Fighting While Talking, Horses And Security

Fighting While Talking, Horses And Security

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Fighting While Talking, Horses, and Security

Some quick updates on recent themes. The latest on Iran is front and center, and if you missed this week’s Around the World, it is worth a look. Not just an Iran update, but we also cover Cuba, Russia/Ukraine, the China Summit, and Nigeria (I certainly need to get more up to speed on Africa). We will examine Universal Basic Income and the Job Market in the section we have decided to label Horses. While it feels like we’ve been talking about ProSec in one shape or form for well over a year (because we have), rather than getting “long in the tooth” it is just starting to get traction.

Fighting While Talking

The definition of “ceasefire” is what both sides make of it. It is easy to think of a “ceasefire” as being as simple as both sides “cease firing” at each other, but that is not how it works in the real world.

The concept of continuing attacks (typically but not always limited in scope) while discussing agreements has gone on since people first started picking up rocks and throwing them at each other. From a U.S. perspective, it was an explicit policy of Nixon and Kissinger when dealing with North Vietnam. Negotiate in Paris. Bomb away in Vietnam.

As the much anticipated announcement after Friday’s “situation room” meeting failed to materialize, we are reading of reports of Iran attacking U.S. bases in Kuwait. This, of course, from an Iranian perspective, is in response to some U.S. attacks last week in Bandar Abbas and in the Strait of Hormuz.

We can only assume negotiations are ongoing, as neither side seems prepared to go back to a higher level of military activity, so this is merely both sides reminding the other that they could go that way, if they wanted to.

Also, from our GIG, it has become very clear that the U.S. blockade of the Strait surprised Iran and created leverage that the initial military attacks had not.

The only thing I can say about the negotiations is that I think most people have become, at best, tired of the endless stream of “we are close” announcements. We’ve lost track of how many times markets have rallied on such announcements (often, but not always in the form of social media posts). At worst, there is a cynicism growing that the announcements are merely political attention-seeking moments, coupled with an “opportunity” to trade. The number of people who immediately search the prediction market sites, or look for large trades in oil or stock futures to see if there is some sort of “confirmation” that the headline is new and real, is almost staggering.

While the front end of the crude oil futures market (which is not the same contract as when this war started) responds very well to peace deal announcements, the longer end of the curve is not as responsive. I’ve been picking the January 2027 WTI contract because it is WTI (so it benefits from U.S. energy independence and it is 2027). It is still $77. Below its high of $83, but not much below. It didn’t get above $77 for the first time until late March. This was below $60 prior to the war. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying Higher For Longer On Energy Prices.

The consensus is that we will not see serious re-escalation, but both the U.S. and Iran seem to be having difficulty in framing a deal as a victory (Iran, because it has been hit hard, and the U.S. because we seem to have moved a long way from “unconditional surrender”).

The one thing that I think is starting to sink in is that higher for longer on energy is real, even with a deal, and that is problematic for a world struggling with affordability.

Horses

What the heck are we talking about horses for? What do horses have to do with anything, let alone AI? We have seen commencement speeches where college graduates have booed the mention of AI. We had the rather unfortunate (in my opinion) term “lower value human capital” enter the lexicon. My editors cringe at some of the things I write and say, but wow!

Not surprisingly, we have seen many in the industry downplay the risks to jobs. Even some leaders who until recently had predicted job losses, especially for white-collar employees, reversed course and are now predicting hiring based on increased efficiencies.

I think the jury is still out on this. There are some examples that I’ve seen that seem to indicate the potential for employment growth.

One story I’ve seen, but didn’t track down for the report is “AI’s ability to analyze X-rays has led to more radiologists.” Seems plausible and certainly fits the efficiency story (though there may be other reasons we have more radiologists).
Another report that was circulated, and that I found on social media, discussed how the number of tellers in the U.S. rose even with the introduction of ATMs. You can find the post on Twitter by searching for AI ATM Tellers. This was passed around as an example of how people (tellers in this case) adapt to new technology and become more efficient. The reason I did not include a link to this idea is because I think it is quite flawed and did not feel like starting a fight. It did not normalize for a large growth in the number of people working in the U.S. during the phase that ATMs were rolled out, presumably creating greater need for banking. It didn’t discuss that during the first 20 years of the ATM, the GDP of the U.S. quintupled. It was also a period where suburbia grew. I would argue that if you controlled for the number of people who needed accounts, the increasing complexity of personal finances, and the shift in population, this probably more than accounts for why tellers didn’t fare as badly as initially feared with the introduction of ATMs. Anyway, I’ve ranted too much on this subject, but I think it is important that we think critically about what various technologies have or have not done for employment.
Buggy whip manufacturers. If you take an introductory business school class you will likely hear about the “plight” of buggy whip manufacturers.

A great business until the advent of the automobile. The automobile, over a relatively short period of time, destroyed this business. But the automobile was great! The automobile companies did spectacularly well! (Though many of the early, even well-known ones failed, but that is a concept for another day). The country did well as the automobile (and trucking) reshaped the economy for the better! Isn’t this the perfect example of how a new, efficient technology drives growth and jobs as a whole, even if some sectors lose?

But what about the horses? According to Grok, there were over 25 million horses and mules in the U.S. around 1920. The “horses” were “employed” on farms and for urban transport. Recent estimates put the horse population at under 7 million today. Now, the horses that are alive today are mostly for recreation, sport, and breeding, rather than working. Far fewer horses today, but those horses that are around live the life of Riley compared to what their ancestors lived.

If AI is like what automobiles were to humans, we are in for a great ride!
If AI is like what automobiles were to horses, we could be in some trouble, though those left working should be in great shape!
I’m probably more in the first camp, but this technology seems very different (or maybe it just seems very different as it is applied directly in areas I know and deal with?). I don’t want to think that we might be the first population that is “creating our own extinction event,” but I have read too much sci-fi to keep that thought completely at bay.


In any case, if anyone reading this can even entertain these thoughts, you know that politicians will try to find ways to capture that animosity. My assumption is that the “control group” of people reading the T-Report are all exploring AI. All trying to figure out how to use it. Many, including myself and Academy Securities, are benefiting from the growth of AI. Data centers, AI, and chips are a core part of ProSec but I can see the rising angst playing out in real time.

Politicians interfering with the industry may become a risk to growth and profitability. It isn’t there yet (this admin is extremely supportive of not just the AI growth, but also the electricity generation and transmission to power the industry). Which might be the perfect time to bring up this little section, that doesn’t quite fit into this theme directly, but seems relevant.

Keep an eye on South Korea. We are seeing a wave of “AI bonuses” being paid. This is being paid to employees of companies who are doing well because of the boom in AI and data centers (chips, memory etc.). That is the “norm” in the U.S. but sounds like it is unusual in South Korea. The stories probably wouldn’t have attracted my attention at all, since it is so logical from a U.S. perspective, but this is a country that just a couple of weeks ago had started to see political figures discuss paying the citizens from the profits/tax revenues generated by the AI success story – which seems like a potential “slippery slope” way of introducing Universal Basic Income (UBI). Or I guess if you are an advocate of UBI, the potential launching point for a much-needed wealth redistribution.
I recently spoke at a conference for risk management (primarily for large financial institutions). I discussed with the conference organizer the number of AI, cyber, and agentic AI presentations. It seemed like about half the conference was focused on those subjects. The organizer confirmed that was correct and was about the same as the prior year, when they really made a big effort to steer the conference in that direction. What was interesting though was that in 2025, the audience was enthusiastic to learn so much. That it was a relatively new area and the topic resonated. While they have yet to receive final feedback from this year’s conference, the initial feedback was that people wanted case studies and examples, not just high-level perspectives. Everyone knows and is trying to use these technologies (at work and at home). No one needs to be told how important they are. How rapidly they are growing. Just take one look at the stock market and you know that. What people wanted to know this year is how the heck are people using them and what is their experience! I found that interesting and it resonates with me, as I’m probably in that same camp. Some successes mixed with sometimes wondering why I bothered trying AI in the first place. I don’t know what this shift means, but it is interesting (and may explain why AI trainers are getting paid boatloads of money ).

If this seems a little more like thinking out loud than having a strong opinion, that’s because it probably is. But thinking out loud seems like a good way to get our hands around this amazing evolution.

Going Production for Security

We finished a great week of meetings in London this past week. I heard a little bit too much about “defense” bonds and a little too little about ProSec bonds for my tastes (Mike Rodriguez, Academy’s Head of Sustainable Finance, has a great deck on the concept). I’m just kidding about that (not the deck, which is great, but that I heard too much about defense bonds).

Europe is shifting towards security and resiliency rapidly

We could drone on and on about how much things have changed in Europe’s positioning on ESG and how quickly they are moving to something that aligns itself with ProSec but it is the end of a short, but tricky week in markets, so we won’t belabor you with details.
What we will do, instead, is present what Treasury Secretary Bessent (@SecScottBessent) put out in a tweet on Friday (the bold is my handiwork):

For too long, our political class treated efficiency as a substitute for resilience, and consumption as a measure of prosperity.
Trade policy, industrial capacity, and national security are inseparable. And to allow foreign dependencies to degrade any one of those domains is to allow them to define America’s future. Under @POTUS’ leadership, we are rebuilding domestic production to restore American sovereignty.
I admit there is a lot of politics in his statement, more than I would like, but it does highlight and encapsulate more of what we have been saying and writing about on ProSec.

I do think there is a LOT MORE ROOM to work with close allies and neighbors than this statement hints at, but that will evolve over time, even with the current administration.

In a fireside chat with the CEO of a player in the energy industry, I latched on to the concept that Canada of all places, might be given one of the rare opportunities for a “do over.” Say 15 years ago, both the U.S. and Canada were well positioned to grow their LNG business. The U.S. did so and is reaping the dividends from that! Canada got mired in regulation and has been pretty much left in the starting blocks. But now, with the world looking for alternatives to the Middle East, Canada has been given another chance to get out of the gate and try to take advantage of the shifting needs.

While I already chafe, a little, at the U.S. admin’s rhetoric that comes across as America Only, that is not how Europe sees it. In part Europe doesn’t have an abundance of all the natural resources they might need, so they will be forced to work with trusted partners. The U.S. can and will be a part of that, but semantics and talking points do matter over time. New alliances will be formed or solidified and there is a great opportunity, across the globe, to join in the ProSec theme (I almost said movement, because that is a bit political, but…)

Here is a link to ProSec 2026 if you haven’t seen it or want a refresh.
If you have interest in seeing our thoughts on the framework for a ProSec Bond, feel free to reach out to your coverage officer at Academy.
We are in the early stages of shifting from one stable order (rules-based with China flaunting the rules, to another, with more (but not total) independence). See Molotov Cocktails.

Bottom Line

This coming week we should:

Learn more about the status between the U.S. and Iran. In either case, I think the higher for longer theme for energy prices will sink in and start to price itself into markets even more than it already has.
Get some more clarity on the job market (within the kind of insanely large margins for error that we just somehow learn to deal with).
I’m sticking with the view that we have a tale of two economies: the AI, data center, and chip economy vs the Affordability economy. They are intertwined, with some degree of overlap.

The AI/Data Center/Chip economy is okay for jobs for now (the building of data centers and the infrastructure to support them creates a lot of jobs). It has been GREAT for stock market indices.
The affordability economy is a drag on some consumption and confidence. This part of the economy is sucking more households into it, here and abroad, and that is not good.
Bond yields have dropped in the past week, which has been good and in no small part has been helped by the ongoing barrage of “open the Strait” headlines.

I expect that to reverse course as we are near the bottom end of the range on 10s and I am now fully in the camp that 10s hit 5% before they hit 4%. Any effort to cut rates by the Fed, given the current state of economic data, would likely end up in higher long-end bond yields, because it is increasingly difficult to come up with a narrative to support a cut. That is a very different view than I had before the war started (and some big headline NFP job numbers were released).

It would be nice to get some resolution with Iran so we can move back to all the usual uncertainties like spending, jobs, AI, inflation, the Fed, etc.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/31/2026 - 16:20