Market news & insights
Stay ahead of the markets with expert insights, news, and technical analysis to guide your trading decisions.
April's US earnings season is landing in a market that wants more than a good story. JPMorgan has already set a high bar with a strong result, and attention is now shifting to the engine room of the S&P 500: AI infrastructure where three companies are at the centre of that story.
Why this earnings window matters for AI
Microsoft, Alphabet and NVIDIA are not just participants in the AI cycle, they are building the physical and software architecture that other companies depend on: the chips, the cloud regions, the models and the tools. If this spending is going to deliver returns, the first signs may start to show in their quarterly results over the next few weeks.
Each company represents a different test.
- Microsoft: Whether enterprise AI adoption is translating into revenue and margin expansion
- Alphabet: Whether owning the full stack, from chips to cloud to distribution, is a durable advantage or simply an expensive position to defend
- NVIDIA: Whether the hardware cycle is still holding, accelerating or starting to level out
In 2026, the question is no longer whether AI investment is happening, the capital commitments are substantial and already publicly stated. The question is whether that spending is generating returns quickly enough to justify the scale of those bets.
.jpeg)
April’s US earnings season is landing in a market that wants more than a good story. As GO Markets highlighted in its recent defence earnings watchlist, this reporting period is arriving after a broader shift in what markets care about. It is no longer just about growth at any cost. Traders want to know what the numbers are saying beneath the surface.
Why these 3 names matter
In this part of the market, that brings Tesla, NextEra Energy and Exxon Mobil into focus. Each offers a different read on a key 2026 theme: autonomy, electricity demand and oil supply risk.
- Tesla: Is being judged on whether autonomy and energy can support the next stage of growth
- NextEra: Offers a window into rising power demand and the infrastructure needed to meet it
- Exxon Mobil: Sits at the centre of the oil and energy security story as supply risks stay in focus
Taken together, these three names help explain where attention may be shifting. The question is no longer just who has the strongest narrative, rather, who can show real demand, firmer margins and execution that holds up in a more complicated backdrop.
In 2026, AI power demand is pushing utilities, storage and grid capacity into sharper focus while at the same time, oil supply risk has brought energy security back into the market conversation.
The 8 April ceasefire announcement and parallel discussions around a 45-day truce have not resolved the Strait of Hormuz disruption. They have, for now, capped the worst-case scenario, but tanker traffic remains at a fraction of normal levels and Iran's demand for transit fees signals a structural shift, not a temporary one.
What began as a regional conflict has become a global energy shock, and the question for markets is no longer whether Hormuz was disrupted, but how permanently the disruption changes the pricing floor for oil.
Key takeaways
- Around 20 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and petroleum products normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman, equal to about one-fifth of global oil consumption and roughly 30% of global seaborne oil trade.
- This is a flow shock, not an inventory problem. Oil markets depend on continuous throughput, not static storage.
- If the disruption persists beyond a few weeks, Brent could shift from a short-term spike to a broader price shock, with stagflation risk.
- Tanker traffic through the strait fell from around 135 ships per day to fewer than 15 at the peak of disruption, a reduction of approximately 85%, with more than 150 vessels anchored, diverted, or delayed.
- A two-week ceasefire was announced on 8 April, with 45-day truce negotiations under way. Iran has separately signalled a demand for transit fees on vessels using the strait, which, if formalised, would represent a permanent geopolitical floor on energy costs.
- Markets have begun rotating away from growth and technology exposure toward energy and defence names, reflecting a view that elevated oil is becoming a structural cost rather than a temporary risk premium.
The world’s most critical oil chokepoint
The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products, equal to about 20% of global oil consumption and around 30% of global seaborne oil trade. With global oil demand near 104 million bpd and spare capacity limited, the market was already tightly balanced before the latest escalation.
The strait is also a critical corridor for liquefied natural gas. Around 290 million cubic metres of LNG transited the route each day on average in 2024, representing roughly 20% of global LNG trade, with Asian markets the main destination.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has described Hormuz as the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint, noting that even partial interruptions may trigger outsized price moves. Brent crude has moved above US$100 a barrel, reflecting both physical tightness and a rising geopolitical risk premium.
Tankers idle as flows slow
Shipping and insurance data now point to strain in real time. More than 85 large crude carriers are reported to be stranded in the Persian Gulf, while more than 150 vessels have been anchored, diverted or delayed as operators reassess safety and insurance cover. That would leave an estimated 120 million to 150 million barrels of crude sitting idle at sea.
Those volumes represent only six to seven days of normal Hormuz throughput, or a little more than one day of global oil consumption.
Updated shipping and insurance data now confirm more than 150 vessels have been anchored, diverted, or delayed, up from the 85 initially reported. The 1.3 days of global consumption coverage from idle crude remains the binding constraint: this is a flow shock, not a storage problem, and the ceasefire has not yet translated into meaningfully restored throughput.
A market built on flow, not storage
Oil markets function on continuous movement. Refineries, petrochemical plants and global supply chains are calibrated to steady deliveries along predictable sea lanes. When flows through a chokepoint that carries roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption and around 30% of global seaborne oil trade are interrupted, the system can move from equilibrium to deficit within days.
Spare production capacity, largely concentrated within OPEC, is estimated at only 3 million to 5 million bpd. That falls well short of the volumes at risk if Hormuz flows are severely disrupted.
Oil market analysis
How long do idle tankers last?
135M idle barrels — days of cover against each demand benchmark
vs. Strait of Hormuz daily flow (20M bbl/day)
vs. Global oil consumption (104M bbl/day)
vs. US Strategic Petroleum Reserve release (1M bbl/day)
135M
idle barrels on tankers (midpoint of 120–150M range)
~33%
of daily Hormuz flow that is idle storage, not transit
<31 hrs
is all idle storage against global daily consumption
Inflation risks and macro spillovers
The inflationary impact of an oil shock typically arrives in waves. Higher fuel and energy prices may lift headline inflation quickly as petrol, diesel and power costs move higher.
Over time, higher energy costs may pass through freight, food, manufacturing and services. If the disruption persists, the combination of elevated inflation and slower growth could raise the risk of a stagflationary environment and leave central banks facing a difficult trade-off.
No easy offset, a system with little slack
What makes the current episode particularly acute is the lack of slack in the global system.
Global supply and demand near 103 million to 104 million bpd leave little spare cushion when a chokepoint handling nearly 20 million bpd, or about one-fifth of global oil consumption, is compromised. Estimated spare capacity of 3 million to 5 million bpd, mostly within OPEC, would cover only a fraction of the volumes at risk.
Alternative routes, including pipelines that bypass Hormuz and rerouted shipping, can only partly offset lost flows, and usually at higher cost and with longer lead times.
Bottom line
Until transit through the Strait of Hormuz is restored and seen as credibly secure, global oil flows are likely to remain impaired and risk premia elevated. For investors, policymakers and corporate decision-makers, the core question is whether oil can move where it needs to go, every day, without interruption.
A headline about a civilisation "dying tonight" is built to overwhelm, but the more telling signal may be the calm underneath it, because markets are starting to treat this cycle of sharp escalation followed by sudden de-escalation as a pattern, not a surprise.
In macro circles, that pattern has a blunt label: TACO, or "Trump Always Chickens Out". The phrase is loaded, but the logic is simple. A maximum-pressure threat hits, risk assets wobble, then a pause, delay or softer outcome appears once the economic cost starts to bite.
That does not mean the risk is small. It may just mean investors have grown used to a script where rhetoric flares, markets absorb the shock, and restraint shows up before the worst-case scenario fully lands.
The path ahead
The current convergence of geopolitical tension and historical positioning extremes has created a unique "coiled spring" environment for global markets. While the TACO framework suggests a pattern of sharp escalation followed by strategic pauses, the real test for traders over the next 60 days will be the transition from headline-driven volatility to structural market rotation.
Whether the positioning gap closes through a gentle de-escalation or a violent short squeeze, having a defined reaction framework can help traders navigate the noise.
So here is the thing: April’s US earnings season is arriving in a market that still feels anything but normal. As GO Markets explains in The global US earnings playbook: The essential guide for traders, this reporting period is landing after a real shift in what markets care about. It is no longer just about chasing growth at any cost. It is about what the numbers are saying beneath the surface.
And in 2026, those signals are colliding with a high-friction backdrop:
- Geopolitical conflict: Ongoing tension in the Middle East
- Oil supply shock: Brent crude above US$100
- The Fed: A central bank still boxed in by sticky inflation
The durability pivot
Yes, AI is still the market’s main story but it's still the flashy engine getting most of the attention. But underneath that, there is a quieter move towards companies that look built to hold up better when conditions get harder.
When rates are uncertain and energy markets are under pressure, names like JPMorgan Chase and the major defence contractors start to carry more weight. They are not replacing the AI narrative, rather, they are becoming part of the way traders read risk appetite, earnings durability and, ultimately, where the market is looking for something more solid to hold on to.
If you have been watching markets over the past year, you will have noticed that the "growth at any cost" era has effectively hit a wall. The April 2026 earnings cycle arrives at a moment when the market's focus has undergone a structural reorientation. It is not just about profit and loss statements anymore. It is about the signals sitting behind them.
With interest rate uncertainty lingering and geopolitical shocks pushing oil above US$100, the playbook has shifted from AI hype toward institutional resilience and the industrialisation of compute. For traders in Australia, Asia and Latin America, these results may act as a mood ring for global risk appetite and the emerging security supercycle.
Why BMO and AMC matter
A BMO result hits before the US cash market opens, so price discovery happens in pre-market trading where liquidity is thinner and moves can be exaggerated. An AMC result hits after close, meaning the reaction is compressed into a short pre-market window the following morning. Understanding which window your company reports in is as important as understanding what it reports.
It's worth asking: Is the obvious trade already priced for perfection?
2026 is shaping up as a year of proof. Companies that spent heavily on AI over the past two years are now being asked to show the return. The market is no longer rewarding the announcement of AI investment. It is rewarding the evidence of AI-driven revenue outcomes.
A better framing question for each result is this: are you reacting to a headline, or are you assessing the company's role in the physical AI supply chain or as a potential volatility hedge? Those are very different analytical tasks, and they tend to produce very different positioning decisions.
Start with what actually happened to FX markets in the lead-up to April: there was a geopolitical shock and oil supply out of the Middle East came under pressure. The immediate reaction across currency markets was the one traders have seen before: money moved toward safety, toward yield, and away from anything that looked exposed to the disruption.
Safe-haven flows meet yield divergence
The US dollar benefited from both of those forces at once. It is a safe haven and it also carries a yield advantage that most of its peers cannot match right now. The Swiss franc picked up some of the overflow from European risk aversion. The yen, which used to attract safe-haven flows almost automatically, is stuck in a different situation altogether where the yield gap against the dollar is now so wide that safe-haven logic has been overridden by carry logic.
The currencies that had the toughest month were the ones caught in the middle: risk-sensitive, commodity-linked, or running policy rates that simply cannot compete. The New Zealand dollar is the clearest example while the Australian dollar is a messier story. Sitting underneath all of it is a repricing of 2026 rate cut expectations that central banks in multiple countries are now reassessing.
Strongest mover: US dollar (USD)
The US dollar spent most of 2025 gradually losing ground as the Fed cut rates and the rest of the world played catch-up. That story stalled hard in late March. The Iran conflict changed the calculus, and the dollar reasserted itself in a way that reflects something real about its structural position in global markets.
The US exports oil and when energy prices rise, that is a terms-of-trade improvement, not a terms-of-trade shock. Most of the dollar's major peers sit on the other side of that equation. Add a policy rate range of 3.50% to 3.75% that now looks locked in for longer, and the dollar's advantage is both cyclical and structural at the same time. The US Dollar Index (DXY) has regained the 100 level but tThe question heading into April is whether it holds there or pushes further.
Weakest mover: New Zealand dollar (NZD)
If you wanted to design a currency that would struggle in the current environment, the NZD fits the brief almost perfectly. It is risk-sensitive. It is commodity-linked. It runs a policy rate of 2.25%, which sits below the Fed and now below the RBA as well. New Zealand is also an energy importer, so rising oil prices hit the trade balance and the domestic inflation outlook at the same time.
None of those things are new but the combination of all of them hitting at once, against a backdrop of a surging dollar and broad risk-off sentiment, has compressed the NZD in a way that is hard to ignore. The carry trade that once made NZD attractive has reversed as capital has been moving out, not in.
USD/JPY
USD/JPY is the pair that most clearly illustrates what happens when a currency's safe-haven status gets overridden by carry logic. The yen used to be the first port of call for traders looking for protection during geopolitical stress. That dynamic has been suppressed, and the reason is straightforward: you give up too much yield to hold yen right now.
The Bank of Japan (BOJ) policy rate sits at 0.75% while the Fed's sits at 3.50% to 3.75% and that gap does not encourage safe-haven flows. It encourages borrowing in yen and deploying elsewhere. So while the dollar rose on geopolitical risk, the yen fell on the same event. That is not how it is supposed to work, but it is how the maths works out when yield differentials are this wide.
USD/JPY is sitting near 159, which leaves it not far from the 160 level that Japan's Ministry of Finance has consistently flagged as a line requiring attention. The BOJ meeting on 27 and 28 April is now a genuinely live event.
Data to watch next
Four events stand out as the clearest potential FX catalysts in the weeks ahead. Each has a direct transmission channel into rate expectations, and rate expectations are driving much of the move in FX right now.
Key levels and signals
These are the reference points that traders and policymakers are watching most closely. Each one represents a potential trigger for a shift in positioning or an official response.