low-probability, high-impact geopolitical scenarios.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.