Quarter in brief
| APR | S&P 500 gains 10.4%. Euro Stoxx barely moves, up 0.2%. Gold slips 1.5%. Fenyx Capital gains 3.4%. |
| MAY | Euro Stoxx catches up sharply, up 8.4%. S&P 500 adds a further 5.1%. Gold declines 1.9%. Fenyx Capital gains 0.9% |
| JUN | Gold falls 11.7% in its steepest monthly decline of the year. Equities hold most of their gains. Fenyx Capital declines 2.9%. |
| S&P 500 | Euro Stoxx | 10-Y Treasury | Euro Bund | Gold | Fenyx Capital |
| +14.9% | +13.6% | -1.0% | +1.6% | -14.7% | +1.3% |
Executive summary
A quarter that began with the Iran conflict unresolved, as the first-quarter review left it, ended with equity markets at or near their pre-war levels, and with gold trading below where it started the year. The de-escalation that markets had been waiting for since March arrived in stages rather than at once, and each stage was priced with the same speed and conviction that had characterised the flight to safety three months earlier. U.S. equities gained 14.9% over the quarter, recovering the full March drawdown and then some. European equities gained 13.6%, closing much of the performance gap that had opened during the worst of the crisis. Gold, the asset that had done more than any other to signal the coming shock and then more than any other to cushion it, gave back 14.7%, erasing its entire first-quarter gain and leaving it modestly negative for the year to date. Fenyx Capital finished the quarter up 1.3%. Set against equity market gains in the mid-teens, that gap is the story. It requires the same honesty this firm applied to March’s drawdown: the multi-asset architecture that limited the damage of the crisis also limited participation in the recovery that followed it.
That asymmetry, and what it implies about how a diversified, leveraged portfolio behaves across the full arc of a shock and its unwind, is the subject of this review.
The unwind
Diplomatic contacts between the parties to the Iran conflict resumed in early April, and by the second half of the month a ceasefire framework, partial and contested but functionally holding, was in place. The Strait of Hormuz reopened to normal shipping traffic within weeks. Brent crude retraced most of its March spike by the end of May. None of this resolved the underlying tensions that had produced the conflict in the first place, but markets do not require resolution to reprice. They require a reduction in the probability of the worst outcome, and that reduction arrived quickly.
The equity response split into two distinct phases across the two regions. U.S. equities moved first and fastest: the S&P 500 gained 10.4% in April alone, a single-month recovery of almost the same magnitude as the full quarterly loss suffered in March. European equities, by contrast, were nearly flat in April, up just 0.2%, before the rally arrived a month later. Euro Stoxx gained 8.4% in May and a further 4.6% in June, a delayed but ultimately comparable recovery. The lag reflects the asymmetry documented in the first-quarter review: European markets, more exposed to the energy dimension of the conflict, needed confirmation that the Strait of Hormuz reopening was durable before repricing with conviction. American investors, insulated by domestic energy production, moved on the ceasefire announcement itself.
By the end of June, the quarterly gap between the two regions had narrowed to 1.3 percentage points, essentially the mirror image of the gap that had opened in March. Markets that fell together in the crisis recovered together in its aftermath, on a slight lag, and largely for the same reason: both indices were repricing the same underlying variable, the probability of continued Gulf disruption, from a similarly elevated starting point.
Gold’s retreat completes
Gold’s behaviour deserves separate treatment, because its second-quarter decline was not simply a continuation of March’s reversal. It was a distinct move, and a larger one. Having fallen 11.0% in March as leveraged positions across the financial system required liquidation, gold fell a further 14.7% in the second quarter, with June alone accounting for an 11.7% decline, its sharpest single month of the year in either direction.
The mechanism this time was different from March’s forced selling. By June, the Strait of Hormuz was functioning normally, oil prices had retraced most of their spike, and the geopolitical risk premium that had underpinned gold’s January-February surge to over $5,000 per ounce was being systematically unwound. Central bank buying, cited throughout the first quarter as structural support, did not disappear, but it was no longer sufficient to offset the unwinding of the tactical, crisis-driven positioning that had accumulated during the conflict’s most acute phase. Gold behaved, in the second quarter, less like an asset losing its safe-haven premium and more like an asset losing the premium attached to a specific, now-receding scenario.
The cumulative effect is worth stating plainly. Gold entered 2026 at a given level, rose 23.1% across January and February, fell 11.0% in March, and has now fallen a further 14.7% across the second quarter. Compounding those moves, gold finished the first half of the year modestly below where it started. An asset that delivered the single most dramatic directional signal of the entire war, in both directions, has round-tripped to roughly flat. This is not evidence that gold’s role in a diversified portfolio was mistaken. It is evidence that the premium gold earned for correctly anticipating a specific geopolitical outcome was always going to be returned once that outcome resolved, and that investors who treated the February highwater mark as a new baseline were extrapolating a crisis premium as if it were a structural re-rating.
Bonds diverge
Sovereign bonds moved in opposite directions across the Atlantic, a reversal of the synchronised selloff that characterised March. U.S. 10-Year Notes declined 1.0% for the quarter as yields drifted higher, reflecting a Federal Reserve still constrained by inflation expectations that had not fully normalised even as the acute geopolitical driver faded. German Bunds gained 1.6%, as the European Central Bank, facing a faster disinflationary path once energy costs retreated, found more room to signal continued accommodation.
This divergence is the bond market’s version of the same story playing out in equities and gold: the conflict’s resolution did not return every asset class to its pre-war state. It returned each asset class to a state shaped by the structural differences the conflict exposed, chiefly the contrast between U.S. energy self-sufficiency and European energy dependency. The Federal Reserve’s caution and the European Central Bank’s greater latitude are not new developments. They are the persistence, into the recovery phase, of exactly the asymmetry the first-quarter review identified during the crisis itself.
Fenyx Capital in the recovery
Fenyx Capital’s second-quarter result of 1.3% requires the same analytical treatment as March’s drawdown, not a softer one. The strategy’s monthly pattern tells the story clearly. April’s 3.4% gain captured a meaningful share of the equity rally, aided by the fact that leverage, though reduced from its pre-crisis level under the VaR framework’s mechanical response to March’s volatility spike, had not yet been cut to its floor. May’s 0.9% gain was more muted, as gold’s continued softness began to offset the ongoing equity recovery. June’s 2.9% decline reflects a straightforward arithmetic reality: gold’s 11.7% collapse that month overwhelmed the contribution from equities and bonds, even with those components performing well.
Set against benchmark equity returns in the mid-teens, this is a quarter of significant relative underperformance, and it should be described as such rather than qualified away. Two structural features of the strategy explain most of the gap. First, the VaR framework, calibrated to reduce leverage as volatility rises and restore it as volatility normalises, is backward-looking by design. It reduced the strategy’s overall risk exposure in the aftermath of March’s shock, which meant the portfolio entered April’s rally with less leverage than it had carried into the crisis, dampening participation in the recovery’s fastest phase. Second, and more directly, gold’s weight in the basket, a source of protection during the acute phase of the conflict, became a direct drag once the crisis premium began to unwind.
Taken together with the first-quarter result of negative 1.4%, Fenyx Capital’s return for the first half of 2026 stands at approximately flat. Over the same six months, the S&P 500 gained roughly 9.6% and Euro Stoxx roughly 9.3%, while gold declined roughly 7.1%. The strategy avoided the full magnitude of both the equity drawdown and the equity rally, and avoided both the gold spike and the gold collapse. This is diversification behaving consistently with its structural logic: dampening the tails in both directions. What it does not do, and this is where the thesis becomes less comfortable to state during a quarter when equity benchmarks are the story every allocator is discussing, is capture the full upside of a V-shaped recovery in the asset classes that lead it.
What the recovery reveals about portfolio construction
The first-quarter review introduced the concept of correlation collapse: the tendency of diversification benefits to disappear precisely when they are most needed, as they did briefly in March. The second quarter surfaces the less-discussed corollary. A risk management framework built to protect capital during acute stress will, by construction, also constrain participation when that stress resolves quickly. The VaR discipline that kept Fenyx Capital’s March drawdown to 8.4% against a much sharper break in individual asset classes is the same discipline that limited the strategy’s capture of April’s rebound. These are not two separate features of the strategy. They are one feature, observed from two different points in the cycle.
That framing invites an obvious objection, and it deserves to be answered rather than assumed away. The lag between falling realised volatility and restored leverage is not a law of physics. It is a parameter the firm chose, and a framework calibrated to reduce that lag would have restored risk faster in April, capturing more of the rebound without necessarily carrying more risk than the portfolio held going into March. On this reading, April’s underperformance was not the unavoidable price of protection. It was a specific, addressable design choice that happened to cost the strategy in this instance. The objection has real force, and a faster-responding framework is not difficult to construct on paper.
It is harder to defend in the specific conditions of April. The ceasefire reached in the second half of the month was, by this review’s own account, partial and contested rather than settled, and the same uncertainty that made European equities wait until May to reprice with conviction was present in the volatility data the VaR framework was reading. A framework that restores leverage on the first signs of falling realised volatility is a framework that re-levers into exactly the kind of provisional peace that has broken down before, in this conflict and others. The lag cost the strategy in April because the ceasefire held. It would have cost the strategy considerably more in a scenario where it did not, and that scenario was not a remote one at the time the capital was allocated. A framework tuned for speed in this instance is a framework tuned for exposure in the instance where the ceasefire collapses, and the second scenario is the one the VaR discipline exists to manage.
Whether this trade-off was, in retrospect, well-priced for the first half of 2026 depends on a question this review cannot yet answer: whether the Iran ceasefire holds through the second half of the year, or whether the risk premium that gold spent the second quarter unwinding proves to have been unwound too completely, too soon. A strategy that dampens both the crisis and the recovery is, by design, making a wager on the ratio of crises to recoveries the portfolio will encounter over a full cycle, not a wager on any single one. The first half of 2026 delivered one severe crisis and one sharp recovery in close succession, a sequence that tests the strategy’s design assumptions more directly than a calmer period would. The result of that test, on the evidence of two quarters, is a portfolio that gave back less than the market fell and gained less than the market recovered, and a firm that owes its clients an honest account of which side of that trade-off dominated. For the first half of 2026, on net, it was close to a wash.
The road ahead
The ceasefire in Iran remains provisional, and the structural drivers of gold’s earlier ascent, persistent inflation, central bank demand, and sovereign currency uncertainty, have not disappeared merely because the crisis premium has. The question for the second half of the year is not whether diversification and disciplined leverage remain sound principles for a long-horizon portfolio. It is whether an investor evaluating six months of results in isolation can distinguish a strategy that performed as designed from one that underperformed by mistake. Those are different conclusions, and only the full cycle, not any single half, will make clear which one applies here.
Contact us for a more detailed financial report of our futures strategy.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Investors should conduct their own due diligence or consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
Photo by Red Zeppelin on Unsplash.
