A preface to the newsletter: Happy Father's Day to all of the dads out there!
In this week's newsletter I cover Kevin Warsh's hawkish Fed debut, the Iran peace framework and how it affects U.S. geopolitics, and I go into detail on the financial impact of the Iran deal for American investors. In this week's Longevity Science Foundation spotlight, I review an article by Maria Corlianò, PhD & Denise Rebello, PhD separating the hype from the science of filtration methods for clean drinking water.
Lastly, on a more personal note relating to my financial planning practice - my wife and I are expecting our first child in September. There are many benefits to running my own practice except that I cannot take a prolonged leave of absence, so instead I will be scaling back my hours for the first couple of months until we get settled into a routine. My current clients are always my top professional priority, therefore I will be pausing taking on any new clients after August 1st in order to manage my workload once the baby arrives. If you, or anyone you know, are considering inquiring about becoming a client of mine, then please reach out before the August 1st deadline.
As always, please don't be shy about sharing any feedback and please feel free to forward this on to anyone else who might be interested in reading it.
Have a nice week ahead,
Kevin
Stocks
It was a positive week for stocks. The S&P 500 and the Dow were both up roughly 1.5% from the prior week's close, with the Nasdaq gaining nearly 3.3% as Iran deal optimism and a resurgence in AI stocks drove the market higher. This is now the 11th week out of the last 12 where the S&P 500 finished higher than the week before, which is a remarkable run considering everything that has happened this year. However, be careful not to read too much into that: the Fed is now signaling a potential rate hike, and the Iran deal is a temporary memorandum of understanding, not a permanent peace treaty.
Bonds
Bonds had a mixed week, dominated by the Wednesday Fed meeting. It was revealed that 9 of 18 Fed committee members now expect at least one rate hike before the end of of the year (up dramatically from the near-consensus expectation of holding rates just a month ago). This caused the 2-year Treasury yield to jump roughly 11 basis points, meaning that bond prices fell. However, the broader bond market also factored in the good news from falling oil prices: if oil stays near $77 per barrel, inflation should decline meaningfully in the coming months. The 10-year Treasury yield settled around 4.47% by Thursday's close, only slightly above where it ended the prior week. Bond investors are now navigating two competing forces: a Fed that is leaning towards rate hikes to stave off inflation, and an energy market that is easing. Which force wins out will depend heavily on whether the Iran deal holds.
Oil
Oil was the most important market story of the week. Crude prices fell roughly 10%, closing near $77 per barrel, as the restrictions on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz were removed. $77 is still higher than pre-conflict standards, but it represents a decline of more than -20% from this year's peak, and it's moving in the right direction (assuming the deal holds).
The US and Iran sign a peace framework reopening the Strait of Hormuz
After months of conflict and mulitple collapsed negotiations, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on Wednesday that appears to be holding so far. The 14-point framework calls for an immediate end to military operations on all fronts (including in Lebanon), the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or restrictions, the lifting of the US naval blockade, and a 60-day negotiating window. The harder issues are still being sorted out: Iran's nuclear enrichment program, its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, US sanctions relief, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.
This is meaningful progress, and markets reacted accordingly. However, let's take a clear-eyed perspective of what this is and what it is not. This is a memorandum of understanding, not a peace treaty. The 60-day clock for nuclear negotiations starts now, and those talks are expected to be far more difficult than the ceasefire itself. What to do with Iran's uranium enrichment program, its proxy terrorist networks across the region, and the fundamental question of sanctions relief all remain unresolved. Follow-up talks in Switzerland have already been postponed before they even began. The framework is a positive first step toward a long term resolution, but the most consequential negotiations are still ahead.
Warsh's first Fed meeting delivers a hawkish surprise
The Federal Reserve held rates at 3.5–3.75% at Kevin Warsh's first Fed meeting on Wednesday, which was universally expected. What was not expected however, was the divided opinon on future rate movements. 9 of the 18 committee members now expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2026. The year-end forecast for the fed funds rate is now 3.8%, up from 3.4% in the March projections. The Fed also revised its 2026 inflation forecast significantly higher to 3.6%, GDP growth was trimmed slightly to 2.2%, and unemployment held steady at 4.3%.
Markets sold off on the news Wednesday before recovering Thursday. Investors are accepting that the "higher for longer" scenario is a reality, and a rate hike later this year is now more probable than not. I have believed for some time that Warsh would prioritize his reputation as an inflation hawk instead of bowing to political pressure to lower rates, and this first meeting confirmed that.
The world reacts to what the Iran war actually achieved
Beyond the immediate market reaction to the ceasefire, there is a deeper geopolitical story developing that every long-term investor should understand. This week Foreign Affairs published a major analysis by Ian Bremmer and Firas Maksad of the Eurasia Group, two of the most credible geopolitical analysts working today. Their conclusion is sobering. The war, they argue, did not neutralize Iran's nuclear program, did not dismantle its proxy networks, and did not change its regime. What it did do was fracture the US-led Middle Eastern order, accelerate a regional realignment into two rival blocs (a pro-Israel coalition and a Saudi-led Islamic coalition), and hand China a historic opportunity to expand its influence in the region. I'll cover this in more detail in the sections below.
"Iran has emerged from the conflict battered but in a stronger strategic position, with its regime and its ability to threaten the region intact. This outcome, after months of destruction and global economic disruption, is the greatest foreign policy failure of both of Trump's terms." - Ian Bremmer, President and Founder of Eurasia Group, and Firas Maksad, Managing Director for Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, writing in Foreign Affairs
Bremmer and Maksad are not partisan commentators. Eurasia Group is one of the world's leading geopolitical risk firms, and their clients include governments, central banks, and institutional investors around the globe. When they use the phrase "greatest foreign policy failure of both of Trump's terms," they are not editorializing for effect. They are making a specific analytical claim: the the gap between what the United States set out to achieve (a fundamentally changed Iran) and what it actually accomplished (a memorandum of understanding that restores the pre-war status quo with modifications favorable to Iran) represents a massive mismatch between ambition and result.
For clients, the reason this matters is not political. It is financial. The war cost months of elevated oil prices, disrupted global shipping, raised inflation, and consumed enormous geopolitical capital that could have been directed elsewhere. And the outcome, according to the analysis of people who spend their careers on these questions, leaves Iran's core capabilities intact while weakening American credibility and influence across the entire globe. China is positioning to fill the vacuum, our allies in Asia and Europe are abandoning support for U.S. causes, and the petrodollar order that has underpinned U.S. financial influence in the Middle East for decades is increasingly under pressure. None of this happens overnight, though I believe long-term investors should be aware that the geopolitical backdrop is shifting in ways that matter for portfolios over the next five-to-ten-year time horizon.
The US-Iran Ceasefire: What It Means for Your Portfolio
The peace framework signed this week is simultaneously the most important economic development of 2026 and one of the most misunderstood. News coverage has focused on the military and diplomatic dimensions, but the financial implications for American investors are substantial and surprisingly direct. Let me walk through what the agreement actually says and trace each element to its financial consequences.
What this means for energy prices
The most direct financial consequence of a reopened Strait of Hormuz is lower oil prices. Before the conflict, roughly 20% of the world's oil supply passed through the Strait. With that flow restored, the supply constraint that has been artificially inflating energy prices since February begins to ease. Crude is already at approximately $77 per barrel, down from peaks above $100 earlier this year. If the deal holds and Hormuz operates freely, I expect oil could settle in the $65–75 range over the next few months as the market adjusts to restored supply. That would be very meaningful for American consumers: every $10 decline in the price of a barrel of oil translates to roughly $0.25 lower at the gas pump.
What this means for inflation
This is the most consequential downstream effect for investors. Energy prices were the single largest driver of the 4.2% Consumer Price Index (inflation) reading we saw for May. If oil settles near $70 rather than $90 over the next few months, the year-over-year energy comparison in the CPI report becomes dramatically more favorable. Headline inflation could fall back toward 2.5–3.0% by late fall, which would be a significant improvement.
What this means for the Federal Reserve
Here is where it gets particularly interesting for investors. Half the Fed Open Market Committee is leaning toward a rate hike, largely because of persistently high inflation driven by energy costs. If energy inflation reverses meaningfully, the case for a rate hike weakens. Markets are currently pricing in a roughly 77% probability of a December rate hike. I expect that probability to fall if the next two or three CPI reports show energy-driven inflation improvement. The scenario that matters most for bond investors is one where the deal holds and oil stays low, because that is the path back toward stable inflation, which eventually could lead to rate cuts rather than rate hikes.
What this means for specific sectors in your portfolio
The ceasefire creates clear winners and losers within the stock market. The biggest losers are energy companies. Oil producers, refiners, and oilfield services firms all benefit from high oil prices, and falling prices are a direct headwind for their revenues and earnings. If oil moves from $90 to $70, energy sector profits fall significantly. On the other side, the biggest winners are companies whose costs are heavily influenced by fuel: airlines, trucking and logistics companies, retail chains with large distribution networks, and manufacturers that use petroleum-based inputs. Consumers also benefit directly through lower gasoline prices, which functions like a tax cut on discretionary spending. And as I noted above, if the Fed's rate hike path becomes less aggressive in response to falling inflation, interest-rate-sensitive sectors (real estate, utilities, longer-duration growth stocks) would also benefit.
What remains unresolved
The most important thing to understand about this agreement is what it does not address. Iran's nuclear enrichment program remains in place, and the 60-day negotiating window for those discussions has barely begun. If those nuclear negotiations stall or are disrupted by a new incident, the ceasefire itself could be at risk. The history of this conflict has been a recurring cycle of progress followed by setbacks, and I do not expect that pattern to end just because a memorandum has been signed.
The bottom line
The ceasefire, if it holds, is the most favorable macro development for American investors in 2026. Lower energy costs feed directly into lower inflation, which gives the Fed more room, which is good for both stocks and bonds. Diversified portfolios benefit broadly. However, the deal is fragile, and the hard negotiations are still ahead. Watch the next 60 days of nuclear talks with the same attention you would a Fed meeting.
A different way to think about agency in long term health & philanthropy
Filtered Truths: A Longevity Lens on Water Quality
Clean drinking water is foundational to health, but the filter market is full of marketing hype. This piece cuts through it with a practical guide to the most common home filtration technologies.
The basic principle: Filters work like a sticky sponge (activated carbon grabs chemicals) plus a fine strainer (tight pores catch particles and germs). Certification and maintenance determine real-world results. Claims like "reduces lead" or "removes PFAS" only count when the specific model is certified to NSF/ANSI standards and filters are replaced on schedule.
Activated carbon excels at removing chlorine, taste, and odor, and many organic chemicals. But it does NOT reliably remove nitrate, fluoride, or lead on its own. PFAS and lead reduction require a certified device with an explicit NSF/ANSI 53 claim for that specific model. Buy based on certification, not by material.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is the workhorse for nitrate, arsenic, and PFAS. It removes 90-99% of dissolved solids. The "ultra-pure water is unsafe" concern is overblown; low-mineral water is not inherently harmful for most people. Efficiency has also improved: newer EPA WaterSense-labeled units achieve roughly 2:1 waste-to-product ratios, better than the old 3:1 rule of thumb.
Ceramic filters handle bacteria and parasites well but do NOT reliably block viruses. They need to be paired with UV disinfection for full microbial protection, and add carbon or RO if you also need chemical removal.
Ion exchange softeners prevent limescale but do not remove pathogens, lead, PFAS, or pesticides. If you need contaminant removal, pair a softener with a certified filter matched to your specific concern.
UV disinfection kills bacteria, viruses, and parasites but removes nothing chemically. It works best after prefiltration; turbidity shields microbes from UV light.
Sediment prefilters catch sand, silt, and rust to protect downstream. They do not remove dissolved chemicals or viruses.
Pitcher filters (like Brita) use carbon and ion exchange to improve taste and, in some certified models, reduce select metals. Respecting capacity limits is critical: pushing past the rated interval reduces filtration efficacy and increases the risk of bacterial growth inside the pitcher.
Common pitfalls to avoid:
Using carbon to remove nitrate or fluoride (it doesn't work).
Assuming ceramic filters block viruses (they don't).
Claiming PFAS reduction without checking for model-specific NSF/ANSI certification.
Waiting for flow slowdowns to replace membranes; biofilm colonization starts earlier.
The practical checklist: Read your utility's Consumer Confidence Report or test your faucet/well. Match the filter to the specific certified claim for your types of contaminants. Replace cartridges and membranes on or before schedule. Retest when stakes are high.
There is no magic in water filtration, just good engineering, appropriate certification, and consistent maintenance.
Source: Corlianò & Rebello, "Filtered Truths: A Longevity Lens on Water Quality" (September 2025)
To learn more, go to: Filtered Truths: A Longevity Lens on Water Quality
The Iran ceasefire is not just a geopolitical event. It is an inflation event, a Fed policy event, and a portfolio positioning event. Whether the energy relief it provides is sustained or temporary will determine whether the Federal Reserve raises rates in December or stands pat. It will determine whether your bond portfolio catches a tailwind or faces another headwind. And it will determine whether the consumer spending that has kept corporate earnings strong continues or begins to crack under the pressure of elevated prices.
The war cost the world a great deal for an outcome that leaves the fundamental problems that precipitated the conflict unresolved. That is not a reason for pessimism. It is a reason for humility, for realism, and for the kind of patience that allows a well-built portfolio to absorb volatility rather than react to it.
When I think of this conflict and the other U.S. wars in the Middle East during my lifetime, the line from Edwin Starr's protest song War comes to mind, "War! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin’!"
Have a nice week ahead!
Kevin