Khan Capital | March 2026
Key Takeaways
- The Fed held rates at 3.50-3.75% in March 2026, trapped between a weakening economy (92,000 jobs lost in February, Q4 GDP revised to 0.7%) and surging oil-driven inflation (gasoline up $1/gallon, 10-year yields spiking to 4.5%).
- Market expectations have shifted from pricing two rate cuts to potentially one rate hike in 2026, the most dramatic repricing of Fed expectations since the 2022 inflation shock.
- The ECB has already postponed its planned rate reductions in response to the energy shock, establishing a precedent that the Fed may follow if oil-driven inflation persists beyond the immediate crisis.
- The critical variable is the duration of the Strait of Hormuz disruption: a quick resolution allows the Fed to resume easing; a prolonged closure forces it to choose between supporting growth and fighting inflation.
- Investors may wish to reduce duration, overweight TIPS and inflation protection, maintain elevated cash positions, and prepare for a wider range of rate outcomes than at any point since the 2022 tightening cycle began.
Part of: The Fed’s Regime Change – Khan Capital’s hub on the Fed’s 2026 regime change.
The Federal Reserve held the federal funds rate at 3.50-3.75% at its March 2026 meeting, choosing to sit on its hands as the most consequential geopolitical crisis since the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war reshapes the economic landscape beneath it. The decision was nearly unanimous (11-1), with Governor Stephen Miran dissenting in favour of a cut, but the reasoning was agonising. The US economy lost 92,000 jobs in February, against expectations of 55,000 gains. Q4 2025 GDP was revised sharply lower to 0.7% from an initial estimate of 1.7%. New home sales fell to three-and-a-half-year lows. By any conventional metric, the economy is weakening and the case for rate cuts is strengthening.
But oil-driven inflation is surging in the opposite direction. Gasoline prices have jumped approximately $1 per gallon in three to four weeks. The 10-year Treasury yield has spiked from below 4% to nearly 4.5% as markets price in higher inflation expectations. The ECB has already postponed its planned rate reductions, raising its 2026 inflation forecast and cutting GDP growth projections. UK inflation is expected to breach 5%. The Fed is trapped between a weakening economy that demands easier policy and an inflationary impulse that prohibits it.
| Metric | Current / Latest | March 2026 SEP | Pre-War Expectation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fed Funds Rate | 3.50-3.75% | One cut projected (dot plot) | Two cuts priced by market |
| PCE Inflation | 2.8% (Jan YoY) | 2.7% (revised up from 2.5%) | Declining toward 2% |
| GDP Growth | 0.7% (Q4 2025 revised) | 2.4% for full year 2026 | Solid expansion expected |
| Unemployment | 4.4% (Feb) | 4.4% year-end | Stable near 4.2% |
| Brent Crude | Above $109/bbl | n/a | ~$75-80/bbl |
The Stagflationary Trap
The Fed’s predicament is the textbook definition of stagflation: simultaneous stagnation in economic activity and acceleration in inflation. It is the nightmare scenario for any central bank operating under a dual mandate because the two objectives, maximum employment and stable prices, demand opposite policy responses. Powell told reporters he would “reserve the term stagflation for a much more serious set of circumstances,” but acknowledged the direction of travel was “unsettling.”
Cutting rates would support the weakening labour market and housing sector but risk embedding oil-driven inflation into broader price expectations. If workers and businesses begin to expect higher inflation, they will demand higher wages and raise prices pre-emptively, creating the wage-price spiral that the Fed spent 2022-2023 fighting to prevent. The 2022 experience demonstrated how quickly “transitory” inflation can become structural when expectations shift.
Raising rates would help anchor inflation expectations but would crush an economy already buckling under the weight of higher energy costs, weakening employment, and elevated borrowing costs. Mortgage rates have climbed back to 6.38% on the 30-year. Consumer confidence is deteriorating. The housing market, which had been showing signs of stabilisation, is contracting again as affordability worsens.
Holding rates, which is what the Fed chose, is the least bad option but it is not a solution. It buys time while the Committee assesses whether the inflationary impulse from the Iran conflict will prove temporary (if the Strait of Hormuz reopens quickly) or sustained (if the disruption persists). But “waiting for more data” is a passive strategy in an environment where the data is moving rapidly in both directions. Wells Fargo described the mix of a weakening jobs picture and higher inflation as “the FOMC’s worst nightmare.”
The Oil-Inflation Transmission Mechanism
The inflationary dynamics of the current energy shock deserve careful analysis because they differ in important ways from the 2022 episode.
In 2022, the energy price surge from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine arrived when core inflation was already elevated, amplifying an existing inflationary pulse. In 2026, core inflation had been moderating toward the Fed’s 2% target. The energy shock is now arriving as a supply-side disruption into an economy where underlying inflation pressures had been diminishing. The question is whether oil-driven headline inflation will feed through into core measures or whether it will remain confined to the energy component.
Historical evidence suggests that the pass-through depends on the duration and magnitude of the oil price shock. Short, sharp spikes tend to raise headline inflation temporarily without materially affecting core. Sustained periods of elevated oil prices, particularly those lasting more than three months, tend to feed through into transportation costs, manufacturing inputs, food prices (via fertiliser and fuel costs), and eventually into services via higher wages demanded by workers facing rising living costs.
The current situation is ambiguous on duration. If the Strait of Hormuz reopens within weeks, the oil spike may prove manageable. If the closure persists into Q2, the pass-through into core inflation becomes increasingly likely, particularly given the fertiliser supply disruption that will affect food prices with a lag of several months. As Powell noted: “It has been five years and we had the tariff shock, the pandemic, and now we have an energy shock of some size and duration. We don’t know what that will be. You worry that is the kind of thing that can cause trouble for inflation expectations.”
What the Market Is Misunderstanding
The market has shifted from pricing two rate cuts to potentially one rate hike. This repricing is remarkable in its speed and reflects the whiplash that oil-driven inflation is inflicting on monetary policy expectations. Just weeks ago, fed funds futures were pricing two 25-basis-point cuts in 2026. The Iran conflict has compressed the expected cutting cycle and introduced the possibility of a hike if inflation proves persistent. The Atlanta Fed’s Market Probability Tracker showed a nearly 20% probability of a rate hike later this year.
The Fed’s forward guidance is unusually uninformative. In normal times, the dot plot and press conference provide actionable signals about the Committee’s intentions. In the current environment, the uncertainty is genuine: the Fed does not know how long the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed, how much oil prices will rise, or how quickly the inflationary impulse will feed through to core measures. The dot plot still calls for a single cut in 2026, but Powell noted that the cut was “not guaranteed, especially if the projected decrease in inflation doesn’t occur.”
The ECB’s decision to postpone cuts is a leading indicator for the Fed. The European Central Bank, which had been on a clear easing path, suspended its planned rate reductions on 19 March in response to the energy shock. Europe is more directly exposed to Gulf energy disruption than the United States, but the precedent matters: when a major central bank reverses course because of an oil-driven inflation shock, it signals to markets that similar reversals elsewhere are possible.
The labour market data is sending conflicting signals. The February jobs loss of 92,000 was severe, but it likely reflects the initial shock of the conflict rather than a sustained deterioration. Defence-related hiring, energy sector employment, and government spending on crisis response may partially offset weakness in consumer-facing and trade-dependent sectors. The next two employment reports will be critical in determining whether the labour market is experiencing a temporary shock or a genuine downturn.
Historical Precedents: Oil Shocks and the Fed
The Fed has navigated oil-driven stagflationary episodes before, and the precedents are not encouraging. In the 1970s, the Fed’s initial response to the OPEC oil embargo was to ease policy to support growth, a decision that allowed inflation expectations to become unanchored and contributed to the decade-long inflationary spiral that only Paul Volcker’s punishing rate hikes in 1979-1982 could break. The lesson was seared into central banking orthodoxy: never accommodate a supply-side inflation shock with easier monetary policy. CNN noted this was the most severe oil shock the Fed has confronted since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
But the 1970s precedent is not perfectly applicable. The US economy today is far less oil-intensive than it was in the 1970s. Energy as a percentage of GDP has declined substantially. The shale revolution has made the US a net energy exporter, meaning that higher oil prices have both inflationary effects (for consumers) and stimulative effects (for producers). The pass-through from oil prices to core inflation is smaller and slower than it was five decades ago.
The more relevant precedent may be the Fed’s response to the 2022 Ukraine-driven energy shock, when the Committee chose to continue hiking aggressively despite the supply-side nature of the inflation, prioritising the anchoring of expectations over the short-term growth impact. If Powell follows this playbook, the bias will be toward holding rates steady and accepting the growth consequences rather than cutting and risking an inflation resurgence.
Implications for Investors
The rate path is now genuinely uncertain. The range of outcomes for the fed funds rate by year-end 2026 has widened dramatically: scenarios range from two cuts (if the conflict resolves quickly and growth weakens further) to one or more hikes (if oil-driven inflation proves persistent). This uncertainty may argue for reduced duration exposure and increased allocation to floating-rate instruments that benefit from rate volatility rather than rate direction.
TIPS and inflation breakevens may deserve a tactical overweight. The market’s repricing of inflation expectations is likely incomplete if the Strait of Hormuz closure persists, and TIPS provide direct protection against the scenario the Fed is most concerned about: sustained oil-driven inflation feeding through to broader price measures.
Equity valuations face a dual headwind. Higher discount rates (from rising yields) compress multiples. Weaker growth (from the demand destruction caused by higher energy costs) compresses earnings. The combination is particularly challenging for growth and technology stocks whose valuations are most sensitive to both variables.
The dollar may strengthen further. The Fed’s reluctance to cut, combined with the ECB’s explicit pause and the Bank of England’s own policy paralysis, maintains the interest rate differential that supports the dollar. Dollar strength creates additional headwinds for emerging markets and commodity-importing economies while benefiting US domestic demand through cheaper imports.
Cash and short-duration fixed income remain attractive relative to risk assets. With the fed funds rate at 3.50-3.75% and the direction genuinely uncertain, the opportunity cost of holding cash is low while the optionality value of maintaining dry powder in a volatile environment is high.
Conclusion
The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold rates in March 2026 is not a policy choice; it is an acknowledgement of policy paralysis. The central bank is caught between an economy that is weakening and an inflationary impulse that it cannot address with its primary tool. The resolution depends entirely on a variable the Fed does not control: the duration and severity of the Strait of Hormuz disruption. If the waterway reopens quickly, the energy shock will prove transient and the Fed will resume its easing path. If it remains closed into Q2, the stagflationary dynamics will deepen, and the Fed will face the most difficult policy decision since the Volcker era: whether to sacrifice growth on the altar of price stability, or risk a repeat of the 1970s by accommodating supply-driven inflation.
Sources: CNBC, CNN Business, Chase / J.P. Morgan, Morningstar, TheStreet, Al Jazeera
Related Reading
The Fed’s dilemma was shaped by the conflict covered in Israel-Iran War and Oil Above $100: Strait of Hormuz Crisis. For the prior easing cycle, see Fed Cuts Again: Three Consecutive Cuts to Close 2025. The inflationary outlook is further complicated by the administration’s 100% pharmaceutical tariffs announced in Trump’s 100% Pharmaceutical Tariffs: Liberation Day One Year On The Fed’s subsequent hawkish pivot in the March 2026 minutes is analysed in The Return of the Hawk: How the Fed’s March Minutes Shattered the Soft Landing Consensus.. The subsequent Q1 2026 bank earnings provided a further view on how the Fed’s path is affecting the financials complex.
The Khan Capital Brief
Understand what moves markets
Analysis like this, free in your inbox. No spam, unsubscribe any time.
Related Reading: see the Warsh doctrine and the April FOMC. For the fundamentals, start with the Fed dot plot, explained.
Leave a Reply